BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I should be President of DDO!

Never thought I would see the day this debate comes around, but alright ill give it a shot. 1) Is it necessarily wise to vote for the person who did not declare he was running for the presidency until the very last day? We dont know you name, what youve contributed already to DDO, what you would change about the site and whether or not it would be for better or for worse, or even what you think is wrong with the website. Why should we vote for someone we didnt know literally a single thing about?2) Well on here the point of having a VP is to bring more credibility to your campaign. Usually candidates select someone who is also well known and has contributed to the site in some way much like the US political system today. It isnt supposed to be a winner and runner up win system because often candidates have completely different views on how this site should be run or changed. Why risk putting two people in power who are going to spend more time trying to have their will imposed instead of actually seeing what is wrong with this site....3) I can guarantee that nobody on here cares about the religious affiliation of the candidate.... Religion also doesnt necessarily contribute to the site....4) You have 6 friends on this entire website, Innomen has over 450, how exactly are you more qualified as a people's candidate then Innomen, or for that matter any other candidate?Do we want to make history? - This site is 4 years old lets just keep going and hope the site maintains its integrityDo we want a true peoples president? - No I want someone to run this thing for me so I dont have to worry about itThe answer is, yes! - Have you actually asked this to other people who have replied yes? if so which of your 6 friends said yes?Vote for tyler90az, an average DDO member! - Average is not the best word you want to use to describe why you are qualified to runVote Imabench.............. for the debate. Not for presidency Im not running, vote for Innomen for president. :)
I should be President of DDO!

Vote for me, tyler90az! I didn't campaign because I am a president for the people by the people. We can make DDO a better place together. I support you and recognize that we as DDO members can work together to create an outstanding community. I support what you support. We can make history together. 1. We can take part in history by electing a president who did not declare till the last day. 2. We can take part in history by having the first people voted vice president. Whichever president comes second in voting we will have as VP. 3. We can show how smart and educated we are by having tolerance and electing a Mormon president. 4.We can take part in history by electing a president that is actually for the people. For any decision that needs to be made or problem that arises, there will be a forum post, where everyone's voices can be heard. Do we want to make history? Do we want a true peoples president? The answer is, yes! Vote for tyler90az, an average DDO member!
Oops! An awkward error occured.

Again, my burden is not to prove that the error is real. My burden is soley to show that my opponent's reasoning is false. Pro is attempting to argue something that 99% of users would dismiss as false, so his reasoning must be very convincing.I will NOT be going easy, as that isn't my style. With that out of the way, I hope you did some research on the site, admins, and a bunch of other things. You need all the information you can get to prove your conspiracy theory to be accurate.Rebuttal:"DDO's royalty is no different from any other tyrant that extinguishes free speech" I demand evidence. How are the admins tyranny? I would still like an example of a debate that wasn't posted because of the supposed "admin tyrants"."I do not expect your brainwashed mind to side with me, could not care less if you don't." Brainwashed? How, and when? I certainly wasn't thrown into a room, and tortured. You can't just make statements, or else they're just statements."The future will be your problem, fool." This is an ad homonym attack, and outright irrelevant. If anything, the future of this debate would be worrisome for Pro, since he has yet to actually provide evidence supporting his statements.Argument:Lack of evidence:The burden rests entirely on Pro. In Round 1, I've said everything that's needed to be said. He needs to prove that 1) the error is actually an excuse, and 2) that the admins are evil.So far, he's proven absolutely nothing. All he did was make claims. Now that I think about it, he might've gotten a few (consecutive) errors before, so he made this debate. But, if you make a debate, evidence is needed.Statement + Logic + Evidence = Fact = I must refuteStatement - Evidence = False = Loss for ProEvidence - Reasoning = Fake = Loss for ProI hope the math above helps Pro understand. He only has 1 round remaining. I kind of doubt he did resaerch, and just made this debate out of frustration.(Also, if the admins are blocking debates, why not this very one?)
Oops! An awkward error occured.

I'll accept. The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the admins are horrible, and refuse some debates being published. I may or may not have came across an error like Pro's describing a long time ago.Here's what Pro needs to prove to meet the burden.1) It's not an actual error.2) The admins are refusing to upload some debates (examples are needed).Pro will definitely need to do some digging, since it's not that obvious. As for my burden, all I need to do is prove Pro's arguments are false, as everybody will believe it's an actual error. And keep in mind, I will not go easy.If Pro runs away/forfeits all rounds, I'll win instantly.
Students must not communicate personally with their school teachers via social networking websites

"I agree that teachers should be close to their students in order to motivate them but I can't see why they should do it privately..." Some teachers do better when they listen to their students in private. Mine talked to me in private to avoid people judging me for my beliefs. "Yes, of course there are some young teacher whose age is close to the one of some of their students, but the topic is not "Does the difference in the age affect a relationship?". We have to do with MINORS and dating minors isn't everywhere legal! Even if a parent approves such a relationship we can not allow it exist between a student and his/her teacher! A teacher must not show more interest in some of her students let alone to have a personal relationship with them. This is why teachers usually avoid teaching in their child's classroom ( I don't say that they don't in some cases this is something inevitable)." My teachers showed more interest in me and it wasn't romantic. I've had them set the standard for allowing students to pass: "work hard and i will pass you, slack off and you will fail." On top of that, i'm sure that teachers should recognize that they'd be doing their student a favor if they let him or her fail which rarely happens due to Bush's "no child left behind" act. I think teacher-student relationships can work given that there is co-operation. "Teachers don't do anything bad since what they do is legal but they are obliged to teach students that such habits are not recommended. And the teaching will not be effective if students know that the teachers do the things they tell them not to do as I have already said. Why should students know their teachers' habits? Why should we have this problem?" Exactly, why should students know about what teachers do in their personal lives and more importantly, why is he/she going out with so and so in class outside of school boundaries? Pro agrees that it is acceptable at the last part, but then disagrees?
Students must not communicate personally with their school teachers via social networking websites

The fact that we can't check their conversations doesn't mean that what they talk about is immoral. Not all students are considered "children. " I was about the same age as some teachers. On top of that, in the state of my residence, dating minors is legal with parents consent. There's many things teachers do having little to do with student learning such as throwing parties and hugging students, should we also stop those? In this state, students under the age of 18 have some accountability, so it's dangerous to assume they are "victims ", plus measures can be taken to ensure that the relationship is far away from school. The fact that teachers are seen smoking shows they're not suitable for teaching. I seen enough teachers break professional barriers whether intentionally or not. Teachers should date students so long as the student no longer studies there.
Students must not communicate personally with their school teachers via social networking websites

In my opinion the communication between students and their school teachers via social networks is an unacceptable phenomenon that we should prevent from happening. Acceptance first.. P.S.: HERE FOLLOWS AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: As I wrote in the title, we should avoid the PERSONAL communication between teachers and students. Their participation in public discussions that can be seen by everyone is not only acceptable for me but I also recommend such actions.
Resolved: Flying is a better superhero trait then unfailing sexual leer

As an almost militant believer in brain over brawn as a prioritising factor in life I will be interested to see my viewpoint challenged in this debate.I definitely accept.Also, I want you to admit that the love guru can both make themselves fall in love with someone who initially disgusts them and also can make anyone they want fall in love with themselves as person 'x' can even be themselves.I also request that the love guru's power includes the ability to turn their leering power off and so to switch fof the artificial form of love in anyone they enticed it in. I think this is only fair as an irreversible power stands no chance against a reversible power such as flight.If, however, you wish to say 'no' to that request then so be it, I still will explain how the gain of flying, especially in a society where it's socially freaky to do so, is in no way a benefit and would only result in one being a lab rat.
Resolved: Flying is a better superhero trait then unfailing sexual leer

Definitions: 1. Unfailing sexual leer: The ability of said person (x) to entice anyone into sexual desire towards said person (x). So at the leer of said person identified as X anyone will fall into a deep never ending desire towards X. 2. Flying: The ability to levitate, accelerate, decelerate, and manuver. Much in the same way Superman is depicted to fly.3. Better: Overall more favorable in ways that the debaters can show throughout the debate, I. E aiding in world domination. To be of more use to said person X. I have no idea why I started this debate and currently have no pre-prepaired points so I feel this will be a fun and interesting debate. Thanks to whoever accepts. The Burden of proof is obvioulsy shared. Good luck!
gay scout participants

Notes - Con has failed to refute my point from the previous round:-Scouts isnt about sexuality.(Homo or Hetero)======================================================Rebuttals -#1 If they want to continue to get government support then they must be open to all boys, gay, atheists, etc. If they do not open up to everyone then they should stop getting government support. BTW, homosexuals are now accepted as scouts (not scoutmasters), but atheists are not yet allowed.I don't see how government funding is relevant to the debate. Pro is simply stating his predictions about what will happen if Gay Scouts/Scoutmasters are not allowed to participate. The funding of boy scouts has nothing to do with why gay scouts should have the right to join. #2Who cares if its messed up Why would you even want to be part of it if it does not accept gays? Imagine you have a PRIVATE club you made, one were you can feel amoungst like minded people, then someone comes along and forced you to let people into your PRIVATE club. Its not like its members make money, its just for fun really. Pro has made an argument against why gays shouldn't join. And refuted it by saying who cares? it's just for fun.-BSA is a non-profit organization. Run by mostly graduated scouts and scout parents. They are the ones being forced to let Gay scouts join because of public and government pressure. They should have the right to choose who is allowed to join BSA because they are the ones spending their time organizing everything.#3Pro is biased against Scoutmasters stating that they should not join. In the last sentence Pro states that -There is a big difference between a gay scout being allowed in boy scouts and a gay leader in scouts. Gay leaders not to be jugging but a gay leader is more likely to be sexually active with other male participant.I would like for Pro to elaborate on this. Personally I think gay leaders would be more suited to join scouting since they would be more sexually mature and LESS likely to engage in sexual activity. ================================================Arguments#1 - Gay scouts will be encouraged to engage in sexual activityThis is another problem with avowed homosexuals in scouting. They will want to connect with other gay scouts and possibly might lead to sexual activity on camping trips. When you allow openly gay scouts into BSA they will think that sexuality has been interjected into scouting, thus be encouraged to experiment with other scouts. Vs. when you have 50 boys, and sexuality is not discussed amongst them, the possibility of young scouts engaging in sexual activity will decrease significantly. =============================================Conclusion-I have refuted everything stated by pro, and added an argument of my own.I have now two arguments which have not yet been addressed by pro-Scouting isnt about Sexuality-Avowed Homosexuality in Scouting promotes Sexual behavior. -------------------------------------===================================================================Sources:http://secular.org...http://www.traillifeusa.com...
gay scout participants

If they want to continue to get government support then they must be open to all boys, gay, atheists, etc. If they do not open up to everyone then they should stop getting government support. BTW, homosexuals are now accepted as scouts (not scoutmasters), but atheists are not yet allowed. Who cares if its messed up Why would you even want to be part of it if it does not accept gays? Imagine you have a PRIVATE club you made, one were you can feel amoungst like minded people, then someone comes along and forced you to let people into your PRIVATE club. Its not like its members make money, its just for fun really.
gay scout participants

Pro has copied and pasted on of his previous arguments which I have already refuted, due to this I will not be addressing it because it seems as it was done out of laziness.Conclusion - I have presented 2 arguments for why The Gay Policy should be re-implemented and Pro has failed to address them in any sort of way. I have refuted all of pros arguments, non of which have been counter refuted. Leading me to believe he has conceded to my perspective. My arguments were as follows -Boy scouting is not about sexuality of any sort.- Gay scouts will be encouraged to engage in sexual activity.Thank you-Dennis
Every law that is passed by congress should require a 2/3 vote.

"The Minority is well represented in so many other areas of society, to include Gay Marriage. Why cant the minority also be represented in any way in regards to voting on various laws and regulations?" The question isn't whether or not minorities should be represented the question is whether or not minorities should possess veto power. "Let states compete against one another, and figure out what works best. There should not be a single ruling authority in this country. There should be 50 ruling authorities, each independent from one another. If you advocate for a single governing body, then a 2/3 vote should be used to pass any laws or regulations." If you want to come from a states rights perspective then you should debate over whether or not the powers of the federal government should be restricted not whether or not congress should maintain the same powers but not be able to pass bills as easily. "You don't want an entire country to rapidly change. What if some really bad decisions were made? The entire country could collapse. However, if states work independently, but abide by the U.S. Constitution (Enforced by the Federal Government), then they can change as fast as they want. If one country adopts very bad policies, and collapse, it does not affect the rest of the country. See my point?" I am fully for states rights but this again has little to do with the proposed debate. You say "What if some really bad decisions were made? The entire country could collapse." and yes but how would that change if it was harder to repeal those decisions. We all know that these decisions which turn out to be wrong could be made but with this system they would be even harder to repeal. I see no problem with states rights but this is a bizarrely convoluted way of doing it.
Every law that is passed by congress should require a 2/3 vote.

The Minority is well represented in so many other areas of society, to include Gay Marriage. Why cant the minority also be represented in any way in regards to voting on various laws and regulations? The reason I bring this up, is because I believe the Federal Government has far too much power. States should create their own laws and regulations. The Federal Government should not mingle in state affairs, period. The job of the Federal Government is to ensure the Constitution is upheld and Foreign Policy. The role of the Government has changed dramatically since this country has been founded. I work in D.C., and I hope that many of you can comprehend how big our government actually is. That is why I think a 2/3 majority vote should be used at a Federal Level. If the Federal Govenrnment did not mingle in state affairs, then democracy would show its true face. Democracy is not a handful of politicians making rules for an entire country. Democracy is best presented when states are granted more power. However, there has to be a centralized governing body, that upholds the laws of the Constitution. Let states compete against one another, and figure out what works best. There should not be a single ruling authority in this country. There should be 50 ruling authorities, each independent from one another. If you advocate for a single governing body, then a 2/3 vote should be used to pass any laws or regulations. You don't want an entire country to rapidly change. What if some really bad decisions were made? The entire country could collapse. However, if states work independently, but abide by the U.S. Constitution (Enforced by the Federal Government), then they can change as fast as they want. If one country adopts very bad policies, and collapse, it does not affect the rest of the country. See my point? The main purpose for a 2/3 vote is to limit the growth of the government to something that works. We already know our country is functioning properly in all areas. If we change too quickly, the entire nation could collapse, that is not democracy. As I mentioned before, majority votes should be left to the states, as the risk of collapse is drastically reduced at an individual level. Think of it this way. View the United States as a basketball team. The Constitution is a Playbook, and the coach ensures that the players go by the book. However it is up to each individual player to do their job. If one player has a really crappy day, maybe the other players can pick up his slack. But, if you have a coach that likes to micromanage each player and dictates their every move, then technically the coach is playing the game, not the players. In the end, the team will lose. Thanks for the debate. I wanted to spend my last discussion explaining my reasoning behind all of this.
Every law that is passed by congress should require a 2/3 vote.

"1. A 2/3 vote presents a more accurate representation of what society really wants. Any Amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote, why shouldn't the same concept be applied to passing all laws?" It doesn't give a more accurate representation of what society wants, it gives a less accurate representation of what society wants. Lets say that 55% of the representatives vote to pass a bill, that bill wouldn't pass even though only 45% of representatives were against it passing. "2. The constant flip flopping between parties holding the majority in the Senate or House creates an environment of uncertainty for businesses. Businesses may become more hesitant to grow or invest money as new laws/regulations may have a negative impact on business." And so you would rather dial down democracy? "3. It is not uncommon for a political party to completely repeal a previous parties law implementation." This is something called democracy, if the people voted in representatives that would repeal the bill then that bill should be repealed. "4. This concept would actually encourage law makers to work together. Republicans would have to convince Democrats and vice versa. When both parties work together in this manner, the United States could see some positive results. Both parties will have to find a common ground." No, radicalization along party lines would still be a problem, this would lead to no bills being passed. Republicans and Democrats would still maintain the infantile stance that working with the opposition to achieve a common goal is treachery. Look at how little number of bills have had actual bipartisan agreement. Do you really think that would significantly increase. "5. Society constantly changes, therefore we need a constant to ensure that a government body does not change to quickly." Seriously? We shouldn't do what society wants because society wants it? It doesn't matter that people are changing, the government should represent the populous. There is an alternative motivation to all of this. This isn't about representing the people, this isn't about increased bipartisan co-operation. This is about the maintenance of the status quo and the suppression of the liberal ideology, this is the poisonous idea that what we have now is the best it will ever get. Changing the current majority rule to something like vast majority rule would prevent any possibility of change in any way at least for a long time. This would create an environment where 33% of the population could effectively veto any law thus undermining our democracy. I don't know where you got this idea from but I am willing to guess that it originated in fox news, republicans will soon be little more than a third of the voters in the united states. There are so many alternate motivations here that I really doubt this is a genuine effort to help the state of democracy.