BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"acceptance only" for first rounds is a waste of time

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate.Judging from the topic, I will assume that first round is for arguments rather than acceptance. R1) TimeMy opponent states that "making the first rounds be acceptance only just wastes time that could be spent debating."However, writing "I accept" and a couple of pleasantries literally takes two minutes at MOST... this is not a significant amount of time at all compared to average debate argument time limit of 3 days. Even if the debate argument time limit were only 1 day, 2 minutes would still consist of roughly 0.002% of that time frame.It is clear that having an acceptance round does not waste a substantial amount of time.C1) Unequal RoundsHaving an acceptance round avoids the problem of unequal rounds, where one debater has one more round to debate than the other debater, thus giving them an unfair advantage. Without acceptanceR1: rules / argumentsR2: arguments / rebuttalsR3: rebuttals / rebuttalsR4: conclusions / conclusionsInstigator gets 3 rounds to debate, Contender gets 4 rounds to debate. With acceptanceR1: rules / acceptanceR2: arguments / argumentsR3: rebuttals / rebuttalsR4: conclusions / conclusionsInstigator gets 3 rounds to debate, Contender gets 3 rounds to debate.It is clear that having an acceptance round makes things fairer for both debaters. One potential alternative solution to the unequal rounds problem is forcing the contender to type "no round as agreed upon" in their final round, but that has become notorious throughout the DDO community as a cheap method of earning the instigator bonus and simultaneously getting to have last word in the debate, creating an unfair advantage for the instigator (http://www.debate.org...)Thus, having an acceptance round is the best way to avoid the unequal rounds problem. CONCLUSIONI have refuted my opponent's argument as well as provided compelling reasons for the inclusion of an acceptance round.
"acceptance only" for first rounds is a waste of time

"so basically if we have a specific reason for acceptance only then it's fine. if we don't then it's a waste of time. i guess con could be said to win cause my statement was pretty general. but besides what he points out, it's a waste of time."Pro concedes that acceptance rounds are not a waste of time, as long as there is a good reason to utilize them.Therefore, f I show that there is often good reason to utilize the acceptance round, then Pro would essentially have conceded the debate.However, I have *already* shown that there is often good reason to include an acceptance round via my Unequal Rounds argument. Pro's only rebuttal to this argument was in attacking its underlying assumption that the instigator should present the topic and rules in Round 1. If I can show that the instigator should present the topic and rules in Round 1, my Unequal Rounds argument would be validated, and by extension, Pro would essentially have conceded the debate.However, I have *already* shown that it is beneficial for the instigator to include a topic/rules round Me from last round: "Without rules, a debate is susceptible to getting completely derailed by semantics and/or trolling.... [one] can specify things like the second round being only for opening arguments, thus solving the problem of Con having more opportunities for rebuttals than Pro."Pro's only objection goes as follows: "con says rules cannot be established if debating begins right away. actually, rules can be established in that first post just as well."However, this forces the instigator to use characters that he could be using on opening arguments, while the contender gets to use ALL his characters for opening arguments. This gives an unfair advantage to the contender. It is clearly simpler and more fair for everyone to just have the instigator present the topic and rules in Round 1. By the logic presented in the first part of this round, Pro has conceded the debate.
existentialism is the preferred way

i'm just playing to see who'd argue against it. i don't expect anyone would believe it was me. if you didn't want to argue against what was said, then you shouldn't have taken the debate. if you don't know who sarte is, then you shouldn't have taken the debate. most philsophers know he's a giant philsopher in modern existentialism. second only to keierkegaard but probably really second to none, since kierk is only so high because he's the father of existentialism and laid the foundation. anyways, my point is these things you should know if you're going to take the debate. you haven't made a counter argument, so i can't defend what he said yet.
existentialism is the preferred way

When I saw this debate, I was initially surprised. I thought that, for once, dairygirl4u2c had used proper capitalization while typing. However, I then saw something else odd: a lone quotation mark at the end. I could not find where the quotation mark came from, so I then figured the entire content of my opponent's last post was plagiarized. I put part of it into Google, and my theory was proven correct. http://www.youtube.com... There's a video I found with the exact paragraph, posted August of 2006. Unfortunately for my opponent, I am not debating against Professor Robert Solomon from the University of Texas. I refuse to respond to a cut and paste, since the original speaker is not even debating. I ask my opponent not only to cease her plagiarism, but to present me with actual points to argue, not just some incoherent rambling that's not even hers. In short: I expect a non-plagiarized argument in round 2. Also, don't expect me to know who you're talking about and what you're referring to when you say something like "Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life." I don't know who Sartre is, and neither do the voters. If you're going to reference him, please at least mention who he is and what you're even talking about, rather than putting it in a context where it makes no sense.
existentialism is the preferred way

The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life. But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the postmodernists with some interest, even admiration. But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking. Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are."
Mexican Border be torn down and illegal immigrants become legal and are allowed in the U.S.

I never mentioned crime in Mexico I merely mentioned crimes committed in the United States by illegal immigrants. Also the crime rate in America is not the highest in the world. It has the 24th murder rate behind Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Costa Rica. If we tear down the border how will it decreases the pressure these people fell they will still worry about making a living doing very low paying jobs. As I said in my previous post if we get rid of the border we might have a big army but we will be much more vulnerable because we would not be able to regulate what people come into America. Murders, drug dealers, terrorists could all come in when ever they want and we could do nothing about it. As for wages being low if wages are driven down by cheap labor Americans cannot compete because they can not live in America on the wages made by most illegal immigrants. In conclusion my opponent has presented that illegals are good for American because the do jobs that no other Americans would do at the wage illegals immigrants are paid. He says that by tearing down a border we would have a bigger army. But my opponent has failed to respond reasonable to the fact that illegal immigrants drain the government and infrastructure. He has failed to rebut my crime statistics just saying illegals are good people. The choose to make is an easy one. Choose the person who logically responded to any and all of there challengers posts and has provided facts to support there point. http://www.nationmaster.com...
Mexican Border be torn down and illegal immigrants become legal and are allowed in the U.S.

So what if illegal immigrants may lower the pay!! We will still be a better country. Now, dealing with crime, the only reason that there are criminals in mexico and other countries are because those people don't have a home or a family. Also, they are put under alot pressure. If we were to tear down the border, those people wouldn't feel so much preesure. So, then they would do better. Also, you say that we are bad in crime and things like that. Look at the U.S. The United Staes is not any better. The U.S. probably has the highest crime rate in the world. Also, if we were to tear down the border, maybe illegal immigrants will be interested in becoming soldiers. So, we will have a bigger army. Don;t you want this to be a better country. If you do vote pro!!!!
Mexican Border be torn down and illegal immigrants become legal and are allowed in the U.S.

Still your only argument is that illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans do not want to do. But as one of the comments says if illegal immigrants come over they lower the pay of those jobs to almost nothing. So why would Americans want to do it. If there where no illegals theses jobs would still have to be done so companies would raise wages and hire the unemployed Americans decreasing unemployment. So illegals are rebuilding New Orleans if you where not here someone would rebuild it and that someone would be Americans. If we let everyone come to America there may be a few more jobs but because most of the immigrants will be poor theses jobs will be very low paying. There will be an increase crime, cities will become over crowded and our infrastructure will become overwhelmed and fail. Illegal immigrants might not come hear to hurt people but the numbers do not lie and it seems like many do and just by being in America illegally you are hurting Americans. By being here illegally you are putting a strain on our infrastructure with out paying for it. This then causes taxes to rise in order to cover the cost of paying for your use of government services and just the use of our infastructor. I also fail to see how by letting illegal immigrants in and allowing them to join the millaray would make America a better country. By destroying our border we are risking our sovereignty and our safety because anyone good, bad or evil could just come here.
Mexican Border be torn down and illegal immigrants become legal and are allowed in the U.S.

well illegal immigrants maybe a little problem in the U.S., but we are also a big help. Illegal Immigrants don't come to hurt anybody, they come to help themselves, their family and you. We may not be the best people, but we are here to help. Like I stated in my round 1, Hispanics are the ones that are helping rebuild the disaster that was caused by Hurricane Katrina. We are the backbone in the United Staes. Also, if we were to tear down the border, more people would come in. That means that we will have a bigger population and we will have more jobs. If we were to tear down the border and let people come in, we would be a better country. We would have more troops. So really we wouldn't have to worry.
Mexican Border be torn down and illegal immigrants become legal and are allowed in the U.S.

In your first argument the only point you made for not building a fence and giving amnesty to illegal immagrants is that the do some jobs in our economy. Let me inform you on a few facts -27% of all inmates are illegal immagrants. It was estimated that the federal goverment spends 1.4 billion dollars a year to incracerate illegal immagrants. A study done in 2005 found that of 55000 people polled 49% had been convicted of a felony. -In Colorado alone the state spends $1.2 billion per year on schooling for the children of illegal immagrants. Nationally that number is around $34 billion. -Oh and most do not pay taxs.
Islam Does Not Condone Terrorism

No! I'm not talking about Muslim women I'm talking about Americans here. The slaughter of Americans, they are innocent people too. You don't call that terrorism? They implant bombs in them selves than go on airplanes with hundred of people and explode it. That isn't terrorism? Explain this to me. What is your definition of terrorism. Because I don't think your coming from where I'm cumming from. I don't care about Muslim women, they get beaten by their husbands too, they are property. But Muslims hate Americans and their mission is too kill as many as possible.
Islam Does Not Condone Terrorism

I argue that Islam is against terrorism, which is defined in this particular debate as the unprovoked and unintentional targeting of innocent civilians, women, children and the elderly. As well as suicide bombing. Because this debate is specifically about Islam, only interpretations from the Salaf (first three generations of Muslims) and the Ulema (Muslim scholars) can be used. This means outside interpretations of Islam can not be used, however this doesn't mean that I am making it impossible for someone to debate using this rule, it simply means that Islam as it is can't be twisted, an example of the twisting of Islam that I am speaking of is the works of Robert Spencer. So to clarify what Islam is within this debate: Qur'an, Sunnah, Salaf and the Ulema. And to clarify what terrorism is in this debate: The unprovoked targeting and killing of innocents such as women, children and the elderly. As well as suicide bombing. All in the name of Islam.
Islam Does Not Condone Terrorism

Every last one of those ahadeeth applied to war in Islaam, period. That means it applies to Americans. And what is gathered from them and the many others is that you are not allowed to kill women, children, the elderly, laborers and people in cloisters. You're quite the ignorant Islamaphobe. You're right, Muslims hate Americans. So do the British, the French, Germans, hell, all of Europe. Then you have much of Asia, and many more peoples who hate Americans. Coincidence? As to men owning their wives, no, they do not. And they are not allowed to "beat" them either. You're allowed to strike her as a last measure, as a symbolic act showing her that it's at the last straw. And many believe this is nothing more than a tap. As to suicide? The Prophet said, "Whoever intentionally swears falsely by a religion other than Islam, then he is what he has said, (e.g. if he says, 'If such thing is not true then I am a Jew,' he is really a Jew). And whoever commits suicide with piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron in the Hell Fire." Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, "A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him." The Prophet said, "Whoever purposely throws himself from a mountain and kills himself, will be in the (Hell) Fire falling down into it and abiding therein perpetually forever; and whoever drinks poison and kills himself with it, he will be carrying his poison in his hand and drinking it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever; and whoever kills himself with an iron weapon, will be carrying that weapon in his hand and stabbing his abdomen with it in the (Hell) Fire wherein he will abide eternally forever." Hammam b. Munabbih said: Abu Huraira narrated to us ahadith from Allah's Messenger and out of these one is that Allah's Messenger said: none amongst you should make a request for death, and do not call for it before it comes, for when any of you dies, he ceases (to do good) deeds and the life of a believer is not prolonged but for goodness. Allah's Messenger said, "Do not wish for death, for the terror of the place whence one looks down is severe. It is part of a man's happiness that his life should be long and Allah Who is Great and Glorious, should supply him with repentance." There was amongst those before you a man who had a wound. He was in [such] anguish that he took a knife and made with it a cut in his hand, and the blood did not cease to flow till he died. Allah the Almighty said: My servant has himself forestalled Me; I have forbidden him Paradise. The Noble Qur'an - An-Nisa 4:29 ...And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another). Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you. So obviously jihad by suicide is not allowed, suicide is not allowed at all. Do you actually have any Islamic knowledge at all? I mean... I found all of that in like thirty seconds via Google, so...
There is no "final boss of the internet"

My point was trying to define what the internet was, and what would be the final boss of the internet. Since Amazon made the last page, and since Amazon is one of the (very suspicious) rising companies in America, and also clearly owns the site, it is the final boss of the internet. I have explained everything. There is no NEED in the final boss. Also, you saw the page, clearly. And clearly, your face has been eaten by the atrocity, because you did not understand its message, thus it ate your face clean off your face.
There is no "final boss of the internet"

Hmmm... Not sure if you're talking about the final boss of the internet or the internet itself, but I'll try to respond either way. The final boss of the internet did not eat my face off. If he did, I would be dead already and therefore my argument would not yet have been posted. I'll prove it by describing my profile picture. Let's see, uh... Is it the American flag? Nah. Is it a guy dressed for a prom? Nope. Is it Abe Lincoln? Nuh-uh. Is it an FBI agent in a top hat? Certainly not. Oh wait I think I know what it is! It's Uncle Sam! I'm so glad to see him! :D You can't see him, and he does nothing. Anything you claim he causes is coming from brain damage and can be scientifically,y proven to have nothing to do with him (and without disproving Satan, mind you.) If you are talking about the internet itself: 1. "... That is what it is, information." The same logic is applicable to a non-gaming website (DDO, for example). 2. You argued that there was a need to beat the final boss. However, there is no real need to beat Amazon at anything at all because they are a bunch of puny wimps who would easily lose to a little Pabumon in a fight. 3. Your third argument is irrelevant to this debate, therefore so is your fourth, because it doesn't matter if the final boss of the internet is at the final page of the internet or not, just whether he exists or not.
There is no "final boss of the internet"

The final boss of the internet does indeed exist. He is out there, and he has already shown up and eaten your face. You can never stop seeing it. It now controls the entire world. (here is the trolling badge debate : http://www.debate.org... ) 1. Yes, it is used for more than just the internet. However, when it was made, it was used primarily to exchange information. So, for consistency through out the argument, that is what it is. Information. 2. The final boss: It is usually the biggest and baddest monster/challenge that you must face at the end of a simulation. Often used in video games, however, clearly applicable to other things besides that. in that case, what is the final boss? 3. 9spaceking was terribly misinformed about the last page. That is why no one has ever defeated the final boss, except for me. Instead, I have eaten the final boss's face. (It tastes shockingly good!) He claimed that the President is against the last page of the internet, but if you do a tracert in the command line to the URL, you can see that it actually goes through Washington's servers. Then, it goes to Amazon. That's right. Amazon owns Washington! People made claims on 'Corporate America', but they were right! America is run bu Amazon!. Amazon now is as big as Walmart! Clearly, they have made some loopholes to get to the top. 4. Since it is the biggest corporate enterprise in America, it is the biggest and baddest thing on the internet. Thus, it is the final boss! (Also, since 9spaceking just . he now owes me a jar of peanut butter) Now, I think it is your turn against the final boss of the internet.
There is no "final boss of the internet"

Your argument doesn't prove there's a final boss of the internet. Point 1: your definition of "The Internet" hardly applies to video games at all because they are very different from the internet. the internet is used for many things that video games are not. Examples: 1. Forums 2. Debates 3. Polls 4. Opinion questions 5. Reliable info Point 2: Video games are almost always better than the internet. Have you heard the theme of Tabuu from Super Smash Bros Brawl? It's awesome and makes Tabuu himself even more fun to fight. Point 3: If he existed, he really would jump out at you and kill you, as 9spaceking stated he would in his debate with jonnonbon: "trolling badge." I did what the "last page of the internet" said exactly as it said, but nobody jumped out at me or even killed me. Conclusion: there is no final boss of the internet because the internet is not a video game and is always inferior to video games, and because the link to his "lair" is invalid. Your turn.
Racial classification for any purpose other than aesthetic differentiation is inherently wrong.

Right you are, I have used aesthetic in perhaps the popularised meaning as synonymous with 'pertaining to the visual'. I now know better. My mistake in this regard is only really a problem in the title, it's clear what I mean specifically by 'aesthtic differentiation' in the context of my opening argument none of which has been discussed thus far. I would ask you to respond with that small alteration (visual differentiation) in mind however we're on round 3 and this has become the least intellectual and most boring of debates, and that is one about the wording of the initial question. It's a shame because I genuinely wanted to discuss the issue, and I don't think that the problems with the question were preventative of that; It just seems a waste of everyone's time to end up discussing such things when we could have had some genuine discourse on the range of issues raised in my first argument.