BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate.org should have an ignore list

I think this debate will come down to deciding whether the benefits of not debating certain people outweigh the possible costs associated with an ignore list. My opponent argues that "debates are for the public and the public have the option to debate or not". Debates on this sight is chiefly for the debaters. As I mentioned in my opening argument, people come to this site in order to practice their debate skills and to learn. There are many active debaters on this site who fail to meet deadlines. I'd say about 1/4 of the debates I see have at least one round forfeited. This ruins the structure of the debate and the fairness of it and it impedes education. There is also plenty of variance in the skill levels of debaters here. Some people don't read the other debater's point and there is no clash, while some elucidate every sentence and provide several definitions per topic. One cannot learn much as far as debating skills go if there is no clash. One cannot learn many intellectual facts if evidence is not presented. One also cannot respond effectively to debates if the opponent has thought out their position much longer than you have. Much like debate organizations have novice and varsity levels for these competitive reasons, debate.org can have an ignore list that solves many of these problems. If an exact site like this was put up that had an ignore list I am sure many members would migrate over there as these no shows are very annoying and anti educational. I love this site and I hope that it can implement features that keep it up and make it better.
Debate.org should have an ignore list

I, like others go to this site as a way to browse debates/topics in the effort of learning about debates/topics. Sometimes we participate in our own debates. The key here is that we go to this site to learn. Recently I have observed many debate.org debaters either purposefully forfeiting rounds or abandoning debates or not even responding to the arguments made in the opening speech. This turns into a waste of time for people like me who really want to learn about a broad array of topics. I advocate adding an ignore list that applies to debates you post (so these ignorees cannot choose to debate you in the challenge period) and/or that applies to the viewable debates (so we do not have to waste ten minutes reading the speeches to realize there no actual clash). I look forward to a rebuttal.
A god can beat vi_spex at a debate

My point was that god can create absolutes like love and wisdom. If you claim that arguments are absolutes, and if god can create absolutes, then he can create an argument. God is also omniscient (all knowing) as I have already pointed out. God wouldn't prefer to debate you since he is too intelligent to do so. Judging by the fact that you lost over 175 debates he would be uninterested in debating you. But he still CAN beat you in a debate considering the fact that he is much smarter than you are. Please specify what my lack of comprehension is. You can't just state that I lack comprehension without simply telling me why. There are also no sources from your arguments, thus making it hard to believe you. By the way, you misinterpreted my use of the word "sound". I am using it as an adjective, not a noun. Sound- "free from mistakes : showing good judgment" I am basically claiming that you do not have a solid argument. You are making up your own logic by claiming that God cannot argue with your argument "now is true". Why is that? I used a source from a .org website (which are among the reliable type) to prove that God is omniscient. He would be smart enough to counter your claim. Not to mention, if I can argue with your claim, an omniscient being definitely can. Now-"at the present time" True-"real or genuine" "Only the present is real" is what you try to claim. Which is false. If the past isn't real, nothing ever happened. If the future is not real, nothing will happen. The future turns into the present and the past. The present turns into the past. There is no present without a past or future to compare it to. For example, if the past wasn't real, your previous arguments don't exist. But how come I see your arguments? Because they are real. And what if God created both good and evil? Both are absolutes as shown in the definition in my previous argument. In "The Bible", Isaiah 45:7, God says: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" If he makes peace, there truly has to be good. He also stated himself that he created evil. Sources: 1]http://i.word.com... 2]http://i.word.com... 3]http://i.word.com... 4]https://www.biblegateway.com...
A god can beat vi_spex at a debate

i know sound, dont have to believe in it please improve on your comprehension, as there Is a total lack going on if there was any knowledge of god, god would necessarily be true.. god is imaginary god can not make the future, true, and now false, Thus if i say, only now is true, not a even a god can argue with that.. also god can not create a World in which there is no evil, as evil is in contrast with good, evil can not exist if good doses not
A god can beat vi_spex at a debate

Thank you for responding. And now for some brief points: -Really? Are you not even going to prove your argument is sound by using sources? -Round 1 is only acceptance, not arguments. By doing this, you're throwing your conduct point straight out of the window. -Please improve on your grammar. Absolute- "A value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things: good and evil are presented as absolutes" An absolute has a connection with God. Love, wisdom, knowledge, and power are all conditions that God himself characterizes. If God (or any other god) was interested in debating you, then he would be able to create his own argument, which is an absolute. Since he's also omniscient, he is much smarter than you and would defeat you in a debate. Sources: 1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...(philosophy)
Veganism is morally required.

Thanks for your response, although it was pretty difficult to understand. I will dismantle it. In regards to your first point (although this popped up a few times): the majority of land that we used to grow various plants foods on (i.e. grains) is not being used to feed people - it is being used to feed animals. Over half of the land in the United States alone (and 40% world-wide) that is being used to grow food goes directly to animals so that we may, in turn, eat them (http://www.news.cornell.edu...). With the land we are using to feed animals, we could feed 800 million people directly in the United States alone. So any notion that a transition to veganism would cause a lack of space for food production is both absurd and ignorant. In fact, many researchers (see the above argument) are beginning to agree that animal-based diets are unsustainable for this reason. It simply does not make sense to spend such a tremendous amount of time, energy, and resources to raise animals just so that we can eat them when we could, instead, go directly to the source. Up to 90% of energy derived from food is lost between trophic levels, so it makes sense for us to eat plants directly (plus it's more energy- and cost-efficient). "What are we going to do with all the animals?" Stop breeding them. The only reason so many cows, pigs, and chickens exist is because we breed them like mad in order to eat them. Stop breeding them and the problem is (almost) solved. As for the remaining animals, we could simply put them on a nice pasture somewhere and let them die peacefully in their "natural" habitat. This is only one option. I'd also like to point out that I requested initially that this debate be more theoretical in regards to the morality of veganism and I feel that a lot of these points are more specific "what if" questions that aren't all that pertinent. Not really sure what the third point is all about. Yes, it's true that it's nearly impossible to live 100% vegan in the technical sense (i.e. killing bugs while driving). Still, there's an obvious distinction between intentionally and systematically killing billions of mammalian and avionic animals every year for no other reason than pure selfishness and accidentally killing a mosquito. "Human suffering" I found this pretty ridiculous, and it was purely anecdotal. When I first transitioned to veganism I found it difficult because I was used to an animal-based diet. Now I love a lot of the foods it has to offer. If we lived in a vegan society and grew up eating those foods, we'd already enjoy them. But this point is extremely irrelevant in my opinion. Plants do not feel pain: http://www.theguardian.com... I'd like to point out that my opponent largely ignored most of my requests laid out initially. He also failed to address the points I brought up and simply made up some of his own. I have refuted them, but the fact is that he did not challenge any of my premises so my conclusion follows necessarily. Please vote fairly. Thanks.
Veganism is morally required.

All respect, before i get into why i oppose against this i just want to let you know that this is not a personal hate or im doing this because i love meat, and as my personal life i am a Vegetarian aka what you would call me as a Pescetarian ( i eat fish only). There is so much i can opposed against veganism but i see the only conclusion you can come up with is " animal suffering" which is horrible that animals have to suffer but let me tell you why veganism isn't fully required from a moral point of view because of animal suffering. 1. its impossible to balanced it out to save animals and have our food sources Say we all become vegan, all this is going to do is cause the farmers to expand land and slowly kill animals due to us taken their land and they will die a slow painful death 2. "what we will do with the animals that are now being taken cared of but due to not being able to afford to take care of them without profit ?" what we going to do ? set them out free? put them in the wild so they can get eaten ? this will mean that we will be killing millions of animals anyway plus spend loads of money to get transportation 3. "Veganism doesn't always mean your saving animals", by buying someone else meat supports animal killing, by using pieces of paper support animal killing, we do not need paper to survive. eating grains fruit and vegetables together support animal killing, your conclusion basically saying because we do not need meat to survive its morally wrong to kill them for that, but then most vegan eat fruits but at the same time you do not need fruit to have a healthy diet or to survive do not matter if it kills less then people who eat meat its still morally wrong because you choose to eat it for your own selfish reasons, 4. "Human suffering" and limited food sources i say human suffering because even me as Pescetarian i find a lot of diets very extremely nasty now imagine someone who already isn't to fund of veggies and then no dairy products as well ???? Wow i dont know how much more the prices are just compare to vegan cheese and regular cheese lol i think to a lot people this would be a very very depression phase Trying to save animals is never going to work out make everyone a vegan we need 50 times more land even if we replace them with plantation that had animals to eat them we are still going to kill animals just in another form ! You said animals do not suffer like humans do and plants do not either but you know its possible that plants can feel pain as well do you want to save them too ?????????
Veganism is morally required.

I'm assuming a loose basis for morality that is founded roughly in the no-harm principle, but nothing too specific. I'm arguing that we, as moral beings, have an obligation to adopt a vegan diet. More specifically, I'm only arguing that those who can adopt a vegan diet should do so - that is, those who can access food in a way such that they are sustained and kept healthy. That being said, this is meant to be more theoretical, though sources and specifics are okay, just don't make it the entire basis of your argument.
economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

I understand that this was intended to be an LD debate round, meaning that the affirmative goes last, so I won't post an argument this round. I don't feel I need to, anyway. My opponent's case is nothing but a long list of unsubstantiated and marginally-related claims, and her rebuttals are no more than her restating these unproven claims and ignoring every argument I make.
economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

last rebuttal okay what i mean by the quote is that by enforcing sanctions you are taking away peoples freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! forget slavery that is not what we are discussing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the point that make no sence (i am sorry if i was vague) what i mean by that is when my opponent said that HE could not think of any instance when this had been done in the past i was simply saying that since this has not been done , that is why sanctions have not worked. now to the point about costs: it cost money to deploy , feed, and provide water and protection for military forces. of the some 500 sanctions how many of those have worked? We have also sanctioned Iraq for decades, yet we've allowed Iraq to trade with any other country. yes but you will notice that we are currently at war with iraq. oh and when in my argument have i said that abraham lincolin condemed sanctions, my opponent is trying to make something out of nothing. voter issues: 1) my opponent completely dropped an essential point, the one about how sanctions kill people and that it is not worth the costs NOT ONLY IN MONET, BUT IN LIVES. 2)my opponent really elaborates on the abraham lincolin point but never shows that non-violence is not as effective as sanctions or that sanctions would be better to use than non-violence. as my opponent said: In LD, silence is consent so i feel that i have proven that the costs of sanctions is not worth it and that non-violence in the past has been more effective , for the reasons listed above and the voter issues, i ask you to vote affirmative , thank you ps-sorry,guess i could have checked your profile to figure that out.
You Choose (But must be related to baseball)

1.My opponent argues that baseball with knives would be more fun to watch than baseball with Baseballs, but can you quantify fun, or prove this? No, you cannot. 2.My opponent also argues that it would allow a larger age range to play, but you would have to show that mothers of teenagers would allow their children to throw knives at each other, or that a greater number of people would want knives thrown at them instead of balls. 3.My opponent argues that money saved on baseball would be put towards more useful purposes, but can you prove this? There are no benefits to using knives instead of balls, and my opponent has not fulfilled their burden of proof.
You Choose (But must be related to baseball)

I honestly don't like the way you made that debate arguement, but I'll be a sport. There are plenty of benefits to the possibility of the use of knives in the game of baseball. We could develope the game of baseball into a combination of both baseball and the Hunger Games. Here are some reasons this would be benificial: 1. So many people complain about how boring it is to watch baseball. But if you were to "throw" knives, with a twist of hunger Games into the equation, it would be SO much more fun. 2. It would provide a much larger age range for the playing of the game. Even teenagers could play, because so many people would die during the course of each game. 3. There wouldn't be so much money spent on the sport. Since of course the player starts out with hardly aything. Therefore this money could be used more appropriately. Like (for instance) be put towards the national debt.
Pokemon is Better Than Yu-Gi-Oh

Before the debate I apoligize for the wait and thank my oponent for her great rebutle. While I agree that the originality of pokemon is running low, there is still not much origonallity with YGO. YGO consists of, as my oponent agrees with, mostly dragons, and creatures that rip eachother apart. It is a violent game, and should not be subjected to the likes of the children. I must admit that I agree with the rest of the next paragraph on originality. It was well said. My oponent then argues that stardust dragon (if i'm correct on it's name) is better than Venomoth,(http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...) a moth type pokemon (obviosly from it's name). The point of pokemon was trying to make kids think pokemon looked cool, but the point of it was also for kids to see the easy analogies between pokemon and real life things, to make it more beleivable. They tried for the majority of pokemon to be simple and easy to understand what they were symbolizing. YGO, on the other hand, has also changed from it's original ways. At first, there was only normal and effect monsters. Then, they developed fusion monsters. Simple enough. Then, came ritual monsters. Ok, still easy to understand. Now, they have added synchro summons, "xyz" summons, fusions between other fusion, synchro, and XYZ monsters, and even summoning a lot of powerful effect monsters cost special tributes. For example, VWXYZ dragon catipult cannon is a fusion monster that fuses a fusion monster that involves 3 monsters and one that involves 2 monsters. There is also Armityle the Chaos Phantom, which involves fusing 3 God type monsters that each take 3 monsters to summon. This is simply to hard to summon, and to build children up and then knock them down by a spell or trap card teaches them that no matter how hard they try, they can still be easily defeated very easily. My oponent then argues about the age rating of the game and show. Obviosly, kids these days don't follow the age advised. Kids these days watch south park and family guy for fun, and obviosly dont follow it. I'm sure my oponent can agree on that. I agree with my oponent in that simplicity is preferable, because having a game that is so confusing is often not chosen over a game that is simple and easy to understand. She then argues that there is a "best move" in YGO. But YGO only has attack and defense, with no room to choose a certain attack, while pokemon has the opurtunity to learn for attacks that can create combos and still add to simpler, easyer to understand mechanics of a card game. YGO, like my oponent states, only consists of a card game and an unpopular show. For pokemon, the show is obviosly more popular, so is the game, but it is true that the card game isn't, but the videogame is the main focus, and that is where it leaves YGO in the tracks.
Pokemon is Better Than Yu-Gi-Oh

Before I start, I thank my oponent for such strong arguments and rebutles and Is able to defend her case very well. "they have no imagination now. Pidove? That's like a gay and retarded version of Pidgey." First, to attack this sentence in particular, of course ther is imagination. They have monsters that look like moths, dragons, birds, plants, dogs, other animals, and even rocky creatures filled with details. There is TONS of imagination. While YGO does as well, they all consist of creepy pictures and monsters that should not be exposed to children of such a young age as they are intended for. Pokemon has no monsters that are scary enough to scare children. While even "Ghost" and "Dark" types are regarded as meaner or "evil" so to speak, they are all still cute and in the show can be tamed easily to be nice and kind. And "Gay and Retarded version of Pidgey" has two problems. First of all, Gay and retarded is rather offensive and should not be used, and to show how much better is on the child mind, it is a pidgey with a heart on its face [1]. It is shown as much more kind and not gory compared to that of YGO. Secondly, her source for this is her "12 year old cousin". Why does this source support any alibi? A twelve year old speaking that way is absurd [obviously from playing too much YGO :) ], and is not a reliable source. On that note, most if not all of her sources are invalid. Own experience isn't enough for proof. The picture of the black man playing YGO is to make fun of it, not to show how adults play it. It's in a library to further show the comedic effect of being a "Nerd" and playing YGO, not to show how adults play it. And the gamespot link is a forum where it is biased on peoples opinions, not facts. And ill get to the common knowledge one. As for the graphic conflict, the Glitch is supposed to screw up your game, because it is a hack. It will mess up your game is not endorsed. And by graphic, I meant blood and violence. As for the cheat, it is not licensed nor endorsed by Nintendo. It was made by people wanting to enhance the games gameplay to new heights. The producers for the Game did not make glitch city, a glitch is "a sudden instance of malfunctioning or irregularity in an electronic system" [2]. It is not produced that way, it was not intended to be there. It is "irregular" as stated in the definition. And I have not looked into the 'glitch city' thing, and did not even know it existed, whil im sure many other children don't know about either. I would aprectiate some evidence of this, such as pictures and sites on it. But i'm sure the producres of a kid's game would never endourse drugs. As for drug stores, they sell gum and comic books in real life, and are not filled with drugs, and neither is the mart in pokemon. As for the Anti-Christian topic and the rest of the speech, I will get to that in my next rebutle, but it would take too long to tackle now. I again thank my oponent for her strong case and look forward to her rebutle. :) [1] http://www.google.com... [2http://dictionary.reference.com...