BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
deseptive flaw in debateing system

Pro says. .. "One entire section of my arguments was unfortunately dropped on this alone I think I should win. "Well Pro is entitled their opinion, I am also entitled to my opinion that I should win cause I have a squirell with coffee in my avatar. Never the less I think readers and voters will judge the debate in its entirety and can make judgement on what are the important points and what are not so important. Interpretation of the argumentI was happy to hear Pro at the start of the last round say. .. "I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage. "So was Pro able to carry this burden through out this debate ? The instigators advantagesI presented 3 advantages that the instigator has that can negate the advantage of the last word advantage of the contender.1) The instigator gets to form the resolution2) The instigator gets to make the first argument3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalPro didn't dis agree that these were advantages available to the Instigator, at best Pro tried to down play those advantages. If Pro can assert that the last word advantage trumps these advantages, then I can merely assert that these advantages trump the last word advantage. Pro statistical AnalysisPros statistical analysis: Other factors unaccounted forYou will recall I bought up the problem of how experienced debators as potential contenders are cherry picking the easier debates thus we would expect that the contenders overall on DDO to have a higher winning percentage. Pro didn't argue against this. So I asked, how did Pro account for this in their analysis ? Pros reply is merely so what. And that in a nutshell is the problem with Pros interpretation of the data. Pro hasn't been able to isolate the variable of last word advantage with the variable of contender winning percentage, as such causation has not be proven and their data is open to more than one interpretation and thus is equivocal. I can merely retort that the cause of the contenders higher winning percentage is due to the cherry picking of potential contenders and the same data that Pro uses will support my claim as well, cause the data is equivocal. As such its unjustified to make the claim based on this data that is has been proven that or that its beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the contenders higher winning percentage is the last word factor. Pro has not been able to establish causation between the contenders winning percentage and the last word factor. As such I submit Pro has not be able to prove that the contender is at an overall advantage because of the last word factor, as Pro had sought to show. .. "I have not moved any goal posts I maintain that contender is at an overall advantage, bec. of the last word advantage.
deseptive flaw in debateing system

Its my understanding that Pro is claiming that due to the sole fact that the contender gets the last word in, this automatically means that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage. I will seek to show this is false. Let me be clear on what I seek to argue for, I am not claiming that the instigator is never at a disadvantage, just the more modest claim that just because your the instigator does not necessarily mean you are at an overall disadvantage compared to the contender.1) The instigator gets to form the resolutionMost debates have a resolution, a proposition, a claim that the pro has to justify. This in its self gives an advantage to the instigator as the creator of the resolution consider these examples of resolutions "God exists" & "God can't be proven to not exist"You will notice that the second resolution would be alot easier to defend, thus the instigator can go pro, form that resolution and thus have an advantage.2) The instigator gets to make the first argumentThe instigator from the first round is on the offensive as the instigator gets to fire the first shots. The contender from the very start is at an disadvantage and now will probably try to argue against the argument while maybe also making their own argument. Pro them self proves this point in this debate where they make their argument in the first round, and I as the contender am forced to address it.3) The instigator can launch a pre-emptive strike against counter arguments/rebuttalIf the instigator knows the subject matter well enough, and if they don't, they can always google it, the instigator can already make arguements against possible counter arguments and rebuttals against their own position and their own arguements. This will force the contender to either not use those counter arguments, or use the counter arguments which have already had an attack made against them thus make it more difficult to use. I think these reasons show that it is false to claim or imply that the instigator of a debate is always at a disadvantage. I look forward to Pros reply.
Gas prices and oil

Although I do respect the simplistic approach you are taking to the issue, the fact of the matter is that the sale of crude oil is a very complex matter. The US can only buy as much oil as Canada is willing to sell, since it needs its own oil too. Also, the oil that comes from Canada is increasingly coming from tar sands which is a much dirtier form of oil that is more expensive to refine. Also, gas prices in the United States are barely effected by the price by the barrel from OPEC, in recent years there have been times where the price per barrel was dropping but the gas prices in the states were rising. This discrepancy is due to government subsidization of oil, we as Americans pay FAR less for gas than we would without subsidies. Hopefully, it can be seen that I am the only one who made a real argument and the voting will reflect this (although admittedly I wrote this round sloppily in a few minutes before bed because I was disappointed with the level of competition I am faced with).
Gas prices and oil

Alright, my argument is that Obama wants to try and be friendlier to the Middle East so ergo he buys the oil from them, which costs more for the U.S. If we got more of the oil from Canada than in most probability gas prices would go down, it might not be all that much but it would be an improvement. Because getting more oil from Canada is cheaper to have it cross the border instead of shipping it across the ocean, right? If we do this than we could sustain lower gas prices for a little while and stop angering Americans with sudden swelling in gas prices. Thank you, -Tyler
Should roblox be shutdown

I"ll be taking the side of con. TL;DR : ROBLOX beating other games in the "video game market" isn"t a valid reason to shut it down. Before I start with my argument, I"d like to clarify that I"m not a "ROBLOX Fan". I"m only here to argue that ROBLOX shouldn't get a "shutdown" because of it"s potential in reaching a " $10 million annual revenue for its top creators "(1). Also since I"m not familiar with the mechanics of ROBLOX, I expect that I might have some errors about the game in my upcoming rebuttals. Heres my arguments : - ROBLOX DOESN"T OWE THE "COMPANIES LOSING MONEY" ANYTHING AT ALL. First, let me remind you how capitalism works. In a capitalist system , the producers compete with the other producers so they can profit as much money as possible from the consumers. And it just happens that ROBLOX is one of the producers competing with other video games (like Ife is strange and the pokemon game series). This basically means that the video game market has a "survival to the fittest" because of the nature of competitiveness. Sooo what does that mean? It means that ROBLOX is just good at "surviving" at the market. It"s all about survival mate. As for the "companies losing money" , it"s their own fault why they"re not having many consumers. The "companies losing money" made either games which are plain dumb or made the "I DONT CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE GAME, I JUST WANT YOUR DELICIOUS MONEY" type of game. ROBLOX didn"t defeat the "companies losing money" but instead they lost because of themselves. - ITS UNFAIR. Imagine a scenario where you are a manager of a local shoe company. Your daily revenue is about $107,530 which coincidentally is at par with ROBLOX (2). Of course, at first it didn"t start like that but after using your blood and sweat there you are. Just imagine what can you buy with that amount of money. But suddenly your company was shut down because the other shoe companies could"ve catch up with you. And with that all of your efforts are GONE. Now before you counter me with the "support the local buisness " argument, I"d like to add that I myself prefer the local buisness than the "rich and big" companies. But to "shutdown" the "rich and big" companies because they perform better, now that"s too far. And that sums up my argument. sources : 1- http://www.gamesindustry.biz... 2 - https://thinkgaming.com...
The bible should NOT be read to children! The bible should NOT BE READ by children! It is dangerous.

Well that was s--t. No thought. No cabbage batbrain. No fire ants in the pants. People like you simply don't deserve to breathe something called "air". Please don't ever have children. They'd have to be in fear for their lives all the time the way you'd treat them like scrap pilings just as your god demands and as you have proven that you should kill them for YOUR invented reasons. YOU are a tragic character in your own play.
The bible should NOT be read to children! The bible should NOT BE READ by children! It is dangerous.

"My first point to answer this topic is that you must understand that all the verses you quoted are from the Old Testament." Um nope. Try again. And though most of them are, so what? Oh I get it, so what you are saying is that YOUR god changes hgis mind which means that supreme deity who is supposed to be perfect, who has a perfect plan, who knows everything, who is omnipotent, changes his mind, well he"s NOT perfect and according to you since he is not perfect should not be worshiped, bowed to nor worshiped nor idolized - correct? "While the God of the Old Testament is the same as that of the New we have to realize that the Old Testament, while it has many applications to Christians lives today, was also written for a different audience," absolutely not because you cannot make up your own rules as do as you see fit as what christians do. And no one and or NOTHING gives you permission to change anything that is god"s laws from the old testament to do as such. "Therefore"" Um no. Therefore nothing unless you do not believe in creation of the universe in 6 days, the 10 commandments, the great flood (which never happened btw), Noah, exodus, the 10 plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses, the god of the OT is NOT the same as the god of the NT etc etc etc So now you have to invent excuses to save your sorry a$$ which never works... "In 2 Samuel 12:11-14 we see God punish David for having murdered a man in order to hide his adultery with a woman who consented (was not rape)" Absolutely it was rape. And there"s no reason for punishment of any kind of god is god and to kill a child? As for Dt. 2:34 Idiot. There you go. Trying to justify the killing of children in your bible. "Nm. 31:17-18 we see God commanded the killing of those babies because of the sin of Israel in committing whoredom." YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE KILLING OF BABIES FOR ANY REASON. ONLY A TRULY PATHETIC SMALL FEW MAGGOTY INFINITE IMMORAL BANKRUPT DISEASED RIDDEN CHRISTIANS THINK THE WAY YOU DO. Because you are as immoral as your god, this debate is now over. You lose. Bye. Don"t talk to me anymore. Get a life pig.
College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense.

DefinitionsPublic Transportation: Buses, trolleys and trains that are operated by the federal, state, county, or city authorities in the United States. Most people have to pay a fee to use them but seniors, disabled, and in some counties, college students can ride for free on one or all of the public transport provided.College student: A human being enrolled in a Bachelor's degree program in a four year institution or enrolled in a community college in the US. No semantics please! Everyone knows what a college is (I hope).Free: Requiring no pay.Taxpayer: A human being who lives in the United States and pays the government a part of his/her income.RulesRound 1: Pro covers defintions and rules, Con accepts and clarifies definitionsRound 2: Pro - opening argument ONLY, Con - opening argument and rebuttalRound 3: Pro - rebuttal and defence, Con - defense ONLY
College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense.

It is great to finally get a chance to match wits with the #1 ranked debater on this site. I'll keep this short since my opponent is both refuting and opening in her turn. Here is why college students should get free transportation:1) College students have very little moneyMost college students have taken student loans or had their parents take mortagages on their house to pay for college tuition, rent, food and textbooks. There is an enormous amount of money required for college and most students are in debt. They cannot afford to buy a car or pay extra for public transportation. 2) They have a huge requirement for transportationWhen college students go for a job interview, need to buy groceries or just need to go to class and back, they need transportation. Cars are expensive, as are parking permits for those who stay in the dorm. It is also difficult to find parking spots close to student's classes.3) College students would pay for it after graduationAfter college students graduate, most will get a job and pay taxes. A miniscule amount of these taxes would go to support public transport for the next generation of college students who would enjoy the benefits provided by their predecessors. This way, people who have money would be paying for public transport as opposed to people that don't. It is a great system of "passing it forward".4) The university owes themStudents pay universities an obscene amount of money for attending. The university owes it to them to make their life as easy as possible financially. In many counties, the local university makes a deal with the local public transport agency so that students can just swipe their university ID and ride for free. This is a great service and must be implemented nationwide.
Pokemon has gotten better as time has gone on.

Reasons for why Pokemon has gotten better over time: 1. ) Gameplay 2. ) Fandom 1. Gameplay Over time, the gameplay of the Pokemon games has gotten significantly better for many reasons. These reasons include battles, characters, and graphics. I) Battles Battles have gotten significantly more interesting as time has passed. The biggest reasons for this are more moves and more types of Pokemon. Gamefreak putting in more moves and move types has allowed for much more diversity in battle and a bigger aspect of strategy in the games. Now there are more type advantages so it adds more excitement to the battles. (Source: . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...) II) Characters In the first generation, not much was given about the characters and they aren't really that interesting. Now, there are not only more characters but they are also more interesting. One character that exemplifies this is N from Gen 5. The game has him on the team you are battling; however, unlike the rest of the major members on his team, he is fighting because he actually believes that freeing Pokemon will be to their benefit. Ghetsis only wants to rule the world with no opposition. (Sources: . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net..., . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...) III) Graphics As time goes on, technology will essentially get better. Video games are no exception. The first couple of gens had grainy, not-that-great graphics. As time went on however, the graphics (both visual and audible) got much better. The music now is beautiful and so are the visuals. 2. ) Fandom As time went on, more and more people immersed themselves into the Pokemon universe. Some of these people made very great contributions. Many of these taking place recently. I will be using the example of the Nuzlocke comics. The Nuzlocke comics for those who don't know are comics made by someone with the user name of "Nuzlocke" on 4chan. They tell the story of the main character of the 3rd Gen, ruby, as he travels between regions. He does this while playing by specific rules set up by the creator of the comics. Not only are these comics funny and dramatic at the same time, but they have also gotten better as time went on. The first series of comics were crude and the story wasn't as good, but now the story has gotten much better and they look professionally done. This mirror how the game has also progressed. (Sources: . http://www.nuzlocke.com..., . http://www.youtube.com...) Thank you for your time and good luck to my opponent.
The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't exist.

Thanks! Good luck to you as well! Instead of posting three long, lengthy arguments, I'll just post three small ones that I feel are fairly solid evidence for God's non-existence. 1.No reliable evidence supporting God. Simple enough, the only real evidence supporting God is the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago. We shouldn't believe something exists if there is no evidence supporting it. Most adults don't believe that unicorns, fairies, dragons (the fire-breathing, flying ones), or Santa Claus exists, so why do we give extra consideration to God? 2.The Bible's moral values are questionable at best. The bible advocates cutting off hands, killing simply because someone didn't want to get their brother's wife pregnant, stoning teenagers to death, killing someone who is working on a Sunday, killing homosexuals, slaughtering infants, owning and beating slaves, men owning their wives, hating life, and stoning liars to death. The Bible is outdated? "the word of our God will stand for ever." (1) 3.Praying doesn't work. "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened…" – Matthew 7:7 Go ahead and try. Pray and ask for cancer to be cured overnight. I guarantee it won't work. If it doesn't it either means that you are evil, or God doesn't exist. I apologize for the extremely short length, but I have been very busy this week. I eagerly await your response! 1: Deut 25:11-12, Genesis 38:8-10, Deut 21:18-21, Ex 35:2, Lev 20:13, Isaiah 13:13-16,Exodus 21:20-21,1 Tim 2:11-12, Col 3:22-23, Luke 14:26, Deut 22:13-21, Isaiah 40:8
The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't exist.

I'm going to try this one more time...hopefully I won't have any trolls or forfeiters. By Pro, I am arguing that God probably doesn't exist. For the purposes of this debate, God shall refer to the Judeo-Christian deity. God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority Exist - To have actual beingRules: The burden of proof shall be shared.No arguments in the first round. Con must state in Round 1 if God is also omniscient and/or omnibenevolent. If Con doesn't choose, I will assume God is both. Any ad hominem attacks will result in disqualification. You may quote and use the Bible as a source, but I will not accept it as proof. If you have any questions, or would like me to change the rules in any way, please comment or message me. Thank you!
Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland

Nevertheless, I accept that a pub, as a venue to enjoy oneself, is an essential amenity in any village and that Dull is sadly deficient in that respect, which is why the village inspired the old saying "All work and no play makes Jack a Dull boy" - how about that for inspiration? 2) Boring is not an inspiring name compared to the names of some American towns past and present. Here are some examples of truly 'awesome' place names from around the United States: Who'd A Though It, AL Eek, AK Greasy Corner, AR Toad Suck, AR Turkey Scratch, AR Sh! thouse Mountain, AZ Murderers Gulch, CA You Bet, CA Git-Up-And-Git, CA Puke, CA Shitbreeches Creek, CA Two T! ts, CA Two Eggs, FL What Cheer, IA Rabbit Hash, KY OK, KY Peculiar, MO Stiffknee Knob, NC Lick Skillet, TX Ding Dong, TX Looneyville, TX Cut And Shoot, TX Shittin Gulch, WA Superior Bottom, WV Embarrass, WI Certainly, if I were driving through Ohio and saw a sign for Pee Pee, I'd be inspired to turn of and visit the town if only to make use of one of their restrooms. Similarly, who could rive past Hot Coffee or Goodfood, both towns in Mississippi, without being tempted to stop off? Although drivers who get lost in South Carolina might not stop at East Due West to ask for directions, the town of Brainy Boro in New Jersey must be a mecca for pseudo-intellectuals wishing to socialise with fellow boffins. (1) No, by American standards, Boring, as a name, is really quite dul. 3) I have to accept that nobody does razzmatazz like the Americans. Also, the Scots are notoriously dour people. And the Full Moon Bar in Boring has a strip club? I like to think I am a good debater, but I have no option to concede this final observation to my opponent. In conclusion, both Boring and Dull live up to their names but, overall, Dull is slightly less Boring than Boring is dull. Thank you. (1) Bill Bryson, Made in America, p.130-131
Boring Oregon is more exciting than Dull Scotland

Here we move into the final round of what was a highly enjoyable debate. Since my opponent did take the opportunity to make arguments in his R1, I will address some arguments here in the final round, but keep new arguments to a minimum. Yes, my opponent is thinking of Braveheart. While it is true that Scots no longer try to take over England, it is not because the Scottish are somehow tame and impotent, but rather because England is no longer desirable to be taken over. After all, they came out with this [see video 1]. No one wants to take over a nation of crazy people. Now to move on and defend my positions. 1) Boring OR may not have a plethora of bars and pubs, but it does have some, while Dull has to rely on the bars and pubs of its neighbors (what a mooch). The people of Dull, have to actually leave their little town in order have a good time. 2) Hirsh referred to the Boring sign as "particularly inspiring" and later stated, "We never went there, but I was positively enchanted with the idea that there was a town called Boring. Gravity Falls is partially from what I imagine Boring might be like. " [2] How awesome must a town be to inspire someone who only say a sign of it? 3) Golf may have been a complete snooze back when the Scottish were running, but Americans have found a way to add some pizzazz and flavor [3]. That's right, we added black people and tons of sex (that's kinda what America does to everything, well the second part at least). Though everything it is not hard to see which town has more to do. Boring has bars, pubs, golf, etc, while Dull has. .. neighbors with some cool pets. Also, did I mention that the Full Moon Bar & Grill in Boring was a strip club [4]? No? Well, remember, America likes to add sex to everything. Thank you. [1] video . http://www.youtube.com... [2] . http://www.oregonlive.com... [3] . http://www.google.com... [4] . http://www.oregonlive.com...