BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pick your own debate - 1E

However, I am somewhat disappointed with the variety of topics, but nevertheless that's due only to my own nit picky tastes :). I will be choosing the second topic: Water boarding is a justified method of interrogation for terrorists. Since my opponent is PRO, I am obviously CON. Let's avoid semantics in this debate, as this will get us nowhere. Water boarding is popularized form of torture that the U. S. is accused of doing (it simulates drowning). Justified means morally justified and/or practically justified. Terrorists are clandestine means those who seek (in the context of this debate) to destroy/cripple the U. S. government/infrastructure for whatever purposes via methods such as suicide bombing, low-intensity violence, etc. I really doubt the definitions of these words need to be sourced, but if you have serious issues with it then I'll be glad to source it in the next round. Otherwise, let's move on. My sole argument -- and take note that I DO NOT support this personally -- against water boarding is the fact that 1. it's immoral and 2. it's impractical/doesn't work well. I will list both of these arguments as follows: ==================== Water boarding is immoral - Kant's categorical imperative ==================== If anyone has noticed, my past strings of debates have involved me constantly taking devil's advocate. Kant' categorical imperative (CI) is very fun when I'm in such a position :D. Anyway, since the CI states that the human being can NOT be the means to an end, torture is forbidden. Thus, water boarding is not justified. Not only that, but allowing torture to happen violates the law of humanity, which the categorical imperative forbids for something to be moral and universalized. My opponent's can take many routes in attacking this argument. He can strike at the metaethical nature of CI, or the interpretation of it. I await his response. ==================== Water boarding is impractical - It doesn't work well ==================== When dealing with torture, especially ones that cause extreme duress, often the victims will say anything to have it stop. In fact, having these false confessions mislead American military intelligence will not only be useless, but HAMPER and HARM the cause. More effective ways of coercing terrorists should be analyzed and implemented, instead of a barbaric and counterproductive method. ===================== Conclusion ===================== Well there you have it. My opponent's up ;D
Pick your own debate - 1E

If you have participated or read any of these types of debates before, then this one should be no different. However, for those who haven't: ROUND 1: This obviously includes this opening introduction and rules. For my opponent, he/she will post 3 topics (clarify them if you could) he/she wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please try to add a mix of subjects. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of three topics my opponent proposed. It should follow throughout as a normal 3-Round debate. *NOTE* - I realize that politics are almost undoubtedly tangled with social issues, but a somewhat cut between the two would be fine. By politics, I imagine topics such as what is the best political system, what role does the government play, economics, taxes, so on and so forth. By social issues, I imagine topics such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, so on and so forth. *NOTE* - Please put forth only controversial, or at least opinionated claims, for the topics. This should be pretty self-explanatory. If you have any questions, just leave it at the comments section. *NOTE* - The "1E" notation is for purely for browsing purposes. If there's any concerns or questions, leave it at the comments sections.
I Am Better Than You -Provideoman123

Vote for me because I am the best. Fraudulent voters on all my previous debates have been conspiring against me and working with the con to make me lose. I believe that the con argues are just trying to ruin my image and reputation on this site. I hope mr. Firwings that you do not do the same. Just a disclaimer: I am not trying to be pretentious or bragging here, I am just saying what is right and correct. I am better than you. With Regards From Above, Provideoman123
I Am Better Than You -Provideoman123

Hello to all, I am known as provideoman123, Master Debater. I am always cordial and respectful. I am a professional debater who is well respected on this site. I have a superior intelligence and I am a proven expert in many fields due to my high intelligence and extensive knowledge. My opinions are always factual and correct. So voters, you know who is the strongest(me). I assure you, I am always cordial and respectful, especially to my fellow debaters. It is them who are wrong. Reasons why I am better than you: -I am ALWAYS cordial and respectful - People who forfeit debates are weak pathetic children who cannot even back up their own claims with facts and proof like I do. ^^ - Excluding me because my superior intelligence is infallible and never weak. I am better than you simply because of my superior brain that is never wrong. -I am better than you. That is just a fact you low-lifes just have to accept. You weak minded idiots can't keep up with my powerful intellect even if you tried. -If you disagree with me, you are wrong. If you agree with me, you are partly right but you will never be fully right because it takes a brain of my caliber (which is unmatched in the world because I am the best) to even comprehend the inner workings of my arguments. -I am humble and show self restraint. My fellow debaters love engaging in a friendly discussion with me because I am so open minded and nice. If you understand that I have good intentions, you may be not as stupid as I automatically assume everyone else except for me is. - Pro scientists around the world have proven me to be the smartest man on earth so do not try to disprove these "smart" men(obviously they are not as smart as me but they are smart enough to recognize me as the smartest) because I have scientific proof. - I am always cordial and respectful Rules to this debate: Round 1: Cordial greetings and I will provide you time to read my argument. Round 2: Discussion and you can present your weak claims Round 3: Discussion where I smash your weak claims Round 4: Friendly conclusion and reflection Voters, you know who is the winner. Please do not be corrupt and deny me the victory I deserve, just like every single other debate I have participated in. Please be cordial and respectful as I will be throughout this entire debate.
I Am Better Than You -Provideoman123

My opponent says that I am greatly mistaken. I showed sources, and proof, when you did not. My opponent says that the quoting my opponents arguments with italics, has nothing to do with this. Yes I know, I said that for the voters to know. My opponent says that they were all bad votes and biased people. Well if they are, there votes will get removed. Now looking in most of your debates, votes are FF, meaning you forfeited. This is not bad voting. My opponent says that there is no real evidence that he is a bad debater. Yes, but we have proof that you are 0 win 7 lose, which is bad, and we also have no proof that you are a good debater. I did not make that quote up. Actually I put my source there. The quote was in this debate: . http://www.debate.org...You says stupid, ridiculous, etc. Voters, read round 1 after the dear, Mr. Occisionis. You know who is not lying. Even if you have strong grammar does not make you a proffesional debater. You can use grammarly, check your spelling, google, many more. Then you have no evidence you are popular. We can only see this in the sites friends. You say you have one friend, only one. I have way more, Alex Kim, Alex Lim (They are not the same person), John Mok, Bryan Kim, Jay Park, Bin Chaing, etc. Why do my arguments have no value? My opponent drops these arguments, so vote for Con. I did smash all my opponents arguments. VOTE FOR CON! Rebuttal to my opponents sourcesYou say I am bad at chess? What a disgrace. I won many chess games, and also you probably cannot beat me in one or two hands. My opponent says that I am not a scientist. Yes, but does that mean I am dumb. Are all doctors, and everyone else who is not a scientist dumb? I don't think so. My opponent says I have low intelligence. How do you know? Did you ever see me? I mastered Pre-Algebra when I was in the starting of fifth grade. My opponent says he can destory my sources with a flick. Maybe he was so dumb that he never knew that this is a computer. If you flick a computer, it will break. My opponent says he is stronger. Yes, he might be, but I am better in every other way, also you do not use your strongness for good, you use it to flick computers.
The United States ought to stop being the world police

Preface:Because of his earlier forfeit, Pro violated rules 2, 5, and {6}. This has forfeited his chance to refute my arguments; therefore, they all stand unrefuted. These include:- Spur of nationalism and pride- Preventionism- Necessity of assistance- Ethics- Spread of democracyMoreover, he didn't answer all of my questions.Framework:My framework stands, and should be used to judge the debate.Rebuttals:1. US Internal Problems- This debate is about what the US ought (implying moral obligation) to do, which largely involves humanitarian morality.- My opponent's advocation to solve problems like unemployment and homelessness is also applicable to other countries.- His advocacy actually fulfills my framework for my side, further exemplifying the US ought to attempt to solve these problems.- As I've explained the US obligation includes the US, but also extends further out.- My opponent has not shown why his side better provides overall humanitarian welfare.2. Spreading Too Thin- Again, this doesn't explain why the US ought *not* assist when capable.- The argument doesn't explain how the US giving aid to those countries makes the US spread *too* thin.3. Stats- With not explanation of the stats, there is no impact here. This point is nullified.Conclusion:- My opponent doesn't create a link between aid and being spread too thin, so this conclusion is meritless- Moreover, I've explained contrary pointsOverlook:- My opponent has never established this as fact. - Policies are in place to help the problems my opponent mentions, such as employment [http://www.debate.org...] and homelessness [http://usich.gov...]. - Humanitarian welfare mandates we help all in need.- Since both the US and other countries are being helped, there's no need to stray from being the Worldwide Sheriff.
The United States ought to stop being the world police

Thank you for the help. Soverignity not before our own no, but we can't help others until capable to do so yes Intro: Welcome to flight 109. please remember in face of an emergency please put your own respirator mask on before helping others. Thank you, and enjoy the flight! 1: The U.S. has many of their own problems. We are not able to help others. We have homeless vetrans, refugees, and many more problems. Here is a list. https://www.quora.com... 2: Have you ever played risk? We are spreading ourselves too thin. Here is a list of all the countries we are giving aid to. https://www.google.com... 3: stats A: unemployment http://www.bls.gov... B: Homeless http://www.endhomelessness.org... Conclusion: America is spread too thin! We are not capable yet, but will resume once capable. Overlook: We are helping too many people. We can't help others if we aren't even helping our own people. Vote with me and side with helping ourselves before we help others!
The United States ought to stop being the world police

** Sincere apologies for the technical glitch, I don't know what happened. Hopefully this link will be a remedy: [https://docs.google.com...] ** ANSWERS:1. We? To whom does that refer? Without clarity, I cannot accurately answer the question posed.2. We? Again, I'm not sure to whom this is referring. I will assumed the US and provide the following answer: The final say is actually not necessarily accurate in terms of foreign policy and being the world police. We simply intervene to provide assistance.3. The moral obligation we have to assist people in need, for one.4. Yes.5. Generally, on a humanitarian level, that depends on which is in more desperate or immediate need.6. Not necessarily.MY QUESTIONS:My opponent should have the option to answer the questions in the comments as to allow full character space in his final rebuttal round. Again, I apologize for the technical glitch. I feel it has something to do with adding the text to DDO, as I typed them up in normal English in Google Docs. However, I don't think this necessarily hinders the debate, as we have one final round of argumentation remaining. Ergo, I pass the round off to my opponent.
The United States ought to stop being the world police

Why did you forfeit?Does the US have the moral obligation to protect its citizens?Should the US intervene when allied nations' security is at risk?If other nations are in need, do we have an obligation to help them?Should we pursue national sovereignty or globalization?Should we promote democracy to protect international individualism?Is it ethical to allow preventable suffering?Should we prevent crime when possible?Should we promote nationalism in our country?
The United States ought to stop being the world police

Rules: 1. provide sources. Don't speak off of what you have done. Provide sources. 2. stick to round layout. If you don't then it throws people off. 3. Respect others. Just a courtesy rule. 4. Have fun. I want people to enjoy this. 5. Participate. No forfeiting any rounds without a good excuse like school, work, or down wifi. 5. Any breaking of any rule results in forfeit of all points r1: acceptance and what you aim to prove r2: opening statements r3: questions r4: answers r5: rebuttals and closing statements I accept my own terms and conditions. I will aim to prove why the Unitd States of America ought to stop being the world police
If religion didn't exist, the earth would be a much better place.

Before I begin I would like to state my personal religious beliefs as an agnostic (Yes I know that being an agnostic makes you atheist however atheist no longer simply means without religion and people seem to think it is a synonym for anti-theist.) Arguing against religion is the same thing as arguing against culture itself, there are many bad cultures but at the same time many cultures that have been created to unite a once disunited people in a specific area. Firstly I would like to being with the historical context of religion and moral beliefs. Religion although with its many setbacks has been a core foundation on which proper morals and cooperation within groups has been founded on. For example Christianity in Europe. The tribes of Europe had many different examples on as to what is culturally appropriate, it is inevitable and obvious of the human nature that we create groups to get a sense of "us and them" mindset. Having said that, despite whether or not we had religion in early man there would've still been another factor like religion to divide us. It is just that we are fortunate enough that all of Europe was united under the Christian banner so that it could create an effective brotherhood in Europe, even though they fought amongst each other it was not only frowned upon to assault a fellow christian they all united under the threat of an Islamic invading force invading Iberia and the Balkan territories. The Catholic Church and scientific advancements The common myth is that religion, specifically the Catholic church, hindered scientific and philosophical advancements behind by light years. Possibly the strongest case is against religion is Galileo and his theory that the globe revolved around the sun. Galileo was placed under house arrest after being tried for heresy. But even then, events like those were few and in between and the Catholic church was one that enjoyed funding major Universities that produced a lot of scientist and philosophers. Sir Newton, the inventor of calculus was a devout Christian In essence my main points are: Religion created a unity for diverse people Religion (Or at least most major religions followed today) founded a common morality system that established a "You don't harm me I don't harm you" ethic in our society Religion made the human species more efficient as it organized sets of people together. *Sorry if this looks bad this is my first debate on Debate.org :^)*
If religion didn't exist, the earth would be a much better place.

For this argument, I'm not going to have any specific rules. My opponent can argue what they want to argue. I won't list any of my points in the first round, I'll just be doing the introduction as I am now. My opponent can go ahead and list their arguments in the first round, however. I'll be countering them in the second round. And with that, let the debate begin.
DDO is a better debate site than Edeb8

Thank you Arc for setting this debate up.At a little over 1 year old, www.edeb8.com is still a fledgling debate site but with its many features and the high emphasis it places on debate, it is our* contention that it is the superior site for debate. In making this statement, I'd like to make it clear that we are assuming a share of the burden of proof for this debate. I have no objection to the definitions as set out by my opponent and happily accept this debate! *I'm actually just posturing. There's no "us", it's just me over here.
DDO is a better debate site than Edeb8

IntroductionThis debate is for Larz's World Online Debate Cup Tournament. Also, there is a 1,500 minimum ELO required to vote on this debate.DefinitionsDDO- Debate.org [1]Edeb8 - Edeb8 [2]better - of superior quality or excellence [3]Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: ConstructivesR3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals and ClosingsSources1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.edeb8.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
It is in LeBron James best interest to leave the Cleveland

I shall negate the resolution, "It is in LeBron James's best interest to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers. " Outline of my opponent's first round argument: 1) James will probably be unable to achieve a championship ring in Cleveland: he has no supporting casts and may have a better chance at winning a championship if he leaves for another team. 2) James has two dreams: that of being a) winning a championship and b) becoming a billionaire. He will not achieve these at Cleveland. My argumentation: It is not in James's best interest to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers. First of all, if James leaves, he will actually lose money. The Cavaliers can afford to pay more for him at this point. If a player in the NBA leaves a team and signs with another, he can only have a 10 percent increase in salary per year. However, if a player in the NBA stays with his "former" team, he can have a 15 percent increase in salary per year. James's "dream" of becoming a billionaire will be even less likely if he leaves Cleveland: he'll actually lose over thirty million dollars if he leaves. I have successfully refuted part b) of number two of my outline of Loserboi's argumentation. I have also explained one reason why it's not in James's interest to leave: the financial factor. Also, the city of Cleveland is only around thirty miles from his hometown. Thus, the Cleveland Cavaliers is his hometown team. If he left the Cavs, not only would he be responsible for completely destroying the near future of the Cavs, but he will also have to experience the outrage and anger from all of his prior Cleveland fans. His leaving would leave the Cavs hopeless and completely broken. He does not have the heart to leave the Cavs; if he died, he would be looked down upon socially and personally by millions of prior fans. When Shaq left the Magic, it was never the same: he was completely disregarded and shunned by the fans of Orlando. His hometown is especially important to him: he wouldn't be able to demoralize what made him great in the first place. For the rest, my opponent complains that James will not be able to reach a championship with the Cavs. However, LeBron is quite young and still has many years to achieve one. The team went quite far in the playoffs this year, and they will only get better in the off season. My opponent cannot prove that LeBron will be unable to achieve a championship at Cleveland: only time will tell. I have refuted my opponent's arguments. Thank you.
It is in LeBron James best interest to leave the Cleveland

It's time, after 7 years they never even got close to winning a championship. LeBron James needs to use his skill while he's in his prime to win with a better team that can offer more players that can back up LeBron James. Teams like Miami, Chicago, and New Jersey can offer that. LeBron James has to do too much of the work in Cleveland because let's face it their entire system revolves around LeBron James getting the ball. The last playoff game that ended their season against Boston, LeBron James got 19rebounds that is insane, where is Shaquille O Neal where is Antawn Jamison? The supporting cast is not good enough to win a title. LeBron James is just hurting his career staying in Cleveland other cities, bigger cities can offer him the large market that LeBron craves if he wants to fulfill his dream about being a billionaire athlete by the time he retires. Kevin Garnett long time veteran wasted his career in Minnesota never getting a chance to win a championship ring "Loyalty is something that hurts you at times because you can't get youth back," That is right on the money. If LeBron James stays in Cleveland he will just be getting older while this team just rebuilds year after year. Shaq and Jamison are not all star caliber anymore, Mo Williams is not all star caliber either, Lebron James should relieve some of his pressure and leave because it is too much to carry an entire city's dream of its first title on his back alone.
The Bible Presents Contradictory Creation Accounts

As requested, I will bring up no new information in the debate.Here is the summary of my argument.In Genesis 1 where the text says "Male and Female he created them" the text is refering to the completed act of creating humanity as gender differentiated. This act occurs on day 6 after the animals.However, in Genesis 2, the text first describes the creation of the gender non-differentiated male on day 3, and proceeds to finish describing the creation of the gender differentiated humanity later in the chapter.As you can see, my harmonization is consistent, coheres, and explains the apparent contradiction. I have shown this both through explaining the usage of "Good" to denote completion in the creative act and "not Good" to denote non-completion in the creative act, and by simply showing the appropriate timeline.Thank you for reading the debate.
The Bible Presents Contradictory Creation Accounts

This is the final round to the debate so I request that no new information be brought up from my opponent. I shall present a summary of my case and a summary of my opponent's case.Throughout this debate, I have attempted to prove that the Bible contradicts itself on the matters of when man was created in relationship to beasts and when man was created in relationship with women.Voters1. Has my opponent refuted the contradiction? If so, please vote for RA. If not, please vote for me.2. Did I sucessfully refute my opponent's attempt at harmonization? If so, please vote for me.I ask that the voters please read the entire debate carefully before making your decision. I leave this debate in the hands of the voters.