BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
InfraRedEd is the greatest debater who ever lived.

Surely my opponent recognizes that there are other qualities besides humor that make me, in his humble opinion of course, the greatest debater who ever lived." There are things other than humor in this world? At least, things other than humor that matter? "I would list them of course, but the fact is that I am just not that good of a debater myself." You are the funniest debater, which, in my criteria, makes you the greatest debater. "My opponent is a much greater debater than I ever will be." Not when you apply the funny. "He is the one that should enumerate all the qualities that make me, in his humble opinion of course, the greatest debater who ever lived." My opponent is funny. "Of course I am a great debater but I am not going to do my opponent's job for him." He conceded that he is great. He gives no reason why he is not the greatest. He is the funniest. Thus, by my criteria, he is the greatest.
InfraRedEd is the greatest debater who ever lived.

Surely my opponent recognizes that there are other qualities besides humor that make me, in his humble opinion of course, the greatest debater who ever lived. I would list them of course, but the fact is that I am just not that good of a debater myself. My opponent is a much greater debater than I ever will be. He is the one that should enumerate all the qualities that make me, in his humble opinion of course, the greatest debater who ever lived. Of course I am a great debater but I am not going to do my opponent's job for him.
InfraRedEd is the greatest debater who ever lived.

My opponent is the greatest debater who ever lived. http://en.wikipedia.org... Because greatness is subjective, I just have to use my own personal perspective, and I'm going to use the criteria of humorousness when I decide what to determine is "greatest." My opponent's debates are frequently hilarious, along with some of his catchphrases, and they are the most hilarous debates I have ever seen, so I come to the subjective conclusion that InfraRedEd is the greatest debater who ever lived. http://www.debate.org... "Ed's got better things to do." http://www.debate.org... "m" http://www.debate.org... "The point of debating is to debate." http://www.debate.org... His dictionary is also great, because he defines "adjourn" as "commit mass suicide." I await my great opponent's response.
The Logic of Religion--Belief in an After-life

Seeing as my opponent failed to respond, I thought I'd clarify the debate: First and foremost, you ought to consider the argument regarding the illogicality of Pascal's Wager (or more directly, Fenrir's Wager). The argument is illogical because it makes an infinite presuppositions, and then expects everything to weigh into its favor. The problem with this is there are too many unknowns for a reasonable person to accept Pascal's or Fenrir's Wager - what if the god or the afterlife is undesirable? What if there is no after life? With these uncertainties, the crux of Pascal's and Fenrir's argument is refuted: it's not a fifty-fifty percent chance of a good and bad ending. It's tilted towards the bad. That's the first reason why it's a bad idea to believe in an after life or in a "god". The second reason is the alternative that I presented in my position called "the Atheist's Wager". It proposes that insteaqd of proactively trying to gain admission into an afterlife or God's good graces, we should simply live moral lives on Earth, which secures the same benefits and none of the inconveniences required with religious practices or rituals. In other words, the Atheist's Wager outperforms the Pascal's Wager and Fenrir's Wager, because with no cost you achieve in the same, eternal, gain. The third reason is that Fenrir's justification for taking the risk in gambling is callous and immoral in and of itself. The argument that a god would not like it at all if people started to brutally rationalize his existence instead of taking in the message and believing. The risks of believing are increased, because then you have angered the gods (or the God of your choice), and have the risk of being punished. The atheist's wager avoids this by not trivializing his (or its, or whatever) existence. Finally, the last consideration in the debate ought to be the empirical costs of using this wager. By probability, secular institutions would abuse Pascal's Wager and manipulate it for the purpose of using its religious authority for its own end. This abuse has empirically resulted in oppression, repression, and violence (as seen with the American Indians and Africans). The Atheist's Wager avoids this as an alternative, because it doesn't amplify state power with religious authority, and moreover because it doesn't alienate people on a basis of belief or creed. Furthermore, even if we say that these empirical costs are acceptable, I'd argue that they're inhumane; remember the argument that using this maxim allows repressive conditions, and doesn't even guarentee a positive result - so adopting this maxim (the Wager) is immoral using a consequentialist (looking at the consequences of an action) and utilitarian (the ends justify the means) paradigm. For these reasons, it's better to not accept the "logic of religion" and gamble on the belief of an afterlife. It's much better to just live a moral life, sit back, and help the fellow man without concerning yourself in this rhetoric. Negate.
The Logic of Religion--Belief in an After-life

This is somewhat of an unorthodox approach to supporting religion, but I thought it might be kind of fun. The idea I am proposing is pretty simple--that it is logically a better idea to believe in some sort of after-life than not. We'll look at this with two absolutes: you believe in an after-life or you don't, and there is or isn't one. While there is certainly the possibility that one is speculative or unsure about the existance of an afterlife, it will not be relevant to this debate (which I will explain in greater detail shortly). If one does not believe in an afterlife and, in fact, there isn't one, they will never have the satisfaction of knowing they were correct, because if they reach the point at which they find out there is no afterlife, they will already be dead. Conversely, if it turns out they were wrong, they will be aware of their incorrect belief. Now, if you do believe in some afterlife, you will never know if you were wrong--because if it turns out you don't "live" again after dying, you will never be around to know. The only possible result of discovery is that you find out you were, at least to a degree, correct (as there are beliefs is different types of after-lives). With regard to speculation about an after-life, it is essentially the same as believing in one, for the purpose that you will not be "wrong" as you have remained neutral in belief concerning this. In short, it is better to believe in some sort of after-life because you essentially cannot be proven wrong, while not believing in an after-life--that is, believing that there is not one--will result in you only being wrong.
Anarcho-capitalism is impossible.

Anarchy is the absolute absence of hierarchy in society. This means that a state structure is impossible, this means that an undemocratic/hierarchical military is impossible, this means that capitalism can't exist. My reasoning why anarchy will not/can not exist in a capitalist society: Capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production (factories, tools, profit). What this means is that a small group will own the ability to employ wage labour, whilst a large majority will be subject to sell their labour to these businesses. This causes an inherent power imbalance, which results in class society. Class society is hierarchical. Lumpen proletariat (criminals, unemployed, disabled) -> Proletariat (Workers who sell their labour, do not own any means of production) -> petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners who own some of their means of production, have the ability to employ wage labour, etc.) -> Bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production, profit, etc.). We know the accumulation of capital means the accumulation of power in a supposed "anarcho-capitalist" society. As a bourgeoisie, who makes substantial amounts of profit, I am able to employ private militaries to do my bidding. I can even co-opt a contract with many other wealthy bourgeoisie to buy out a private military contract and impose a government of my own, or to enforce hostile takeovers, intimidate, etc. Perhaps I want to do this co-opting to create our own private militia, buy out the stock of the other militias, create a monopoly on militias. Inb4 everyone can start their own business. Keep your utopia arguments in the fiction section.
Rebel flags should be banned.

oh right this changes the debate completley now ... banned in public schools only ? how can you do that they need to learn about it ... never mind. The civil war may have had other reasons to why it started , however the leaders of the south still wanted to keep slavery and refused to take prisoners form the north if they were of african origin. or just not american at all. The first thing i think about when i see a swastica is basically evil , sure i think about it background etc , but is'nt its background not evil ? These t-shirts and flags i admit are worn for a bit of fun and no serious belifes , however groups that are pro-nazi still use the swastica , the KKK still use the rebel flag . this is a debate thats hard to debate because , its hard to put a limit on what or where you can ban it.
Rebel flags should be banned.

("'skinheads' defintion - rascit thugs , who belive that jewish people. ". On a side note, being Jewish is not a race, it's religion. ) (I mean banned from public schools, I apologize for the misunderstanding. ) A common miscoception is that the Civil War was based solely on race. This is false. It was primarily based on two conflicting ideas of how the government should be run. "The South Will Rise Again" is not a belief of every person who has worn a rebel flag T-shirt, I should know, because I have friends that wear them. The flag does not show support for crimes agenst humanity, but serves as a reminder of our history and where we come from. Granted, there are group that use the flag as a symbol for racism and social gangs, however, these are radicals, and their actions should not reflect the piece of history of the Southern flag. There is always going to be a symbol for something negative, like a swastica (once used by the Allies). But when you see a swastica, you think about it's history, where it came from. The first thought in your mind is not that the person will kill Jews, the handicapped, etc.
Rebel flags should be banned.

I think you should clarify what you mean by banned as well , do you mean banned from the public but allowed to be in muesuems etc ? or just banned altogether. the rebel flag of the south should be banned. I belive this because it is a sign of the support of slavery and injustice. I also think that all other flags that support crimes against humanity should be banned. but thats for another debate is'nt it . unless of course you belive that crimes against humanity are OK , then i understand were your coming from. The swastica , perfect example. I live in an area , were over 60 years ago they fought agaisnt the nazis , and thousands of people from my town died fighting them and also the town was destroyed by nazi bombs. yet people from my area are what are known as "skinheads" defintion - rascit thugs , who belive that jewish people and so on should die and the nazi dream is the way forward. Now why ? why would people , support the naizs after they were termend to kill there ancestors and commit crimes agaisnst humanity and murder millions of people. i will tell you why , because they are rascit thugs who still practise being a "nazi" and sometimes kill , and i belive that rascit thugs should go to jail. if they are caught flying the gflag otuside some form of exception of an event etc , throw them in jail . flag of the south , likewise maybe not as extrme still , anybody that flys it and belives the south will rise again etc , is supporting slavery.
Amish need to have less offspring and use the time they would've used to "multiply" to take a bath!!

Why is it important for you that these people stay clean.(clean being a level that you are comfortable with) I personally care little about their hygiene habits because I never have any contact with them. There are smelly people everywhere.Their population is totally insignificant when compared to the numbers of people who live in their vicinity. So what is your point?If you wish them 'gone' then tell us why? Is this conversation about you or them. Are you attempting to be theatrical?My position on these Ams is that they can be as dirty as they like(I doubt that they are) They are peacful, quirky and resourceful and they are a serious attempt at 'bucking the trend' in this modern world. You try doing without electricity for a week while 'bringing in the sheaves' and see how smelly you get!Up the debate with some real content, Please. I want the 7 points so bad that I can smell them.(Oops! taste them) Let's get it on,
Amish need to have less offspring and use the time they would've used to "multiply" to take a bath!!

The amish are soon to take over our communities because they outnumber us vastly. Every time I drive down a country road, my nose turns up because of the nasty smell in the air; not only from the schmoes themselves, but also their livestock. In addition, they slow our commuting by 20% because of their slow horse and buggies. Their offspring also tend to be lacking in at least one of their 5 senses, if not more. On the bright side, they are keeping the wheelchair and hear aid companies in business. However, the amish handicap population require an immense amount of hard labor to push them around. All in all, they have stunk up the world, slowed down our travel time, and increased the amish population by too many in general. Post your thought...
Soy is Detrimental to the Development of Young Men

It's good to have the opportunity to do an in-depth scientific debate. I know that it says the debate is impossible to accept. Please know that I did, in fact, accept this debate fairly after going through the proper procedures and am not cheating in any way by accepting. My opponent's rules, definitions, and allocation of the burden of proof are all perfectly reasonable. I suspect there may well in future be a great number of debates over what exactly a "standard DDO rule" is, but my opponent and I have been around here long enough that I don't think either of us intends to cheat.
Soy is Detrimental to the Development of Young Men

Resolution--Soy is detrimental to the development of young men.--As PRO, I will be affirming this resolution.Burden of ProofI accept full burden of proof. I am therefore tasked with establishing that soy has been shown to have significant negative impacts on the health of men, specifically for young men.DefinitionsAll terms requiring clarification once the debate has started will be defined using the merriam-webster online dictionary definition that best fits the context of this debate [1]. If there is a dispute on which definition best fits the context of this debate, the final arbitration is reserved for myself. -Soy: This stuff [2] -- and the stuff it gets put in.-Young Men: The specific ages aren't critical to this debate, but in general I'll be discussing men/boys under the age of 25-Detrimental: an undesirable or harmful person or thing [3]Rules1. All Standard DDO rules apply2. First round is for acceptance3. Users with Elo under 2800 need not apply4. Any questions on this debate should be asked in the comments section prior to acceptance5. Forfeits are concessionsThis debate is impossible to accept at this time. If you're interested, apply in the comments section. This will not be a first-come first-serve method of acceptance. The higher your ELO ranking, the more likely you are to be accepted as the contender. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Water fluoridation is safe

Thank to Ax123man for his response. Point 1: Conceded, the EPA only regulates fluoride in tap water. Point 2: Neurotoxin There is no generally accepted scientific knowledge establishing a casual relationship between consumption of fluoridated water and central nervous system disorders or effects on intelligence. A seven-year study compared the health and behavior of children from birth through six years of age in communities with optimally fluoridated water with those of children the same age without exposure to optimally fluoridated water. Medical records were reviewed yearly during the study. At age six and seven, child behavior was measured using both maternal and teacher ratings. The results suggested that there was no evidence to indicate that exposure to optimally fluoridated water had any detectable adverse effect on children's health or behavior. These results did not differ even when data was controlled for family social background. [1] Cancer Studies: Conceded as no refutation is given. Point 3: dental fluorosis Still, we only have 22.9% with true dental fluorosis (does not include "questionable" ), and 16.0% of them are very mild. [3] Also, we cannot ignore the fact that there can be natural sources for this, too. Bone fluorosis According to generally accepted scientific knowledge, drinking optimally fluoridated water does not have an adverse effect on the bones. [2] Also, the two animal studies available at this time fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer. [2] However, fluoride has only been used as an experimental therapy for osteoporosis. [2] [1]http://www.tooelehealth.org... [2]http://www.tooelehealth.org... [3]http://www.cdc.gov...
Water fluoridation is safe

But first, I'd like to ensure we agree on the debate. I'm fine with sharing BOP, however I'll point out Pro's resolution, "Water fluoridation is safe", carries a high burden since most people place a high value on their own health. My burden is to show that there is enough evidence that most people, given a solid understanding of the facts, would consider water fluoridation unsafe. Pro did not define Water fluoridation, but I assume we are debating the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. There are naturally occurring sources of water that have fluoride levels above the recommended levels, but that is not the concern of this debate. I concede Pro's points in regard to lethal doses of fluoride. This is not a primary concern. I will however point out that Pro's statements in regards to fluoride levels in water could be somewhat misleading:A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/LWhile this statement is true, this only hints at how much fluoride we actually consume. Fluoride is present in many food items. [1]. We are also exposed to fluoride at various levels in toothpaste and with topical treatments at the dentist. Since 1992 the ADA has required toothpaste manufacturers to include ""Use only a pea-sized amount (of toothpaste) for children under six" on labels. [2]. Overall consumption depends on types of food you eat, how it it processed, how well you monitor our children's brushing, etc. So while I understand the EPA claims regarding the 8mg/l, my arguments are the following:1) The EPA does not know for sure what levels of fluoride we consume2) Recent medical studies refute the EPA claims3) Given the emphasis placed on aesthetics in relation to tooth care these days, I believe many people would consider visible signs of dental fluorosis as "unsafe". Given this is only round 1, I've chosen to mainly introduce the framework of my arguments and leave details for later. I look forward to the next round! [1] . http://www.fluoridedebate.com...[2] . http://www.fluoridedebate.com...
Water fluoridation is safe

I will be arguing that adding fluoride to water is safe, while my opponent will argue that it is not. BOP is shared. Fluoride is toxic in high doses, the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight). [1] If you weigh 160 pounds, you might want to drink at least 80 ounces of water or other fluids per day. [2] 80 Ounces = roughly 2.3 Liters. A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre), depending on climate. [3] 2.3 liters = 2.3 mg. (1.0 x 2.3) (1.0 mg/L is the highest recommended amount) 2.3 mg is 0.0023 grams, which is nowhere near the lethal dose of 5-10 grams. Plus, studies that show that fluoride is dangerous are unreliable. "Scientific literature does not support the claims that fluoride adversely affects the immune system, collagen, glucose metabolism, the integrity of genetic material, causes, attention deficit disorder, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, cancer or AIDS, aggravates kidney disease or hypothyroidism. Anti-fluoridationists and anti-fluoride websites cite "scientific articles", most of which have methodological problems: They are not from reputable peer-reviewed journals and are not obtainable through a medical or dental library They do not deal with the fluoride compounds that are actually used to fluoridate water They study exposure levels way above that possible at 1 ppm dilution of fluoridated water They inappropriately try to extrapolate data from poorly designed animal or bench-top research with no relationship to the levels of fluoride in drinking water." [4] EPA says "There exists no directly applicable scientific documentation of adverse medical effects at levels of fluoride below 8mg/liter."[5] And 8mg/liter is way above the recommended dose of 0.5-1.0, but is still not proven scientifically to do any adverse harm. Fluoride in drinking water cannot harm kids either, as they will need to drink about 20 gallons of water. [6] The person will suffer from water toxicity before actually having an acute reaction to the fluoride. [6] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://nutrition.about.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://fluorideinfo.org... [5]http://fluorideinfo.org... [6]http://fluorideinfo.org...
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

I am sorry that I forfeited last round. I am just having difficulty trying to get myself motivated to write a speech. Against B: He claims that true debate is not knowing what you're debating. But this is not true, sure you can debate on the fly, but when a subject is posted AND THEN is accepted, typical assumption is that you debate that subject. Whether or not I win who hurts the debate world more (however) I still win the resolution and my plan is assumed passed and therefore wins. He is simply non-topical with his plan... Go ahead and flow it through but it holds no weight within this round. Essentially, even if you accept his plan as legitimate, simply weigh them, which is more important, the energy crisis or people not debating or not debating properly. It is sad that it is a white dominated sport (in general) but that is because 1) There are more whites in America and 2) It just seems to interest more white people. Irregardless, other cultures have been known to be THE most persuasive speakers. From Martin Luther King of the past and Barak Obama of the present, everyone who is interested can debate. It is FREE to debate in high school so it's not like there is some overwhelming barrier that prevents everyone from debating. The biggest barrier, however, is poor sport. Such as my partner coming into this round (knowing the resolution) and debating something completely different. It simply comes down to this. Unfairness. More people are intrigued to debate when people don't try to pull "stuff" such as my opponent. I win anything that has to do with plan, economy, or overall benefits. I'm the only one who EVER talked about the resolution and thus I urge you to vote PRO! Thanks