BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Politics, Bans

Well your view of the un is un-important because of the last article.Article 30."Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein"If your in a UN nation, you have to follow the UN. Well can you explain how liberals are hurting America?Moral Arguments For Helping The Poor:Consequential Argument:1) That which is moral, promotes overall well being.2) Helping the poor promotes overall well being'3) Helping the poor is moralDeontological:categorical Imperative: Act only as if your actions would be favorable as universal laws1) If the performing an act results in a more favorable universe, then the act is moral2) Helping the poor results in a favorable universe3) Helping the poor is moralThe preamble: "Promote the general welfare"http://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.law.cornell.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Politics, Bans

I disagree! The UN is a sham. Liberals are quite good at harming America and we should send them and a cruise ship full of their doobie sticks to Antarctica so they can start a "society" of their own. Then, they take all the money from their own rich people to distribute to their own poor people, because somehow they deserve money they didn't earn. George Clooney will be happy to feed the rest of them.
Politics, Bans

Well I don't know what is being debated here but apparently pro thinks liberals should be deported. Well BoP is on him to first, establish that is morally justifiable and beneficial to society. I look forward to hearing arguments for the claim but first i'd like to establish a few legal problems with it.The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights: Article 1All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.Article 3.Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.Article 9.No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. ^ Top Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. ^ Top Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. ^ Top Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. ^ Top Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. http://www.un.org...
Homeschooling is better for children than public schools

Shielding a child from other children is not necessarily a good thing. Kids need other kids for human interaction it is a essential part of living. A parent who shields their kids from the outside world will show in adverse effect on their future, because the kid might become anti-social from all the missed experiences to learn how to properly interact with others. Just because a kid is home schooled does not mean he will not be offered drugs, the parent has to let the kid out of the house sometime. Drugs can be offered from anywhere, does not have to be in public school or private school, it can be just on the street. There is not a 0% chance that students that are home schooled will not try alcohol, same for smoking and sex. Your link and sources only target teenagers but it does not specifically state whether they are home schooled, Private school, or public schools. So you still have to prove why home schooling is better than public schooling
Homeschooling is better for children than public schools

To begin with, home schooling has an advantage in shielding the child from the adverse effects of peer pressure and its resulting problems. From kindergarten to high school children, children are faced with difficult choices (driking alcohol, wagging etc.) just because they feel that, if they don't engage in the activities of the group/clique, they would be kicked out or excluded. According to http://www.familyfirstaid.org... * The Adolescent Substance Abuse Knowledge Base reports that right around 30% if teens are offered drugs in middle school and high school. * According to the National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 74.3% of high school students have tried alcohol. * 3.1 million teenagers smoke, according to the American Lung Association. * The Kaiser Foundation reports that about 50% of teenagers feel pressured with regard to sex in relationships.
Atheism in the United States

Thank you for the debate. The Declaration of Independence is very old and becoming very outdated. For example studies show that Atheism is consistently on the rise in America. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). With this in mind, people have a completely different mindset now than in the days of the Declaration of Independence where we can estimate that 99% of Americans were believers. Therefore I do not feel it rational to be against atheism in America because of a very outdated Declaration where the world, beliefs and ideas were completely different. There is little comparison. Again on the notion of "outdated", it can not be proven that every man is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". In 1776 however there was little arguing against this but now the times have changed. The Declaration was written by people who know much less about the world than we do know so just because it claims that God is the basis for everything then that does not mean it to be true. Taking this into account, there is no valid basis to discriminate against atheism as believers could easily be wrong. In today's world it is not fair to discriminate against people who have a different set of beliefs than the majority. Again "one nation under God" is becoming outdated now. The sheer increase in Atheism proves this. There is no way to prove that America or anywhere else is under "God's" rule because there is no way to prove the existence of God. If as expected, Atheism continues to increase then many years down the line, "One nation under God" will have to be changed one way or another. In let's say 200-300 years time the majority of America could very well be Atheists as there is a consistent increase taking place. If you saw that would you then discount the majority of American citizens? What would you call someone who forces an outdated allegiance on citizens? It simply works as a majority rules type of thing. Atheism is shunned because it is still a minority but it is only a matter of the time before the Declaration becomes less and less prominent if Atheism increases. The world is becoming more and more realistic and I feel that just has to be accepted.
Atheism in the United States

Strictly applicable to the United States The Declaration of Independence: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In the assertation and general philosophy of the Declaration of Independence God is referenced twice, once as an enabler of the people to assume the powers of the Earth and again as the sole authority concerning the human rights that define our Nation as the land of the free. It stands to reason that the Declaration of Independence acknowledged and accredited God on multiple accounts as being the basis for our current beliefs in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the cornerstones of our society. Pledge: A Solemn promise. Allegiance: loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause. Allegiance is to be expected of anyone who enjoys the freedoms that the United States offers, it's a small price to pay for living in such a Country as ours. However, in order to pledge your allegiance you must understand what you are promising your loyalty and commitment to. We pledge our allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, "and" to the republic for which is stands, one Nation, under God" let's hold it there. According to this pledge, by reciting it you would be solemnly promising your loyalty and commitment to the flag AND the nation under God. Wait...our Nation is under God? It sure is my friend. So that would mean citizens of the United States are living in a Nation under God's rule. Lastly, what do you call someone who has no loyalty or commitment to his country? What would you call someone who is unwilling to pledge his/her allegiance to your country but wanted to reap the benefits of living in it? What would you call someone who pledged his/her allegiance and then breaks their allegiance because they disagreed with it? I cannot see logic in Atheism in the United States. How about Syllogism: There is only one Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance is a pledge to a Flag and a Nation under God. If you pledge your allegiance to this nation then you are acknowledging God, if you don't then you have no established loyalty to the United States.
Discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs should be legal in the workplace

This arguement my opponant presented is based on a highly unlikely story. Its like saying eagles should be hunted because what if an eagle sees a kid playing with his pet mouse, goes for the mouse and accidently bites the kids fingers off, and the kid dies of bleeding to death. For one lets think of the majority of these situations, most religious holidays that have an excuse from work are not frequent, most religions dont have so many holidays they dont work, in jewdaism its only 8 days of chanuka, still have to work though, yom kipper, where you dont have to work, rosh hashana, dont have to work, and shabbat nights where you still have to work. as cited here http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.jewfaq.org... http://www.religioustolerance.org... Also your argueing "Discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs should be legal in the workplace", meaning you can descriminate other religions, and your arguement that converting causing some one to be late is possible is irrelivant to that. Discrimination is not disallowing holidays it is allowing people to insult people of seperate religions due to their religious beliefs. Allowing such would cause for to much controversy, personal grudges, and distracting debates minimizing work flow.
The ELO system should be changed on DDO

This debate is about whether or not the ELO system should be changed. I would like to ask Pro to post his arguments in the first round. The BOP is on Pro. Pro is allowed to reuse arguments from his last debate. I challenge 9spaceking because I want to hear his opinion as a fellow debater rather than a reader, as a debater reads their opponent's case more thoroughly than a reader because they are obliged to respond to their opponent's points.
The ELO system should be changed on DDO

1. Noob snipingThe lower elo debater losing against a higher elo one--I was talking about noobs, those who make a debate and just quit it, disappearing off the site to never be seen again. These noobs are taken advantage of as seen definitely against by STALIN, especially since he debates those who only have one debate or very few debates. And he gets defeated by people with far far lower elo than him. On the other hand our underrated people win against very very high elo debaters, showing us they are definitely underrated.Pro did not address my argument that he cherry picks specific debates that support his arguments to show that said users are underrated or overrated. Therefore he does not meet his BOP.2. Proposed ChangeFine. Then if we give the advantage to the one with lower elo and the disadvantage to those with higher elo, the problem will be fixed with this change. And if the elo are exactly the same either it's decided by a coin toss or no one has the advantage/disadvantage. Then it will be fair.The ELO system already does this, so no change is required.3. SonasThen we should have a different system for different tournaments! :D Again, the elo system does not change, whether you're doing the noob tournament or top-tier tournament. I think the moderators should change the elo system depending on the situation, and use differen k-factors for the different tournaments.The problem is, this type of change is costly and inefficient as there are only so many moderators that Juggle has the money to higher, and there will always be infinitely more debates to change the ELO system for than Moderators. Moderators may also uncounciously induce their bias into debates by doing this. Remember, this debate is about whether or not the system should be changed, so the feasability should also be considered. The moderators will not be able to individually tweak the ELO system for each individual debate and moderate at the same time.
The ELO system should be changed on DDO

1. Noob snipingThe lower elo debater losing against a higher elo one--I was talking about noobs, those who make a debate and just quit it, disappearing off the site to never be seen again. These noobs are taken advantage of as seen definitely against by STALIN, especially since he debates those who only have one debate or very few debates. And he gets defeated by people with far far lower elo than him. On the other hand our underrated people win against very very high elo debaters, showing us they are definitely underrated.Instigate/contender advantage."As you can see, there is no bias that makes overrated users instigate less, but rather it's the opposite. Therefore, adding an instigator/contender advantage/disadvantage will just make the overrated users more overrated as they actually instigate more." Fine. Then if we give the advantage to the one with lower elo and the disadvantage to those with higher elo, the problem will be fixed with this change. And if the elo are exactly the same either it's decided by a coin toss or no one has the advantage/disadvantage. Then it will be fair.2. The Sonas systemThen we should have a different system for different tournaments! :D Again, the elo system does not change, whether you're doing the noob tournament or top-tier tournament. I think the moderators should change the elo system depending on the situation, and use differen k-factors for the different tournaments.
The ELO system should be changed on DDO

1. Noob SnipingCon strawmans my argument as "STALIN does not noob snipe". However, my argument remains unaddressed as I argued that it is subjective belief that STALIN, jh1234l and Teemo are overrated, and that YYW and Envisage are underrated. Also, pro cherry picks individual debates that fit with is arguments, and these debates ironically prove that the ELO system is NOT inaccurate, as they show a lower ELO debater losing against a higher ELO one.2. Proposed ChangeThe problem is, the underrated users listed by pro do not necessarily contend more debates than underrated ones, by a significant amount. jh1234l, one of the overrated debaters, instigated 29/68 of his debates,(http://www.debate.org...) Teemo is overrated according to pro, and instigated 11/40 of his debates. (http://www.debate.org...)YYW, the underrated one, instigated 19/58 of his debates. (http://www.debate.org...) Envisage is also underrated according to pro, and instigated 8/31 of his debates. (http://www.debate.org...) Average overrated debater: 10/27, or 0.37Average underrated debater: 13.5/44.5, or 0.30As you can see, there is no bias that makes overrated users instigate less, but rather it's the opposite. Therefore, adding an instigator/contender advantage/disadvantage will just make the overrated users more overrated as they actually instigate more.3. New pointAdding different k factors is useless, as it is already very difficult for users with high ELOS to increase their ELO and too easy for users with low ELOS to raise their ELO. Adding different K-Factors will only make problems worse. Also, Sonas was trying to address the issue of Grandmasters only tournaments, a different issue from the issue on DDO. (Source: ArcTimes debate with 9spaceking)
The ELO system should be changed on DDO

Noob snipers are subjective beliefs???!Incorrect. Look at STALIN's most recent debates posted above . [15][16][17] above all show STALIN winning against noobs. Let us take his most recent won debate: http://www.debate.org...This debate has him winning against someone with only 1,781 elo. [20]Now let's take the debate after that: http://www.debate.org...He won against this dude whose only debate was the one won by STALIN[21], constituting the definition of "noob".The below link shows another successful noob-snipe where the opponent ff'd each and every round. http://www.debate.org...Therefore we can definitely conclude this is objective and not subjective; noob-sniping is a problem, a big one indeed. This is not the anecdote fallacy, it is true that these noob-snipers are overrated.As for those underrated debaters, I have already proven Envisage and YYW are vastly underrated when you compare their elo to their skill, especially who they defeated. "there is no such bias which makes overrated users be the contender most of the time and underrated users be the instigator most of the time...." Yes, there is. That is why it's called "noob-sniping".My system encourages noob-trapping? Noob-sniping is much easier than noob-trapping. Noob-trapping is nigh-impossible, very difficult. A skilled debater could ruin such trap, as well as a skilled troll. Noob-trapping is insanely hard, far far harder than noob-sniping, and you're better off challenging the top debaters. Thus your argument is invalid because with my change, it is harder to gain free easy elo.My "opinions" are backed up by such evidence that they aren't subjective, they're pretty much facts: STALIN is an overrated noob sniper, no offense, and both Envisage and YYW have an elo that greatly undermines their skill. NEW POINT: Other changes. As far as we know, both the noobs and Mikal use the same elo equation. This is not very accurate, and chess's elo system can help make their elo more accurate. In chess, two different systems are used for grandmasters than non-grandmasters. Therefore we can get DDO "Grandmasters" (above 3500, or 4,000 elo, depending on what can be considered a "Grandmaster") to use the different elo calculation and have people below using a different calculation, so that it can be more accurate. These systems are shown to be accurate since other systems use it and seem to more accurately display skills than a system without any change. [22][23] So, if we apply the different K-factors for debaters with different elo, a positive outcome will definitely come.Back to you, con.[20] http://www.debate.org...[21] http://www.debate.org...[22] http://www.fide.com...[23] http://www.fide.com...
The ELO system should be changed on DDO

Thanks to 9spaceking for his timely and thoughtful response.Rebuttals1/2. Underrated and overrated debatersPro's argument is fallacious as the arguments rely on his subjective opinion. He asserts that certain debaters are overrated or underrated, but uses his own expectations of how high of an ELO these debaters should get as evidence. He also cherrypicks certain debates where a lower ELO user wins, even though ELO does not gurrantee a win for the higher ELO user. This is not evidence as it relies on his own subjective beliefs about the debating skills of users.Pro makes the "anecdote" fallacy, in which he lists examples that conform to his rules and uses subjective judgement to argue that certain users are overrated or underrated. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 3. Pro's proposed solution As we know, there is an inherent instigator point advantage and a contender disadvantage [18].If the advantage increases, or the disadvantage is even more, or both the advantage and the disadvantage had a wider range, then the noob-snipers would gain more elo while the brave challengers moved on to higher, more accurate elo that displays their skill better. Thus, this change to the elo system would greatly benefit everyone, especially the debaters shown in the two examples above.This proposed solution would have corrected ELO values if new users created more debates than they accept, or if the overrated users accepted debates most of the time and the underrated debaters created debates most of the time. However, there is no such bias which makes overrated users be the contender most of the time and underrated users be the instigator most of the time. ContentionsA. The current ELO system discourages noob sniping, while pro's solution does notThe ELO system already takes into consideration the ELO's of both users. http://ddo.wikia.com... Pro's solution would instead encourage noob-trapping, or creating debates that interest only new debaters, as people seek to abuse the instigator bias.B. Changing an entire system because it disagrees with one user's subjective beliefs causes problemsPro's proposal was backed by personal opinion rather than fact: while it's a fact that a certain user has a certain ELO, it's an opinion that the user was overrated or underrated. If people are allowed to modify the system based on subjective opinions, then biases may be induced into the system as people may want to lower the ELO of people whom they disagree with, or artificially boost their ELO.