BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can judge me but I can't judge you

I agree with what you said, that "Even with a lot of expertise and minds a consensus can be wrong." It brings to mind historical accounts where the majority of the best minds the world had to offer were wrong (i.e. - geocentrism, "the world is flat," etc.). While major advancements have been made in the last century and a half, it would seem reasonable to assume future generations will look back on us with awe at our overconfidence and lack of knowledge (consider our lack of understanding regarding dark matter and dark energy, or the brain). This appeal to the past I think devalues majority opinions to an extent. Science is inherently inductive, which is an explicit admission toward inherent uncertainty. Nassim Taleb wrote an interesting book on this called "The Black Swan" in which he essentially asserted that control and predictability are illusions. All of this makes me feel somewhat better going about my day and not putting too much stock in others' opinions. If a slew of scientists can be wrong, perhaps my neighbor's judgments can be questioned, if not ignored. Still, a recognition of this idea causes me to question my own judgments and opinions. If so many can be wrong, why not me? And ignoring others' judgments seems to be a stepping stone toward ignorance. I would hate to turn into an overconfident, introspection lacking, self-serving bias jerk off. Perhaps this fear is what drives me to an over-sensitivity regarding others' judgments and opinions. I fear they will be able to see something that I am unable to see. Why this is such an issue for me I'm not sure. Perhaps they are right and I accept it and move on. I guess there's a part of me that feels I may be living a lie, subject to delusions of perceptions not based in reality. Sort of like living in the Matrix or something. Thus I am always second guessing myself, always looking for where I may be wrong. I kind of grafted in a new direction to the debate. However, I think the original question stands, who has the right to judge, and who is obliged to listen? I appreciate you taking on the topic. It's a little bit different, but very fascinating to me. Some other things to consider might be "elitism," "upper-class society," and "academia."
You can judge me but I can't judge you

This is an interesting topic. First I'd like to quote a Japanese saying I recently read regarding experts" sometimes monkeys fall out of trees". There are definitely people who have spent a considerable amount of time on a subject to a point where there judgement is sharper than others. However we're all human and subject to error. I believe it is difficult for any single person to know enough about anything to always have the correct or superior judgement. This is the reason science employs the peer review process. That's why there are trail by juries. Even with a lot of expertise and minds a consensus can be wrong. To some extent absolute discernment is illusive. I'll expound more in the next round. Interesting topic though thanks.
You can judge me but I can't judge you

Rather than for or against, I would like to present this argument as a dialogue. I hope to get some contrasting thoughts on the matter if possible. Do some individuals possess a greater capacity to judge than others? Do their judgments hold more weight, as it were? Certainly, America's judicial system is centered around the idea that a person can develop the capacity to cast more wise judgments than another, hence the Supreme Court. If the ability to judge more correctly can be developed, does it follow that certain individuals have the right to judge me while I lack the right or ability to judge them? In other words, does a person's learning, critical thinking aptitude, and experience give them a greater right to judge than one who is deficient in such qualities? This has lurked in the back of my mind for some time now. It's difficult for me to shake the idea that a well-founded critic merits more consideration. As a result, I tend to be over sensitive to others' opinions, particularly when they appear to possess a high degree of aptitude regarding logic and sheer content knowledge. "Hater's gonna' hate," seems to be a common refute, but what if they are not "hating," but critiquing, and dismissal as "hate" is merely a self-serving tool to restore a sense of satisfaction? Perhaps ignoring their "judgment" is choosing ignorance. I recognize that the argument is only moderately developed, but I would love to get some others' take on this. Thanks!
The World Owes It to Africa to Help Them.

Most are aware of the consistent and ever growing problems facing Africa today. This is a direct result of exploitation, oppression, and terrorism from the West and European countries. I believe we owe it to their nations to repay them for years upon years of authoritarian rule. Just so I am clear when I use "we" in this argument I mean the United States and European countries. It is painfully clear that nothing is being done on this issue and there needs to be. People are being slaughtered on a daily basis with no one to protect them and no country willing to stop it. It needs to be stopped. "If this scale of destruction and fighting was in Europe, then people would be calling it World War III with the entire world rushing to report, provide aid, mediate and otherwise try to diffuse the situation." (http://www.globalissues.org...) This is something we can no longer ignore. How many more people will we allow to die for no reason? Many view the warring countries as "barbaric" and "we're better than them." What makes us better then them? We DID this to them. Since European colonialism Africa has been exploited and manipulated. After the decolonization we just abandoned them. Gave them few or no resources and basically said you're on your own. Because of that Africa has never recovered. As Germany paid reparations for WWI I propose all known colonizers of Africa pay reparations to the African countries they destroyed. I wish good luck to my opponent.
Raise the driving age to 17.

How do test how mature somebody is? According to DMV, ages between 16-19 have the most annual crash rate then ANY age group. Now your probably thinking to yourself "Well since it's 16 to 19, 17 year old get in as much car crashes than 16 year old teens!" But let's think about this logically. If you raise the legal driving age, that takes out an age group, so its only 17-19. Yes 17 year old are still on the "most annual crashes list" but it will make roads safer for all. "Teenage Driver Crash Statistics." Teenage Driver Crash Statistics. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
The English Alphabet Should be Re-Written

Thank you for your speedy response, and, similarly, I apologize for my slow response. ==Rebuttal 1== I'm glad that we can both agree that capitalization has significance. I do, however, believe that having separate capital characters for each letter increases readability and clarity. Capital letters with a different form (A&a, B&b, D&d) are easier to discern as capital letters than the ones that have a larger version of themselves. For instance, I would prefer E&e over ℮&e. As to your second proposal, writing a circumflex over capital letters, this already has many uses[1] and would get extremely confusing to foreign languages. Whatever your remedy, it will not change the fact that a capital letter is easier to discern when it is different form rather than just increased in size (which could possibly be due to handwriting issues as well). ==Rebuttal 2== Let us first define homonym and heteronym. Homonym: One of two or more words that have the same sound and often the same spelling but differ in meaning[2] Heteronym: One of two or more words that have identical spellings but different meanings and pronunciations[3] In my example, we dealt with two words, 'kite' and 'cite'. We both agree that 'kite' would become 'cite' in this new alphabet you have proposed. However, 'cite' would become 'site', and our word 'site' would become ... 'site'. As both 'cite' (in this new alphabet, 'site') and 'site' are pronounced the same, they would be homonyms. I stand by what I said earlier, this would be confusing. As for "each character contains one and only one sound in every circumstance," this would mean more than double the characters just for our vowels. If this is not overwhelming and unnecessary, I do not know what is. And, of course, this goes for several of your ideas. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. ==Sources== 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The English Alphabet Should be Re-Written

On the topic of capitalization, you actually make some very valid points, and I must slightly revise my argument in that sense. Capitalization, as you pointed out, does have some legitimate purposes. However, in the case of alphabetic characters, the method we use to indicate capitalization is overcomplicated. Wouldn't it be simpler, instead of having separate characters for capital and lowercase, to just make all capitol letters exactly the same, just bigger? Or, better, indicate them with an added ^ or other symbol above them? Therefore, I still hold my point that alphabetic capitalization should be revised. As to adding characters, it is true that the more letters would be added to the alphabet. However, the fact that each character contains one and only one sound in every circumstance, I argue, would simplify English phonics more than added characters would complicate it. Keep in mind that the extra letters would only apply to vowels and several letter combinations such as 'ch', 'oo', 'sh', etc. Things like 'qu', 'wr', 'ei' and silent e's would be completely eliminated. Also, having one sound per letter would NOT create heteronyms, like the 'cite' example, but would instead remove them entirely. In this system, 'C' would ONLY make the hard C-sound and the alternative, S-sound, would be made by the character 'S'. So the only way to read "cite" would be "kite" as it is pronounced now. This system would actually eliminate the hundreds of confusing and pointless heteronyms that already exist in the English language. http://richard.tangle-wood.co.uk...
The English Alphabet Should be Re-Written

Hello, and thank you for beginning this debate. I will be arguing the position that the English alphabet should not be re-written. =Rebuttal 1= Although the consonant sounds of the letters 'K', 'Q', and 'X' do have alternative letters that could reproduce the same sound, these letters are more efficient and straightforward in their direction of pronunciation. For example: The word 'Kite' is pronounced with a hard 'C' sound. If we were to change it to the letter that makes the same sound ('C'), we would have 'Cite', which holds a different meaning. The 'K' sound is more direct in its pronunciation as the hard 'C'. As this is not the only example of an alternative letter creating a confusing homonym, I will conclude that the exchange of letters would be unnecessary and overwhelming. =Rebuttal 2= This ties into Rebuttal 1. Since some letters do make different sounds, the 'extra' letters you mentioned earlier would need to be in place. You argue that we have extra letters that could easily be exchanged with a different letter, but now these different letters can only hold one pronunciation, effectively necessitating the 'extra' letters. These two arguments cannot be claimed in their current form. =Rebuttal 3= Capitalization is necessary to retain conformity and ease of reading. The University of South Carolina says it best, "rules regarding the capitalization of certain words ... are driven by our desire to maintain readability, clarity, and consistency."[1] Capitalized letters denote significance within the English language. They even help define titles. Take the following: "I read before sleep." Did you mean you read before you fell asleep, or did you read the book "Before Sleep"?[note 1] Italicizing or underlining may help in a certain situations, but you could be stressing the preposition. Capitalization is necessary. =Sources= 1. http://www.sc.edu... =Notes= 1. http://books.google.com...
The English Alphabet Should be Re-Written

The English language has evolved from numerous other languages and has been adapted over time as has been needed. However, one problem with this method for creating a language is that there is no formal review process to create the most effective and efficient language. Re-writing the alphabet would make English both more efficient to write and easier to learn. The following are some current problems with the English alphabet as it stands now: -Letters, such as K, Q, and X, are completely unnecessary. All words in the English language could be written without them. All they do is make English more complicated. -Letters make different sounds depending on their context. This itself is one of the most difficult aspects of learning English. All letters should be assigned one particular sound, and new characters should be created for common sound variations. -Capitalized letters are unnecessary. Capitalization does not add any new information into a piece of writing, making it completely irrelevant.
10. While under moral conflict, increasing benefits ought to be preferred to decreasing costs.

Please extend all of my arguments from the last round into this one. All of them still stand, and they haven't been negated by my opponent. I have won this debate because I effectivly built offense in my favor, which still stands, and responded to the claims made by my opponent. I would also like to cross-refrence my statement from R2, when I said that my opponent has little to no offense. I have proved several reasons why increasing benefits is preferable to lowering costs. Thus, as there is no reason not to that was presented by my opponent, you have no choice but to vote PRO. Finally, I find it unfair that my opponent will be able to respond to my arguments without my response. She was given the same amount of time as I was, and she forfeited. Now, I have to waste a round like she did. Although, she gets the final say without me being able to respond to it.
DDO Members Union (Pro) vs. DDO Revolution Party (Con)

*This is a troll debate, agreed between me and my opponent. Do not vote seriously*Reasons why the DDO Revolutionary party is better then the DDO Members Union------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. We got numbersA. The DDO Revolution Party has superior numbers to the DDO Member congress.Bubbas group consists of 3 people...- Himself- RebelRebelDixieDixie01/ A notorious troll- A banned member named HM - Nebami B. Members signed up for the DDO Revolution party...- Jifpop09 (Supreme Leader)- Comrade Silly Otter (President)- Zarotte (Vice President)- Romanii (Consul of State)- Stalin (Supreme Commander)- LuckyStars (Party coordinator/Treasurer)- Subutai (Head of Streltsy/Secret Police) - BucketHead (Grand Ambassador)- Yay824 (The Nuke Guy)- Solar (Lower Official)- ActionSpeak(Lower Official) - YewRose (Lower Official)- Donald Keller (Lower Official)- Tophatdoc (Even though he will deny it he's signed up)- The Warrior (Lead Enforcer)- ProgressiveDem (The Drone Guy)- Gaurdian Rock (Enforcer)- BettaBreeder (Enforcer)- Theguywhoknowsnothing (Enforcer)- Soulja_N (Enforcer)- Russian Federista ( Multi account of Rebel Dixie)*Many of these people joined via pm or asked me to sign them up*http://www.debate.org... 2. We are honest about are goals...A. Bubba claims he will instill a fair system that will respect everyones beliefs, but it is all a lie. Put an end to biased votingEnforce tough laws against sexually explicit material/language on Debate.orgCrack down on profanity on Debates, Forums, Polls, and OpinionsHe will lie to you, and pretend you have a say, but he will really just become a dictator. The DDO Revolution Party is above his capitalist trickery. Unlike the Facist, we will be upfront over our control, but unlike Bubba, we will for a anarchy forum, where you will be free to post without moderation. DDO Pirate Republichttp://www.debate.org...Oh, and miniguns for everybody 3. Increased ModerationA. I bet we are all sick of people like madness and bgreen making offensive polls and adding nudity. THEY WILL BE CRUSHED.- No more one day bans.- No more obscene comments.- Every ban will be accompanied by a picture of a chick and a catchy song. http://www.youtube.com...4. We will send anyone you don't like to DDO Bay A. Someone you don't like, that's just fine. We will take care of it. We shall restrict all actions on the website to a specifically made Prison Forum. Their, trolls will congregate in peace, out of everyone else's way. *We took care of Big Bird and Osama*5. I will win this because I said so!!!!
DDO Members Union (Pro) vs. DDO Revolution Party (Con)

The Debate.org Members Union (AKA DDO Members Union) is an organization that was founded on March 1, 2014. It was formerly known as the Troll Hunting Society, but after an hour or two of its existence its name was changed to the current name. The Union was inspired by Jifpop's "DDO Revolution Party," but it is an entirely separate organization. Anybody, regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, and political stances, may join the Union simply by saying they wish to join. The DDO Members Union seeks to gain control of Debate.org and initiate the following reforms: 1. Put an end to biased voting 2. Enforce tough laws against sexually explicit material/language on Debate.org 3. Crack down on profanity on Debates, Forums, Polls, and Opinions 4. Create a petition system, where Debate.org members may create petitions to the people who maintain and regulate this site. An official response from the Site would be required if 50 or more people signed such a petition. Note: More objectives may be added with time. We the people of the DDO Members Union believe in creating a fair, safe. and healthy environment for everyone who wishes to debate the issues of today, as well as the issues of yesterday and tomorrow. Support our movement as a member if you wish to see change on Debate.org, because we are the generation that will make change. I now hand the (imaginary) microphone over to Jifpop09, founder and leader of the DDO Revolution Party, which is the rival movement to the DDO Members Union. May the better movement win in the end.
Chocolate milk should be served in school!!!

Chocolate milk should not be served in schools. There are many reasons to say so. First, normal milk already has 12 grams of sugar in it. Chocolate milk has 30 grams of sugar. According to the Coco-Cola company, that's more than a mini can of coke, which has 25 grams of sugar. That means a small container of chocolate milk has around 20% more sugar than soda. Also, when kids drink chocolate milk every day at school, they get nearly two gallons of extra sugar per year, according to Jamie Oliver. Having too much sugar is bad for you- men should have 37.5 grams of sugar per day, while women should have 25 grams per day. Second, schools spend a lot of money on chocolate milk. In 2010, four of Florida's biggest school districts spent 13 million dollars on chocolate milk. They could have used that money for more important things for education. What do you think is better, flavored milk, or a better learning environment? It's obvious which choice is better. In conclusion, I believe chocolate milk should not be served in schools. It has too much sugar and too much money spent on it. Many people would agree.
Chocolate milk should be served in school!!!

When you think of chocolate milk, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? The soft, creamy taste? The happy kids having fun while drinking it? Well, you would be suprised to know that, chocolate milk is in fact, healthy for kids too. First of all, chocolate milk has all 9 essential ingriedients. It has calcium, which makes the kids grow taller, and also the sweet taste, unlike white milk which some kids can call "yucky" or "too plain". I know what you are thinking, that it causes obesity and stuff, but then, kids are kids. They run around the playground at lunchtime, so there is not a big chance that they will turn suddenly obtuse just because they drink chocolate milk. Now, you night think that there are too much sugar, but the truth is, The little bit of sugar is what keeps them going during the day and keeps them energetic and healthy. There are more reasons, but for now, this is it. I hope you vote for me!
global warming is cause by humans

Scientists have concluded that most of the observed warming is very likely due to the burning of coal, oil, and gas. This conclusion is based on a detailed understanding of the atmospheric greenhouse effect and how human activities have been tweaking it. At the same time, other reasonable explanations, most notably changes in the Sun, have been ruled out. The atmospheric greenhouse effect naturally keeps our planet warm enough to be livable. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere. Light-colored surfaces, such as clouds or ice caps, radiate some heat back into space. But most of the incoming heat warms the planet's surface. The Earth then radiates some heat back into the atmosphere. Some of that heat is trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2). Human activity--such as burning fossil fuels--causes more greenhouse gases to build up in the atmosphere. As the atmosphere "thickens" with more greenhouse gases, more heat is held in. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas are high in carbon and, when burned, produce major amounts of carbon dioxide or CO2. A single gallon of gasoline, when burned, puts 19 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
global warming is cause by humans

My opponent has many links that say that the Global heating of the earth is due to human activity.(1) If this is so why is mars heating up as well?(2) My opponent has proved that the earth is warming but has failed to prove that it is the humans fault. He claims that it is the increase of carbon dioxide. If this is so then why are Neptune, Mars, and Pluto heating up as well. (3)(4) Because of this we can conclude that global warming is because of other matters in our solar system and not carbon dioxide like my opponent has been saying. (1)http://news.nationalgeographic.com... (2)http://www.livescience.com... (3)http://wattsupwiththat.com... (4)http://web.mit.edu...
Why Fast Food Can Be Substantial To The Recovering Economy

Well, this Tax increase would add onto previous taxes, thus providing a psychologically induced thought if it being more expensive, causing consumers to divert there money into other sources of food. And, also, many companies will still give company health insurance, meaning the government health insurance wont matter. Also, many people who buy fast food frequent enough to get health problems can't afford health insurance. Onto your questions: -Most likely 6-8%, which would amount to millions -No -Companies that are taxed on there food usually have to do cutbacks, which in the long run loose a lot of money, causing CEO Heads to loose good amounts of money -No, but we live in a country that allows us to eat and drink what we want, and obesity can only be solved by obesity stricken citizens who want to change there ways.