BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not break a rule.

Foundation rule 4 interjection: Pursuivant to Foundation rule 1 and rule 5: rule 8 as my opponent has labelled it is null and void. It was not posted in Modern German. No attempt was made to post it in Modern German. Therefore it "would in it's creation violate itself." It's creation breaks a rule. Therefore it results in a loss for Pro per rule 3 since it's posting violated rule 5. Which was not null. Pursuivant to foundation rule 1 and rule 5: Rule 9 as my opponent has labelled it is null and void- it contains words it says rules cannot contain. Thus again it would in it's creation violate itself. It's posting results independently also in a loss for Pro per rule 3. It's posting violated rule 5. Which was not null. 8. Ragnar_rahl is permitted to use every designation thus far non-forbidden by valid rulemaking. This holds forever. 9. Each new condition promulgated by past-- plus present -- Aerosmith-avatar-displaying debaters subjects itself to Ragnar's-- plus this debate's-- requirement that said condition become posted with maximally pure use of that alphabet which Ragnar knows as "1337." Language speaking remains unaffected. Language's written representation has sole relevance. 10. Debater who has posted this debate! Thy next requirement: Post videos with adaptation of fictional speech of at least one protagonist of Atlas Shrugged. Do so next statement!
I will not break a rule.

7. Commas can not be used. 8. All rules posted must be attempted to be posted in modern German and translations must proceed them within parenthesis (the translations of previous rules and previous rules still apply). 9. Keine bekanntgegebenen Richtlinien kï¿½nnen irgendwelche der folgenden Wï¿½rter nicht enthalten: nie Tausend shalt zu sollen innen Aufhetzer sie ihr wurde kï¿½nnte wird ihr (Any rules posted cannot contain any of the following words: never shall thou shalt to in instigator they their would could will their)
I will not break a rule.

4. Thou, Instigator, shalt never forbid thy challenger to discriminate between parties to this debate. 5. Thou, Instigator, shalt never after now create conditions of debate which would in their creation violate themselves, nor in their reversal to apply to another party to this debate violate themselves. 6. Thou, Instigator, shalt never create conditions of debate which forbid anything without forbidding said thing to all involved herein; in short, thy conditions shalt never discriminate between parties.
I will not break a rule.

0. This debate poses off of another debate that was quite comical to me. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. (End Foundation Rules) 1. My opponent cannot use any of the following words in a rule: I me my you your the a an is am was were be being been can cannot not must rule rules he she her his it and but or round PRO CON opponent wjmelements oppose other any word word appear use words phrase 2. CON must use proper spelling and grammar. 3. CON cannot restrict PRO's ability to speak English.
Life is not an inalienable right

.. I await my opponents opening argument. I object to my opponents separation of the terms "inalienable" and "rights" in modern and ancient philosophy the full term "inalienable right" has been used not the two separate terms. You cannot separate the term and still derive the full meaning of it. Inalienable right- A right which according to natural law cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred. (1) Natural Law- "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society. " (2) Ethics- "a system of moral principles. " (3) I also wish to add an observation about the resolution. O1. Pro must prove that it is morally acceptable to take life away or, in other words, kill. 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Life is not an inalienable right

Definitions Life: the existence of an individual human being or animal with the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. The arguments presented should not be taken as the debaters personal view and voters personal bias should be disregarded when voting on debaters arguments.
Donald Trump is a Sith Lord

Rebuttals "Donald Trump has shown no instance, or given any evidence for us to believe, that he can actually use the dark side of the force. As this is a prerequisite to being a Sith, much less a Sith Lord, it's on Pro to give us evidence that he can actually wield the force." Here's the problem with this statement. The sith never displayed their power in a public area. Take Darth Plageuis for example. He, to the common person, was a banker; he never let his true identity become apparent to all but a select few (namely his Jedi adversaries and his apprentice). Darth Sidious is another example. To the public he was known as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, the benevolent leader of the Republic. His ability to wield the dark side of the Force was never revealed until he attempted to subdue Anakin Skywalker. The sith believe in secrecy and surprise; if the Jedi were aware that someone such as the Supreme Chancellor was a Sith Lord, they would have acted and taken him down. "There's no evidence to believe that Donald Trump owns a light saber. Possessing a lightsaber is a key attribute of a force-wielder, and it's usually never absent from their person. If he owned one, we would know of it. Therefore, it falls on my opponent to show him possessing and being able to wield a lightsaber." Not all Sith Lords wielded lightsabers. Darth Sidious in his original appearance never used one, he only used Force lightning. In the Dark Lord Trilogy, he states that "the Sith had grown beyond the use of a lightsaber and they only continued using them as an insult to the Jedi more than anything else." "Those seeking to become a Sith Lord, per tradition, had to train and pass the Sith Academy course on Korriban, which consisted of various brutal tests and trials for Sith to overcome." The Sith academy on Korriban became a mess of ruins by the time of the Clone Wars, only serving as a tomb for the Sith Lord Darth Bane. Donald Trump would not have had to attend the academy, as he was not even alive when the academy was in existence. Sith lords such as Darth Tenebrous, Plageuis, Maul, Dooku, Sidious, Vader, and more were brought up much after the academy's demise. "those are hardly Sith garments" Dark cloaks were the mark of the Sith, and his cloak as shown was inspired by Darth Vader, who had similar pauldrons and a cape. Many Sith however did not adhere to these garments, such as Darth Malak, Darth Sion, or Darth Talon; saying that Donald Trump's attire aren't Sith garments is unjustified. One last thing, Donald Trump DOES posses a lightsaber, as seen here [1]Sourceshttp://i60.tinypic.com...
Donald Trump is a Sith Lord

I will start off with some definitions.Definitions Sith- ancient kratocratic organization wielding the dark side of the Force, typically using crimson lightsabers and attempting to achieve great power. Kratocratic- government by those who are strong enough to seize power through force or cunning. Arguments Donald Trump wishes to achieve great power- One of the objectives of the Sith is to overthrow the weak, take its place, and rule with absolute unobstruction. Donald Trump, as everyone is aware of, is running for president of the United States- the highest position of power in the government. Donald Trump has taken many jabs at our current leadership, as well as other weaker candidates such as Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry. He is attempting to tear down the weaker candidates and take the position of ultimate power. Donald Trump hates Mexicans- Donald Trump's criticism of Mexico and their immigrants have been the source of much controversy. Sith lords despise their enemy, the Jedi. The Jedi are wielders of the light side of the Force. They are peaceful and pacifist. Donald Trump's asinine claims about Mexican criminals being "rapists" and "murderers" are akin to the Sith's attempts to criminalize the Jedi near the fall of the Old Republic. Donald Trump wears Sith garments and command a legion of soldiers- Donald Trump has been observed wearing traditional Sith cloaks, and has been seen commanding armies of Stormtroopers. This guarantees his connection with the Dark Side. [1][2] Sources http://i60.tinypic.com...;[1] http://i62.tinypic.com...;[2]
god is completely bankrupt and immoral

You didn't even read, nor look up a single verse stated in RD1. And you know it. You the flying pregnant fetus screw, have no argument. I marketed some super easy to follow debatathon rules in which you the nun's pep rally at a phallic chess piece standoff didn't even look at, nor did you pay ---any--- yodeling grunge piano sing-a-long hoppity scotch for drinkers country opera attention to. So why on earth should I pay attention to a slaughterhouse meow mix like you who should have not accepted this debate because *duh* he is not a christian? Oh I get it, all he is seeking is cabbage batbrain attention from his dimwitted dullard snot meat sow you know where areas just waiting for those fire ants to take a nice little nibble so you can get a new high. "the christian church is a hierarchical movement as corrupt as a game of hop-scotch." Well that's putting it mildly. Um its its pastors that rapes little boys who hides behind the shield of religion and thinks it can get away with it. Its its god, that nobody can prove even exists that is corrupt with every arm hair plucking. "you choose to limit your sight to only the bible," That's exactly what god is a storybook and a fable even though this so-called god would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible to begin with, because that's all christians have. They cannot go any further other than their teeny weeny little toy box of that big big big black blank hole book, though many have tried and many have failed. See, I know a lot lot lot more about christianity, religion, the bible, its so-called god than you ---ever--- will. Oh believe me smart testicle spot remover boy, I do know what the outside is. But it might be a little nice if you could look inside. "I have chosen to provide you with quite a well constructed argument .." Its in no way an argument. That's the problem. Does it deny the verses listed and the printed god's true hatred, especially for children as an example?
god is completely bankrupt and immoral

Oh sure, ignore my argument. I'm not christian. I believe in myself and community spirit .. the christian church is a hierarchical movement as corrupt as a game of hop-scotch. I will rely upon the entirety of the knowledge banks of humanity to debate the topic proposed, and if you wish to limit yourself for whatever reason you choose to limit your sight to only the bible, and refuse to look up or even outside your windows that's your choice, though I see that within the past 5/6 debates you've posted, either no one has replied or if they have, it has been with childish dismissal ... I have chosen to provide you with quite a well constructed argument .. ignore it at your peril
god is completely bankrupt and immoral

Pay attention to the rules, and I "might" debate you. Until then, nothing, not a peep, nor a sound from me. I truly hate it when christians like you, and there's a whole banquet of ignorant folk right here on debate.org just like you who CAN'T READ but travel into la la land with their noodles so intact in their heads that all it is, is slosh and mud turned to concrete.
It'd be fun to vote on DDO

Resolved: It would be fun to vote on DDO. Pro has not fulfilled his BOP, he did not prove why it would be fun to vote. As Con, I will prove that voting on DDO is not fun.1. You have to give a lot of reasons or people get mad. That is a lot of work.2. You have to read through the entire debate to give a fair vote. Some debates are extremely long. Like this one: . http://www.debate.org...It would take so much effort to read through all the stories to give a fair vote. Therefore it is not fun to vote on DDO. Therefore, I have won, as Pro has proved nothing.
Feminism is no longer necessary

Feminism is no longer necessaryOr to be precise on the full Resolution: The feminism movement is no longer necessary for the developed countries.Society Debate | Shared BOP | 4 Rounds | 72 Hours Reply | 9.000 Characters | 7 Point Voting Definitions Feminism {1} 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interestsLimitations This debate is aimed to focus on part two of the given definition and questioning the theoretical legal equality of men and women is not the point here.Also, we won't talk about undeveloped and developing countries as the legal and cultural differences with developed countries would make this debate rather complex ad shift the focus. Sources {1} http://www.merriam-webster.com...Debate StructureIn terms of fairness, we’ll start with a round of arguments only and end with a round of rebuttal only. Which means my opponent can choose to have the last word with a first round of acceptance or open the debate immediately and end with a forfeit. I don’t mind pictures as additional media, but please don't include (youtube) videos in your argumentation. They are just a pain, unreliable and sometimes have different copyright issues for different countries. Looking forward to having an enjoyable debate I say welcome and good luck.
Religion does more harm than good (Continuing)

Religion is a collection of beliefs, cultural systems and world views that people believe they have to do in order to worship some kind of a higher power. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. It is very difficult to count the people believing in the different religions but roughly about 2 billion of the Earth population are Christians, 1.3 billion are Muslims, 850 million are Hindus, 375 million are Buddhists, 25 million are Sikhists. These are the top 5 religions according to: http://www.infoplease.com...... . My examples will be about Christianity and Islam since the people who believe in these religions taken together are nearly as half of the world's population. With my first argument I will defend the statement that religion literally separates us. So let's imagine this- there are roughly 4,200 different religions, most of this religions separate to smaller religions, and most of these 'sub religions' separates to more divisions of that particular religion. For example, the main religion Christianity has three main divisions: Roman Catholic, Orthodox Eastern, and Protestant. According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world today. And the number of Islamic divisions is over a 150. All of these divisions separates the society and differentiate the people to many communities without any reasonable purpose that has proved to be true or not true. And when a society is not united, there's nothing good about it. My second argument is that religion has become the easiest way to manipulate people. We cannot be certain about the reason why religion was created. Even if the original idea was to unite people and give them answers to the questions without answer, later religion was turned into the easiest way to make people do what you want. People are afraid of the higher power they believe in. It's in their heads- they are afraid what is going to happen to them after they die, what is going to happen if they are 'bad people'. That is why they have these religious rituals to worship a particular higher power. That higher power always has its teaching which always is teaching against something. Our religion frequently forbids us to do certain things, saying that is against its teaching. But what if this is a way to make people do what somebody wants, to make them believe in what somebody wants? What if religion is an idea of a great genius who wants to rule people and make them do what he wants without giving explanations? I'll give a simple example with the crusades in the 11th century. Each of these crusade was in the name of Jerusalem and its freedom but its proven that this was a way to make people fight for territories, many people were killed in the name of Jerusalem's freedom but actually it was only for territories. If it wasn't for territories the crusaders wouldn't have negotiated so much with rulers to do some things for these rulers in exchange of payment.
It's time for the government to crackdown hard on Brian Eggleston

It seems that my opponent has cited a series of debates undertaken by the man in question, Brian Eggleston, in order to prove that it is time for the government to crack down hard on him. I find that this conclusion does not follow. Is there any legal or moral reason for the government to crack down on someone simply for engaging in online debates? My opponent has read too much into this man and followed his activities with abnormal perseverance. I assume that my opponent has never met or seen Brian Eggleston. How can we really find out anything about a person from the debating topics he/she chooses to work with? (Of course, the fact that my opponent has assumed, without any evidence, that Brian Eggleston drinks alcohol is beside the point.) Moreover, there is no way to know that Brian seriously holds the views that he expressed in his debates. Many people practise debating simply to improve their debating skills, arguing in favour of positions that they are either apathetic about or opposed to, and it seems quite possible that that Brian has taken this approach. And additionally, we cannot seriously assume that all the examples cited by my opponent fit together in any way. It is very easy to put together a collection of isolated data, create spurious links between them and come up with a specious theory. It is very likely that the same conclusion regarding the need for government action may just as sensibly be applied to anyone else on debate.org by tracking their debating history. Lastly, if Brian did indeed have a dangerous plan, would he be so foolish as to leave clues indicating his intentions in so public a place as debate.org? In light of these arguments, there is insufficient evidence justifying government action against Brian Eggleston.
It's time for the government to crackdown hard on Brian Eggleston

Is Brian Eggleston a harmless Brit with a dirty, drunken sense of humour? Or is he a danger to the entire planet we know of as earth? He can be found all over the website known as debate.org spewing seemingly hilarious nonsense about obscure topics. But is that really the case? Sometimes reality is not what it seems, and a deep investigation of this seemingly harmless drunkard will reveal a (string of adjectives that can only be found together in an Eggleston debate) man. One need look no further than debate.org for a blueprint of his savage plot for world destruction. First he means to remove police and government opposition by flooding them with a number of unimportant issues on which he claims they need to act, or as he puts it "crackdown hard". http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... The next phase of his plot is to enslave the lower classes and "vagabonds, tramps and other vagrants." http://www.debate.org... While the government is otherwise pre-occupied he will then distribute torture devices to all married men in order to keep their wives subservient. http://www.debate.org... He will then remove his remaining opposition by establishing a "Karma Police" to arrest "ignorant, loud-mouthed gobshites", "Right Wing Tabloid-Publishing Plutocrats", "Celebrity Daughters of Former Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer", "Volvo-Driving, Daily Mail-Reading Ultra-Orthodox Snobs", "Elton John", "Cashpoint cripples", "greedy fat scroungers", and of course the "Second Home-Owning Mega-Toffs". http://www.debate.org... With the British Isles taken care of, he will send over a band of gypsies to Massachusetts to take over the United States. http://www.debate.org... And then re-incorporate them into the British Empire. http://www.debate.org... With the United States under control, the final stage of his plan is to nuke the moon, sending it careening toward the earth, ending life as we know it. http://www.debate.org... Brian Eggleston must be stopped!
Charging Money For Modding Setvices

Should we allow to charge money for exchange for modding services on RGH/Jtag consoles? I am for it! It is a great way to make money and can really benefit the seller and buyer! We can accept money to buy stealth, tools, and new equipment. With the rapid demand for recoveries and services. Sellers would get over hauled with inquiries that would not benefit them besides the person getting what they wanted.