BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm sexier than you are.

Sigh. Again, my opponent seems to not understand my rebuttals. Let's start by addressing his main argument, and compose it into a syllogism. It goes as follows: P1:Opponent has not given picture of himself despite constant urging. P2:To not do so would prove that my opponent is incredibly ugly. C:Opponent is incredibly ugly. As you can see, this is not sound reasoning at all. To assume that someone is grotesque just because they refuse to put up an image of themselves does not mean they are ugly whatsoever. Being camera shy, unable to get a camera, or just plan unwilling to put a picture up all play a factor into this. As such, the second Premise is unfounded, and illogical. //My opponent is saying that since I did not mention him showing himself that I am cheating. It is in fact the exact opposite. I did not mention any rules because anything goes. // //If anything goes, then I should not be required to post an image of myself. My opponent thought it would be so easy to just take on this debate and prove me wrong just by saying that he does not have to show his face. In fact, this should hurt you more for you do not bring anything to the table yourself. You are instead hiding behind the monitor in your fourteen year old face covered in acne for you have not fully matured. You probably look like stick and your voice probably sounds like a baby for your take on sports is ewwy sports. // Nothing but ad hominems here, let's award me the conduct point and move on, gents. //No experienced man can ever be outsexied by a fourteen year old minor. I have money, sex appeal and irresistable to the same and opposite sex. // And yet here we are. //I also have maturity on my side. Men with maturity has been proven to be more sexually attractive than those that are not mature. // Please note that my opponent source does not cite statistics or anything. It has a bunch of people sharing their opinions, and most of them favor young men, ergo pointing to a dislike of maturity. tl;dr, my opponent's reasoning is bad, and he should feel bad.
I'm sexier than you are.

My opponent says that he can look better than me but he avoids portraying himself so. My guess is that my opponent is not sexier than me and has proven so by not revealing himself. My opponent is saying that since I did not mention him showing himself that I am cheating. It is in fact the exact opposite. I did not mention any rules because anything goes. My opponent thought it would be so easy to just take on this debate and prove me wrong just by saying that he does not have to show his face. In fact, this should hurt you more for you do not bring anything to the table yourself. You are instead hiding behind the monitor in your fourteen year old face covered in acne for you have not fully matured. You probably look like stick and your voice probably sounds like a baby for your take on sports is ewwy sports. No experienced man can ever be outsexied by a fourteen year old minor. I have money, sex appeal and irresistable to the same and opposite sex. I also have maturity on my side. Men with maturity has been proven to be more sexually attractive than those that are not mature. http://www.tuzv.com... www.girlsaskguys.com › Behavior Questions - Cached - Similar maturity: –noun 1. the state of being mature; ripeness: The fruit will reach maturity in a few days. 2. full development; perfected condition: maturity of judgment; to bring a plan to maturity.
I'm sexier than you are.

My opponent apparently did not read any of my last round. In his resolution, he states that he is sexier than his contender. HE needs to prove this statement. All I need to do is negate said statement. If he can't prove it, I automatically win. If he wanted his contender to post an image, he should've posted rules, or a set format in the first round. My opponent does not seem to know what a burden of proof is either, as he has failed to prove he is sexier than me. Saying that I should put a picture up AFTER the fact that I accepted the challenge is tantamount to cheating and creating false rules for the debate. I urge a Con vote. At the very least, should you not be able to see who has given the better arguments, give me the conduct point for my opponent making up rules in Round 2 and onward.
I'm sexier than you are.

According to the definition of sexy, the readers are supposed to decide who is sexier. My opponent has failed to prove that he is sexier than I' am. Therefore, he is forfeiting this debate without even attempting to challenge my statement. I, have put out my evidence of how sexy I can be with my picture on my profile. ****Proof. You have to prove to the readers that you are sexier than me. By taking on this debate, you basically take on a contract to prove to people that you are sexier than me. Look at the topic statement... "I'm sexier than you are." My opponent has failed to prove this by not showing proof with a picture. Are the readers expected to JUST assume you are sexier than me without proof. My opponent is trying to talk his way out of proving a point without showing actual proof. **********Just like you said in your first argument... you could look exactly like me... well do you. You are not showing any proof. Next time be thoroughly prepared before taking on a debate.
There is God

First of all I would like to apologize that I am a non-native English speaker so my understanding or English is not very excellent. I would like to debate on the topic whether God exist or not. I am on the Pro side saying that God exist. I am not a Christian expert, but I do believe that God exist and I would like to debate with someone that think that God does not exist. Moreover, I do believe that God that Christian believe is the true God and only God. So my debate would be debating that God exist and there is one true God (Christian God, or the Trinity) To be honest, I am a first year student and I have to send a debate report to my professor for Christian apologetic class. I just simply want to debate with someone that do not believe there is God. Thank you.
Jesus Is God

I will cite some Bible verses here. They can be verified by going to biblegaeway.com and entering the cite just as here. Choose the Good News Translation (GNT) as that is what I am quoting from. 1. Jesus is not "all-knowing." Christ says that He does not know everything at Mark 13:32. When asked when the end of the world / second coming / final judgment would be, Christ said, "No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come"neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son; only the Father knows." Therefore, by his own admission, Christ does not know everything, but God (the Father) is all knowing. This makes the unity of the Trinity interesting doesn't it! 2. One cannot prove that there is no other God but God because that is NOT what Christianity teaches. See Romans 8:38-39 where "other Heavenly Rulers and Powers" are mentioned. See Job 1:6-7 where other heavenly beings are meeting with the Lord. See Exodus 20:3 where God says, you shall worship no god but Me. So, God is not the only god. One cannot prove with logic that Jesus is God. Such is a matter of faith. For that matter, the only thing that can be perfectly proved by logic is Descartes" statement: "I think therefore I am." If God could be proved by logic, then everyone would be a believer. God"s intention is that He can only be known through faith. How could humans possibly prove, with science and logic, the existence of God? We do not even know what 95% of the matter and energy in the Universe is (dark matter and dark energy). We do not even understand how gravity works. How could we possibly comprehend the Creator of the Universe in His full glory? 3. Jesus is the Son of God and He is God. How can a quantum particle be in two locations at the same time? How does quantum entanglement work? Jesus is one of the three states of God. Jesus is God in human form. The Holy Spirit is God connecting directly with humans. God is God in his full glory. Now, God knows some things that Jesus does not. Consider that you do not know everything that is going on inside your "subconscious" mind. Yet you are still one person. Jesus does not know everything that is going on within the greater mind of the Father. It is complicated isn"t it? Would you expect anything less from the Creator of everything? Would you expect anything less from a being that is an infinite amount of time older than you are?
Jesus Is God

I would like to have this debate with a trinitarian Christian who believes Jesus is God. I am setting conditions for this challenge and they are as follows. *since Christians belive that God is All-knowing, the pro must be able to prove how Jesus matches this criteria. *Christians claim to be monotheistic, the pro must prove that Jesus is God and there is no other God besides him. *If Jesus was the son of God, how then is he God and yet God is one? First round is for acceptance, not for argument. Second round is for presentation of arguments Third round for rebuttals and the fourth round for concluding arguments.
Allowing Abortion in every U.S. State

For my second round, i'll pick a new argument, but before I do so, I would like to point out that my opponent did not state any sources. My opponent earlier asked me to present my case on what constitutes humanity, and I will address that now. Humanity: the quality or condition of being human; human nature.[1] I will start with my beliefs, then move onto my scientific backing. I believe that many things can constitute humanity, such as the ability to make decisions for one's own self, having emotions, having a thought process, etc. Essentially, what makes up our personality, thus making us human, not necessarily making us alive. Life and Humanity may go one-in-the-same, but life does not require humanity. As far as we know currently, fetuses do not have emotions, or feel pain.[2] They consciously register what is happening around them, and when a woman has an abortion, the fetus does not feel pain or experience trauma. Based on the definition of "humanity" and scientific evidence, fetuses aren't humans, they are merely beings that can become potential humans. Here's a rhetorical question: Is life really life without thought? Without the ability to make decisions, feel emotion, etc. People may argue that it is or isn't, but my belief is that "true life" doesn't exist without the ability to feel life, let alone know you're living life. We may consider a plant living, but have most ever really stopped to consider if it can feel pain, and come away from the experience believing so? Many don't. If we were able to truly experience what is happening inside the womb, I believe the reaction would be similar. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.jstor.org...
Allowing Abortion in every U.S. State

Thank you for accepting my challenge. First off, I believe that every woman has the right to make her own decision regarding to her own body and potential offspring. I would hope to believe that every woman believes the same thing. I'm going to start off scientifically with the clear fact that an embryo is not a human being. Based on what we know right now as a scientific community, Fetuses cannot think, have emotions, make their own decisions, etc. Now many anti-abortion groups have cleverly generated a mass term from "Human" to create the sense that a Fetus is a human, to instill a sense of sympathy upon others. Their large argument there is that human beings all have human DNA, so due to the fact that Fetuses do have human DNA, they can clearly state that fetuses are human. Well, no. If we were to base being human off of that, then a flake of my skin could be considered human, my hair, my nails, etc. They may contain human characteristics, but they can't be considered Human Beings. Picture yourself in an unlucky teenager's situation. You are 15 years old. You and your boyfriend have had sex for the first time. All is going well until you've missed your period. Suddenly, it feels as though a ball has dropped in your stomach. You hurriedly call your boyfriend and you both go to a convenient store for a pregnancy test. Later, no surprises there, the test clearly states that you are pregnant. You have about three options at this point. 1: Keep the baby. 2: Have the baby, then put it up for adoption. 3: Get an abortion. Now here's the twist. The third option isn't available to you. You live in a state where abortions are illegal. Well then the next easiest option would be to put the baby up for adoption. You are now a few months into your pregnancy, and you go to get your first Ultrasound. The doctor is saying everything is normal, but he suddenly stops. He tells you that your baby's head is at an odd proportion to the body, indicating Downs Syndrome. On your way home from the Ultrasound, the full reality of your situation hits you. You will most likely have to drop out of High School, so essentially ending your chances for a diploma and completely obliterating your chance for a college education. You are having to give up your life for a child. Just imagine that. I will save the rest of my argument for future rounds. Sources: http://mypage.direct.ca... http://media.www.spectatornews.com...
Debate.org should reform its voting criteria

I applaud my opponent, he makes a convincing argument, except it only sounds good on paper, not in real life. .. I have read DDO's rules and voting criteria, but that still doesn't make the voting system more objective. There are no safeguards to insure objectivity. People vote without even reading the debate. Some people know you have won, but will look for anything to site you for, such as a misspelled word, or a tiny grammatical error. They want to appear impartial, but still find fault so they don't have to vote for you. Why is the first two criteria even included if there are no points awarded for it? If you agree with pro BEFORE the debate, but change your mind to agree with CON after the debate, then Con deserves point for swaying the opinion of the voter. Yet this is not the case with this site. And links. .. why does links really matter? The argument is what is most important. .I cant stand reading some debates, where every 2 or 3 sentences there's another link. .. if there "fact" seems sketchy, I have Google at my fingertips to validate his claim. .if its bunk, then he probably wont get my vote. .. I'm not saying links should not be considered, or that they should be removed as a criteria, but maybe should not be as many points, or should be combined with another criteria. .. anyone can find a . gov link to make it look official. This does not make their argument better. Conclusion. .. . This system is flawed because there aren't enough points given to a person who has the most convincing argument. Points awarded are 3. Points for everything else combined is 4. So basically you could have the better argument, (which is what is the most important in a debate) but because maybe you had a few grammatical errors, maybe your "conduct" wasn't as good(basically you didn't kiss your opponents but) and your links didn't have . gov at the end, and you still lose because the system puts more value on trivial things. .. .The system should award enough points the argument to equal the sum of all the rest. .so that way a person cant win even though their argument is weaker. .. This should be modelled after oral debate. IN oral debate, the MOST important thing is your argument. In an oral debate, all other things are secondary. You can fail at the rest as long as your argument is best, and still win. .. . well I hope this is enough, the system is flawed and should be reformed.
Debate.org should reform its voting criteria

.. I do agree that structure is important when evaluating a debate. But the most import part of deciding who has won a debate is their arguments. Grammar and spelling are not big enough to take away the meaning of a debate. If a persons grammar and spelling is so bad as to render an argument unreadable, or not understandable, then the rightful vote would be placed anyways. What I'm saying is that if I cant understand or read what PRO writes, but can understand what CON writes, then I would vote for CON. But lets say I make a few grammatical mistakes, though my arguments are better, then I should still win despite my grammatical errors. This is not the case at times with this website. Also, there is no clear definition in voting of what Conduct is. .. in one debate, I had to forfeit a round(out of 4) because my power went out from a Storm. Nevertheless, I was not hindered in any way by this forfeit, I was still able to complete all other rounds and make clear and concise arguments. Yet I was penalized because I forfeited one round. Another point. .. in two debates, the voters have my opponent and I tied in the effectiveness of our arguments. .. yet both agreed with me at the end of the debate. .. there are no points awarded for agreeing at the end of the debate. .. it would be reasonable for that to be the tiebreaker. If the voters agree with me at the end of the debate, that means that my opponents arguments were not convincing enough to sway the voters opinion and since they couldn't decide who had the better arguments, by default (since they agreed with me) the points for arguments should go to me. .. .there should be no tie for arguments. Unless the result was a tie for the category" who do you agree with after the debate" and a tie for who had the better arguments. ".
Debate.org should reform its voting criteria

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this challenge. Criteria(n): a standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something. (1) Note that we are not debating whether the voting system is perfect, but whether the criteria used to decide a winner should be changed. Debate.org (DDO) has put together an article that explains each individual point(2). If my opponent has not yet done so, I encourage him to be familiar with it before posting his Round 2 response. Opening Statement DDO has put together a system that includes everything necessary to determine who should rightfully be considered the winner. Convincing arguments: Obvious, and agreed by Pro and I Spelling and Grammar: Helps to determine who made their arguments easy to understand. Substance is extremely important, but you can not convince someone to agree with your position if you do not effectively communicate that position. Sources: Anyone can make stuff up or get their information from websites that make stuff up. Reliable sources are crucial if any fact oriented debate. Conduct: Proper conduct is necessary for a quality debate. Poor conduct distracts the reader from the issue being debated and lessens the credibility of their arguments. Each of these criterion are necessary for properly determining the winner and DDO should not consider changing it. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://www.debate.org...
Debate.org should reform its voting criteria

The voting system here is not designed to ensure objectivity. .. it focuses and awards points for arbitrary things like spelling and grammar. The voting process focus should be mainly on whether or not one persons arguments were better or more convincing than the others. The current way the voting is structured, you could have the better arguments, the better logic and reasoning, but because you have made a grammatical error, you are penalized. This should have no bearing on whether you win or lose a debate or whether your arguments are sound. There are other flaws, that will be covered in rnd 2.
Kindergaten was better than High School.

Consider what you are saying, if you would. While Kindergarten may have been less stressful, it was by no means 'better' than high school. Let us consider the role schools play in our lives, shall we? Schools are institutions set up specifically to prepare us for a career. To prepare us, for lack of a better phrase, for the real world. Kindergarten is just the opposite. Yes, there may not be much peer pressure in Kindergarten... does this make it better? The harsh reality of life is that peer pressure exists. In a way, the peer pressure of high school adds to the learning experience, which is what schools are for, isn't it? Next, naps. Naps are a complete waste of time. I'd much prefer that the teachers utilized the time to their fullest and let me go home to take my nap, wouldn't you. That sounds remarkably similar to how high school works. They don't waste your time at school with you sleeping. Consider what Kindergarten does by including nap time in the curriculum: It takes a solo exercise anyone could do at home, forces you to do it at a certain time, forces you to do it in a specific location, wastes money paying a teacher for this time, etc. No learning is done during this time; would it not be better to utilize thius time properly and simply have Kindergarten end sooner in the day? It makes much more sense for everyone. Nap time as part of school is a ridiculous concept. Lastly, people making you feel bad. Let us recognize what feeling bad really means. Consider that there's always a reason a person feels bad. Perhaps a realization of athletic, academic, or aesthetic inferiority. In any of these cases, feeling bad acts as a motivator to make you strive for new heights, perhaps ridding yourself of whatever inferiority you had. Perhaps other kids make you feel bad simply because you don't fit in to what they want to see from their fellow students. Perhaps they mock you because they don't like how you dress or otherwise present yourself, or they think you're too intent on getting good grades or something. These situations, however, lead to the ultimate realization that either A> you're willing to change to fit in, in which case you do just that and stop being mocked, or B> you don't really care what others are saying about you, as long as you're good with the situation, which leads to you ceasing to feel bad about it. The point is, being made to feel bad ends up being quite an educational experience either way. And that's what we value a school at all for, isn't it? High school just happens to come with a few extra, unofficial forms of education - rather than simply being sheltered from all pain, with nothing to learn from and nothing to strive for. As far as schools are concerned, Kindergarten was a time of great uselessness, and High School is a time of great learning. Obviously, since the goal of a school is to educate, this makes High School much better than Kindergarten. I await a sufficient rebuttal.