BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rawslian theory is a justified form of government.

I apologize in advance to readers who are new to Rawlsian theory - for me to explain his theory would take too much space, so I'm assuming my opponent's and credible voters know at least the basic substance. There is a certain difficulty in how I am supposed to approach this debate. Given that I don't know my opponent's specific criticism of Rawls, all I will do in this round is supply a few general arguments in favor of Rawlsian theory; they are by no means a sufficient case. Depending on how my opponent responds, I could drop some of the listed arguments for reasons such as focusing the discussion. As stated before, I will focus on arguing in favor of Rawls "justice as fairness" and thus I begin my discussion about the original position (OP). As should be obvious, it is a purely hypothetical situation and is useful as a heuristic device. The point of the OP for Rawls' theory is that principles of justice as fairness would be chosen by the rational deliberators in the OP as opposed to other patterns of distributions (egalitarianism, utilitarianism, etc.). Thus, I invite my opponent to either show the invalidity of OP in some sense, or of how he would propose some other principle than Rawlsian ones would be chosen by the rational deliberators. It is a central argument for Rawls that the two principles of fairness, the Liberty principle and Difference principle would be principles that the rational deliberators would be willing to choose on rational grounds. This is the position I will take in contrary to any other principle (notably utilitarianism), and I beget of my opponent to come forth with some alternative or response. Honestly, I'd prefer not to stress too many arguments without at least hearing some of my opponent's side (for example, many of Rawls arguments are often poised partially as a response to utilitarianism). I would like to hear more of my opponent's position before I delve any deeper, especially if his approach completely sidesteps the OP.
black people caused 9/11

I will start my argument by stating how black people did 9/11. When a young Arab reads international news, all he reads about is how terrible Africa is, how much crime there is in the United States and how much of that crime was committed by blacks. The blacks are despised across the globe. I'm European and I've lived in a 99% white country my whole life. Everyone despises blacks. How could Arabs not hate the blacks? So what does Arabs hating the blacks have to do with 9/11? Everything. Arabs despise blacks, and the country which ended the enslavement of the blacks was the United States of America. Now, there are almost no countries in the world which allow slavery, and all of us non-Americans blame you for that. I always wanted to own a black slave. Why can't I? Because of Americans. I'm absolutely certain Arabs feel the same way, so they would also hate America because of that. Then, the Arab gets radicalized by Al Qaeda, which was basically created by USA, and he is just so happy to bomb you. The rest of the world rejoiced when it happened too. It didn't kill many black people, but who cares? Blacks aren't dangerous, they are just wild animals. If they hadn't been so violent and stupid, 9/11 would not have happened.
black people caused 9/11

I thank the instigator for the opportunity to debate. As there are no rules established, I will simply accept during round #1 by way of asserting that my opponents claim is in error. Blacks are not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He is also incorrect in his assertion aboriginals ought to be punished as a result of these attacks. It seems apparent the burden of proof ought to rest with the instigator, as he has proposed a claim which requires us to provide proof the claim is not true. Proving a claim regarding abstract concepts as justice to be untrue is a very difficult process, even if the claim is in fact, untrue. Proving it true, as is the instigator's responsibility, ought to be sufficiently simple, if it is in fact true. I look forward to the proofs of instigator's claims in round #2.
Gelato (Pro) or Ice Cream (Con)

Just see what http://voices.yahoo.com... has to say about gelato: Nothing tastes better than a scoop of cold ice cream on a hot summer day '" except maybe a gelato. If you haven't tasted a gelato, you're in for a sweet surprise. Gelato is the Italian interpretation of ice cream and its every bit as sweet and even a little creamier than ice cream. It's sure to satisfy even the most discriminating sweet tooth. Gelato has an advantage over ice cream when it comes to fat content. Frozen gelato is made using less butterfat than ice cream which gives it a slight health advantage. Whereas the typical ice cream has a fat content ranging from fourteen to twenty-five percent, gelato averages between five to nine percent butterfat, a significant difference. It's hard to believe when you taste this sweet treat that it's actually lower in fat than conventional ice cream. Ice cream is also made using cream whereas gelato is made with milk. You can even find soy milk versions in some natural food markets. When it comes to gelato vs. ice cream, how can frozen gelato taste so creamy and still be lower in fat than ice cream? The reason gelato retains its rich, creamy taste with a lower fat content is because less air is added to the final product, in contrast to ice cream which often contains a great deal of added air. The result is that gelato has a very dense texture that gives it a decadent, creamy taste without all the fat. What about calories when it comes to frozen gelato vs. ice cream? Which is lower? The average half-cup serving of gelato has between one-hundred-and-fifty and two hundred calories whereas full-fat ice cream usually starts at around two hundred calories and can go much higher depending on the ingredients. Although gelato has characteristically been made with large amounts of sugar which adds to the calorie count, you can now find versions made with artificial sweeteners such as Splenda for a significant calorie savings. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is what http://healthyeating.sfgate.com... has to say about gelato: On average, a 3.5-ounce serving of vanilla gelato contains 90 calories, 3 grams of fat and 10 grams of sugar. A typical 3.5-ounce serving of vanilla ice cream contains 125 calories, 7 grams of fat and 14 grams of sugar. The fat in frozen treats coats your taste buds, preventing them from completely experiencing the flavors. Because the lower fat content in gelato means your taste buds can experience flavors more intensely, gelato does not need as much added sugar as ice cream to produce the same sweet flavor. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If you think about it, gelato has less air in it, so that makes it so that if you have a quart of ice cream, you will get less than if you have a quart of gelato. Gelato is also healthier for you in calories, and it is made from milk, not cream. Good luck!
Food is a choice (UNSATISFIED WITH PREVIOUS DEBATE)

What is the definition of food, Then? The definition is: Any NUTRITIOUS substance that people or animals eat or drink, Or that plants absorb, In order to maintain life and growth. You will EAT those vitamins. Vitamins are food. Why do you need food? To grow. How is this unnecessary? Why will you eat vitamins? To grow. You cannot go without food. Why don't you enjoy losing?
Humans cannot have free will with the existence of an omniscnient god.

"There is a conduct vote. I see your new to the site so it is understandable if you did not know. I will advise you from now on to act a little more civil." I'm not trying to win the conduct vote. Im trying to win the argument! it doesnt mater if you hav better conduct if you lose! "You do not show why I am wrong or you are right. You simply accuse me of not understanding. " You are wronf cause god exists outside the laws of logic! he made them and you just cant understand. vote anarcholibertyman!
Humans cannot have free will with the existence of an omniscnient god.

"This is a debate site. Your supposed to post long arguments with sources and stuff." There is no set format on how a debate is to be set up. "Your pathetic argument doesn't even deserve a response." There is a conduct vote. I see your new to the site so it is understandable if you did not know. I will advise you from now on to act a little more civil. "Cause he creeted the lows of logic! So he can brake them if he wants!! Thatdoesn't mean he desnt exist it just meas you dont understand him!" So you admit that it does not make sense logically for an omniscient god to exist along with free will. And this is simply an appeal to ignorance. You do not show why I am wrong or you are right. You simply accuse me of not understanding. Well then please enlighten me. As this is my last round I advise voters to vote for me as my arguments were never refuted by my opponent.
Humans cannot have free will with the existence of an omniscnient god.

"My argument will be short and simple." This is a debate site. Your supposed to post long arguments with sources and stuff. Your pathetic argument doesn't even deserve a response. But I'll try anyway. god supposedly exists outside of the laws of logic. Cause he creeted the lows of logic! So he can brake them if he wants!! Thatdoesn't mean he desnt exist it just meas you dont understand him!
Humans cannot have free will with the existence of an omniscnient god.

Good luck to you as well. My argument will be short and simple. If there exists an omniscient god then it knows everything that anyone will ever do. Let's say it knows that I will spill my soda. It would have known this since the beginning of time. So, I would have always been destined to spill my soda at say 2:35 p.m. on march 7, 2011. There is no logical way that I could not have spilled my soda at that exact time or this god would have not been omniscient. Again, good luck.
Humans cannot have free will with the existence of an omniscnient god.

My position will be that if there were to exist an omniscient god then humans would not truly possess free will. Con will conversely argue that the concept of an omniscient god does not contradict the concept of free will. This idea came up briefly in my last debate and I wanted to explore the topic more in depth. Round 1: Acceptance, Definitions Rounds 2 and 3: Arguments and Rebuttals Definitions: Free will: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. [1] Omniscience: Having total knowledge; knowing everything [2] [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Bad children should be shot with a shotgun full of rock salt in the azz as punishment

Children who misbehave and cause mischief and have attitude grow up to be criminals, and less desirable in adulthood. Therefore we should have those children who commit crimes as young offenders, shot with a shotgun with rock salt as a behavior changing lesson. This is a non lethal way of inducing painful punishment to the child's rear section and more effective than spanking. We strap the child into a position on the wall facing away from the punisher, who fires a shot of rock salt at the behind of the culprit. The rock salt penetrates the skin and is a very painful reminder for the child not to do the same miscreant behavior again. A quick and effective punishment
Bad children should be shot with a shotgun full of rock salt in the azz as punishment

Shotgun blast even with shotgun shells from a great enough distance are non lethal, it's like getting hit by a pellet gun. I propose rock salt because that is what farmers use to ward off unwanted kids and trespassers on their property. A shot of rock salt penetrates the skin but that is all, BUT the rock salt burns in the wounds, this is the form of punishment farmers use to remind kids to stay off their crop fields. You never forget that kind of punishment, you remember that rock salt burning for life. That is why I recommend this type of punishment, YOU WILL REMEMBER IT AND NOT DO IT AGAIN Your Nigga azz will be sent back to the ghetto with some serious salt burns. I propose we shoot all gang bangers with rock salt as punishments, maybe change their ghetto attitude
Men shopping options are too little compared to the Ladies

PRO has claimed that the male/female ration of shopping options are too heavily weighed in favor of women. I disagree and will argue that, in general, the balloted square footage of retail space is appropriate when viewed from a male vs. female perspective. PRO's Example PRO has noted that in an H&M there is more square footage allotted to women's apparel than to men's apparel. Although I question his stated proportions, I do not doubt that women have greater space for their clothes; however, this is appropriate. Women buy more clothes than men [1]. Therefore, it makes sense for retailers to devote more space to women's clothes.Another reason women have more retail space than men is because, when it comes to clothes, women are more likely to buy as a form of “retail therapy” [2]. Also, the way men and women shop plays a role. Women like to spend more time browsing, while men like to simply walk in and buy [3]. Both of these are reasons that retailers are not wrong to allocate more space to women's clothing than to men's.Wrapping UpPRO has claimed that retailers give too few options to men as compared to women. However, I have demonstrated that these retailers are making smart business decisions. Therefore, PRO's argument does not hold up. Sources [1]http://www.statcan.gc.ca... [2]http://www.businesswire.com... [3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Longer school hours for shorter school days

Yet you do realize that this really doesn't give teachers a chance to really plan with having longer school hours, and though it seems easy to teach the some thing over and over it gets really tiring. They'll become tired especially with students who work at different paces meaning that not everyone will have the same assignments, therefore back to my argument no teachers will not have a lot of time to plan if students work at different paces and everyone will be drowsy.
Longer school hours for shorter school days

yes I have you thought about how some of them live farther away than others that's why their will be more bus do drop kids off so that wont be a problem and this is for the good of both teachers and students like now some teachers don't be having time to plan for the next class and also a less need for subs for the teachers because their well have days so that can be took care of so students wont miss out on that lesson
homework

Thank you con for your argument. I will now post mine:Contention 1: Homework helps the students learn the material at homeHomework helps students learn the material from school at home. It is useful in keeping them knowledgeable about what the have learned at school, so they can go to class the next day, knowing the material, and being prepared.Contention 2: Homework is useful to help studyHomework helps give the students something to look over and study at home. It gives them notes to help them prepare for a test or quiz.Contention 3: Homework is an good way for students to bring up poor gradesHomework is a really good way for students to bring up bad grades. Usually, homework is worth 10% of your grade. So, for example, if you get a 75% on all your classwork, tests and quizzes, if you do all your homework, and get a 100% in that category, then your grade instead will be an 85%.Thank you. I await my opponent's rebuttals.
If Sasuke and Naruto fought again, Sasuke would win.

But answer me this question pro: The series is far from over, and this series has huge gaps in the story that can only be filled in if the show continues, so why, in all heck, would the producers of naruto kill him? Also, naruto is one of those characters that has a big comeback, remember in some of his greatest victories, naruto loses at first, then the exiting music starts playing, a clever quote is said, and naruto kicks butt! Naruto has a magazine, a newsletter, and a ton of merchandise on him (. http://www.myimportstore.com...) all of these, would they all be killed? and if sauske wins, who would be the main character after that? iruca? that would be lame XD this is not the type of series that ends with the main character dying, naruto's dream was to be hokage, and has he acheived that? I DONT THINK SO! Why would the producers kill the show so far into it? Pro's arguments are outlandish, and sauske might win the physical battle, naruto wins the mental battle in the producer's mind.
If Sasuke and Naruto fought again, Sasuke would win.

"First, Pro has not defined the word "win" does win mean kill? injure? so I will define it as defeat, which means kill" Yes I do mean kill Pros entire arguement does not mean anything. I meant based on their abilities from right now. what you were supposed to do was tell me how Naruto with the abilities he possesses now could possibly beat Sasuke. Your entire argument centers around, because Naruto is the hero it means he will not die. " IF sauske were to kill naruto in a battle, the whole cartoon would end do you think, that the producers of naruto would kill the main character and end their franchise? I think not!" Every Franchise has to eventually end you know. The creator of Naruto won't live forever and if a story drags on it will become boring. Each story must have an ending and the ending that Naruto getting killed by Sasuke is a possibility. So what if Naruto is the hero and so what if Sasuke is the Villian many series ends with the hero or the main protagonist meeting their end. Code Geass- Lelouch is the main character and killed by his best friend Suzaku Chrono Crusades- Chrono and Rosette die Death Note- Protagonist L gets killed by Light. "that they [the naruto producers] wouldn't kill the main character for no apparent reason" A fight between best friends seems like a fitting end for these two and most likely how the manga would end. To sum it up PRO is not the author of Naruto. The series has not ended yet. Neither of us will know the ending until the author decides on it. So again from my last argument, from what the REAL author has already presented to his audience with the Manga series Sasuke possesses more power than Naruto and more abilities so if they were to fight right now Sasuke would win. Unless Pro is the author of this series he should not assume that the Manga will end the way he wants it to until the real ending is written.
If Sasuke and Naruto fought again, Sasuke would win.

First, Pro has not defined the word "win" does win mean kill? injure? so I will define it as defeat, which means kill I have few points, but it will wipe out all of your points. IF sauske were to kill naruto in a battle, the whole cartoon would end do you think, that the producers of naruto would kill the main character and end their franchise? I think not! Anyway, sauske is the villain, naruto is the hero, would the creators of naruto just kill him? NO! If I were the naruto creators, I wouldn't make the story so the main character gets killed in a battle he has already fought! What the heck! And even though, sauske may be really good right now, naruto will not die, because the world of naruto is controlled by the producers, which would surely not let him die because of the reasons I have stated above, and to say that naruto will die, is a completely OUTRAGEOUS, OUTLANDISH, an INSANE idea!!! So for the reasons that: The naruto producers would never do such a foolish thing, as to kill their franchise, and that they [the naruto producers] wouldn't kill the main character for no apparent reason, There IS NO DOUBT that PRO has WON THIS DEBATE!
If Sasuke and Naruto fought again, Sasuke would win.

Note: based on the most recent chapters If Sasuke fought Naruto now, he would win. Sasuke would win because he has better abilities. Sasuke has the Mangekyou Sharingan Eye which he acquired from his brother Itachi. The Mangekyou Sharingan possesses the most powerful Genjutsu (illustionary technique) the Tsukuyomi, the most powerful fire technique the Amaterasu, and Susanoo a powerful defense against all projectile weaponry and Taijutsu (hand to hand combat) because it creates a spirit that protects the host from harm. Susanoo not only protects Sasuke it can also be used for offense. Sasuke's eyes also allows him to see things more clearly so even if Naruto moves with speed it would not matter because Sasuke would be able to see the attack and counter it. So basically Sasuke is nearly invincible because he has the most powerful abilities in the ninja world. Sasuke other than his Sharingan he also possesses the "Chidori" the most powerful jutsu(technique) that Hatake Kakashi knows, who was the master of both Naruto and Sasuke. Sasuke has been able to manipulate the "Chidori" for even more advanced techniques. He is able to fuse the "Chidori" with his sword. If he cuts an opponent with his sword they will become paralyzed from the electricity. Sasuke has also created one of the most powerful Lighting abilities the "Kirin" which travels at at 1/1000th of a second making this move impossible to dodge. Sasuke also knows all of Narutos abilities and has beaten him already once before. With Sasukes new abilities the results will just be the same. http://naruto.wikia.com...
If Sasuke and Naruto fought again, Sasuke would win.

First I would like to refute my opponent's points: Pro stated that "Naruto has a even more important goal which is to save Sasuke. " - If naruto is killed by sauske, before he is hokage, how is that saving sauske OR becoming hokage, he has not even fullfilled his "more important goal" so Pro has just contradicted himself. Also Pro goes on and on about how sauske has better abilities, this means nothing for the points that I have stated before and HERE IS SOME EVIDENCE ON HOW NARUTO ENDS: . http://www.tv.com... Naruto's final battle is with his father, the legendary "Yellow Flash", the 4th Hokage. Naruto defeated 4th with the help from his mother (died while protecting Naruto, but wounded 4th). In the end, naruto became Hokage as he wished. so as you see, it is impossible for naruto to die if his FINAL BATTLE is against his father, if you don't believe any other of my facts, this is the only reason why this debate has been won by con. -Also PRO HAS NOT REFUTED my point on the naruto merchandise, and has not given me good evidence on why the producers would kill him, ending their franchise on this merchandise As you all can see, pro has made some very good points, but they are all based on sauske's ability, and not on rational facts, while all mine are.
Resolved: DDO should Drop The Phone Requirement Needed for Voting Rights

I will argue that Debate .Org should drop its requirement of having a phone in order to have voting rights in debates. These are my reasons: 1. They are making the assumption that users have telephones or smart phones. Not everyone has such a device. If one does not have a phone, then one cannot receive the code. Without this code, voting in debates is unavailable to that user. 2. At the bottom of the mobile settings page, DDO states that one can contact them if there is any sort of issue i.e. not having a phone, not being able to receive texts, etc. DDO staff state that they will respond "only if necessary" to any inquiries sent to them. The problem with this is that DDO NEVER responds to ANY inquiries sent to them. Months have been waited by many users without a return email promising any help whatsoever. 3. If the requirement of having a phone was dropped, then more users could vote on debates. Too many debates are stranded and tied because of a lack of voters. This one is simple, more voter equals more input, which means that more debates can have attention and more users feel like a part of the DDO community. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...