BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Facebook is better than Twitter

Facebook is better than Twitter is the motion that I strongly agree.As you know,Twitter is created before Facebook but it has lowest response than Facebook and the player of Twitter lower than Facebook.Facebook can be play in most of the country and it is more easier as we just want to know how to click a like,commend and share and not like the twitter is over difficult.And,Facebook can be connected to Twitter but Twitter connected to Facebook also will have least person go and read it.
Facebook is better than Twitter

At the last round,I would like to say sorry to you all because our opponents has no more point after his first argue and I think you all will know who is the better debater in this round.This is the first topic in debate.org and I know you all will recognize who the best and who the worst. Before I end my debate, I would like to wish you all to put commend about me.Thank you.Before I end,I repeated again "Facebook is better than Twitter" Thanks.
Facebook is better than Twitter

I think for this round,i no need to say any more because my dear opponent don't reply me because he has no more point.So,I strongly said this motion should be stand on Facebook is better than Twitter. I read one material from internet said that .Facebook better in privacy. This is the best part about Facebook. Unlike Twitter, which is primarily a public platform, Facebook is meant for your friends, relatives and people you know or want to know. You can share things with whomsoever you want it. You can customize the settings of your status updates, photo albums, notes etc. There is no way your boss can get to know about a status update boasting about the fun you had at a caf" with your friends, sneaking out in office timings.
Facebook is better than Twitter

I am very sad to see my respected CON for no reply me.Now,I would like to bring out one more point about Facebook is better than Twitter which is Entertainment. At Facebook,we can enjoy various of Game but twitter not. Entertainment is sometime good for us who are stress.I know you will say game bring disadvantage like waste time, cannot concentrate for study or so on . But,do you know that there is a thing which call time management. Ok. Can you describe to me how can Twitter bring entertainment for us on just post a small status and nothing to do.
THBT the personality of children can only be developed with the guidance of parents.

Haha okay then Dr Phil, well perhaps you should read what you've already written. "'Children' in this context means a son or daughter under 21 years old." So, you're not talking about sons and daughters of ANY age, as you so elegantly put. And ironic 'of' me doesn't make sense. Brush up on your grammar and then I might read your next oh-so intellectually appeasing essay. Pathetic.
THBT the personality of children can only be developed with the guidance of parents.

I will begin by defining the motion. 'Personality' means the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character. 'Children' in this context means a son or daughter under 21 years old. Not only the guidance of parents, but also the experiences they go through may have affected them and the way they act. Children are independent and they don't always agree with what their parents say. Personality characteristics established in childhood tend to linger and may persist with a few modifications that occur during the maturation process. The intricacies of human development are far too complex to flatly state that parental influence is solely responsible for the outcome of a child's personality. Personalty is also shaped by a child's choices and actions and the experiences he encounters as he matures into an adult. Parental values and the behaviors parents model have a major impact on their children's emotional state, development of self and how they act socially and in significant relationships. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson, in his psychosocial developmental theory, maintains that it's essential for an adolescent to have the freedom to explore his options and make autonomous commitments to achieve his unique identity.
Sarah Palin's supreme disqualification should be alarming, persuading people to vote against GOP.

I AGREE. SARAH PALIN IS AN IDIOT. HOWEVER, she is not running for president. And that's why we will be okay. Hopefully, John McCain will be elected, and when he does, Sarah Palin can be impeached. We have a Democratic House, and many analysts are predicting that the Senate Democrats will get a filibuster proof 60 seats. If the House calls for an impeachment of Sarah Palin, they will most likely get it. As my opponent mentioned, Sarah Palin is involved in Troopergate. The Constitution says that the president, or vice-president ought to be impeached when he or she commits a high crime or misdemeanor, as I see it, and as my opponent mentioned, she can be convicted easily of obstruction of justice, and maybe even for firing the state trooper. This gives justification for impeachment. If not, McCain can ask for her resignation as time wears on. You have to remember, she's not president, she has no real power, and I don't expect her to get any. Also, in all likelihood, McCain will live another four years. His cancer has been in remission since 2002, and both his mother and his grandmother lived long lives (his mom is still alive now). He is in good health for a 72 year old, and his death is unlikely. Obviously it is possible, but it is not likely enough to be a major concern. I will not rebut my opponent's points, because my argument agrees with them. However, I will close with one last statement: Sarah Palin is running for Vice-President. We can impeach or she can resign if she is elected. Nothing bad has happened if she is our VICE-President. As long as she stays Vice-President, we're okay.
Women should be legally able to walk around with their tops off

Women SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT be able to legally walk around with their tops off! All women are not created equally. A petite woman may find herself heading into an inferiority complex standing next to a babe who is prodigiously endowed. While this may happen to a lesser degree to clothed people, its "in your faceness" will only exacerbate the problem. Men embarrass themselves trying to address a woman with a face... think how much more tongue-tied they'll become when what little attention they can already muster is divided between face, left breast, and right breast! Men already have to be told: "My eyes are up here." Will they recognize female faces at all when they're topless, or will they say"Geez, those nipples look familiar... seems like I met her once before." Men will leer because it's a primal instinct and, in relative terms, they haven't left the cave behind THAT long ago. Lesbians, too, will likely leer. While leering isn't polite, it does make the "leeree" creeped out by the "leerer." Female breasts constitute part of a woman's erogenous zones, where as male tits are just the Creator's poor attempt at humor. Traffic accidents; men walking face-first into glass-paned doors; bicyclists meandering off of curbs, and into shrubberies; and a whole a host of other unrelated, insurance-raising scenarios will be avoided by women keeping their blubbery buxom boobies behind bras and blouses. If we allow women to go without bras and blouses, men will take the inch and demand a mile. They'll soon start demanding the right to go naked all the time. Then they'll try to legitimize lewd acts to be performed publicly. It's a slippery slope and step one is the pebble that starts the avalanche.
It should be socially acceptable for any race to use the N word.

I agree with both our sides of this debate too much. I dont really care if you win this debate so you can have this vote i guess i just wanted to rant and blabber.( our other debate wont be given to you my freind). But i will say this. People are not usually offended by cracker and chink. I also agree that the word shouldnt be used at all. guess i couldnt word this resolution with what my thoughts were. I was just arguing that black people shouldnt be angry when someone else uses the word. Almost any other word can be playfully used as a joke. But if the n word is said apparently it can only be taken as a joke if a black person says that and i totaly disagree. Alot also feel like the world is racist against them and that they cant get ahead in life. Witch i cant stand. Anyone no matter what race can succed in life. And even though this is not the case even if your an underdog you can still get ahead in life. I contend that blak people are probroly the most racist people ever. Well just the country blaack people that have those values through thee families. I feel like they talk about white people and many other races more than anyone else.....sigh........do these ideals i have make me racist?????? seriously i wanna know what you think?
It should be socially acceptable for any race to use the N word.

Alright then. Lets first define the word with the commonly used definition of the N word 1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a. a black person. b. a member of any dark-skinned people. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... Now, my fellow debator for the pro side is saying that it should be socially acceptable for all races to say the word. Well, I stand on the con side because I believe it is socially unacceptable for any race to use the word. I can assume by socially acceptable, you mean that it shouldn't be looked down upon by society for using the word. I don't believe a race should have exclusive rights to a word, but unlike you, I don't think it is morally acceptable to be used by any race, black, white, orient, Jewish, euro, etc. The word should be treated as an extremely profane word. I think African Americans/Blacks have been desensitized to the gross power of the word, and the history behind it. It goes in the same area as the words 'chink' and 'cracker'. These words are looked down upon when used by any race, and I believe the same should be held for the word. The word is not a form of acceptable identification in society in my view. The word is profane, misused, out of date, and dumb.
It should be socially acceptable for any race to use the N word.

Since it is a little bit awkward that i am going first i will only post one argument and possibly introduce more later.This debate is stating that african americans should not have exclusive rights to be the only humans to use the word. African americans and all other humans should be able to say the word and it be accepted socialy in that sense.1. African americans wernt the only slaves in historyI have most frequently heard the argument of since my ancestors were slaves then other people shouldnt say the word. Some people fail to realize that African Americans were not the only slaves. jews were slaves to eygpt and hitler. China and koreans were once slaves to japan. Lets look at the word chink. The only difference is that chinese people are not slinging the word at each other and saying that they are the only ones allowed to use the word. Same thing with jews. The N word is a word. All humans should have the freedom to use whatever words they want to and it be socially acceptable to use words without a race wanting exclusive priveledge to say the word because no humans have the right to ban freedom of speech. Im aware that that word is one of the most stupidest words and misused words ever. This argument is only based on the fact that african americans justify there doctrines of it not being socially acceptable that any other race use the word except the african americans. This isnt right. The word should be socially acceptable for any human to use it if it is to be used.
It should be socially acceptable for any race to use the N word.

This debate will discuss if it should be socially acceptable for anyone to use N word. By the way I am african american and half korean. This debate is not about discussing if the word is the most stupidest word to potentialy ever exist because i agree that it is.1-acceptence2-posistions3-rebuttals4-summary/rebuttals The N word- that one word that refers to a ignorant black person and ryhmes with jigger and begins with the letter N.
I need voting privilege please don"t forfeit rounds it messes up the website

I believe a child should not be punished for the actions of his father. By that same hand, a child should not be worshiped for something his father made, a child must make a name for himself and earn a seat of his own. Yes property and other exceptions are often inherited by the child upon the absence of the parent, but social rank should not be inherited that way, the age of kings is over and we no longer need a feudal family. Yes, your ancestors may have given their lives to protect their families from an oppressive government and to obtain the right to vote, but you did not. Also, you're not being oppressed, you just want to vote for who wins or loses, your painfully long essay is inadequate for this situation
Weirdman needs to change his voting habits.

Unfortunately for my opponent, he is deviating from the wording of the resolution. Let's remind the audience of it:Weirdman needs to change his voting habits.We learned the definition of change last round. Now let's learn the definiton of habit this round. Habit is defined by Merriam-Webster's Online Dicitionary as the prevailing disposition or character of a person's thoughts and feelings[1]. This impacts the round because if we are specifically changing his voting habit, as stated by the resolution, we would be doing more than changing his habit of votebombing. We would also be changing how he voted in normal debates where he DOESN'T votebomb, thus causing more harm than prevented.Also, we have to consider all of his votes because the resolution doesn't say "Wierdman needs to change his voteBOMBING habits", it says "Weirdman needs to change his voting habits". Thus, we have to consider all of the votes he casts as subject to being changed when evaluating the round, not just the debates he votebombed.As stated above in the previous round, he has legitimate votes more often than he does votebombs, so changing his voting habit would cause more problems than it would fix. For this reason, I urge a con vote for the resolution.Over to you, Pro.Source:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Weirdman needs to change his voting habits.

Thank you for accepting.Rebuttals "As it turns out, it wasn't indeed. After a few pages of his votes and a sad sigh of disapointment, I find our good instigator a bit confused. If we would be changing his voting habits, we would also have to change all of these LEGITIMATE votes as well"He does not have to change all of his votes in order to change his voting habits. According to the definition of "change", just changing a few votes is changing his voting habits. Not votebombing from now on is changing his voting habits."Next, let's look specifically at the second link that my opponent provides. While I don't contest the first, third, and fourth link, the second link ought not be considered a votebomb. He gave three points to each side, effectively doing nothing for the round. It would work out the same way as giving both sides zero points. It can't be a votebomb if the vote didn't bomb any result in the debate. So that link doesn't prove his side in any way."I agree that it is not a "votebomb", but look at his RFD. He should change his voting habits so that he uses better RFD's. "Again, if we have to change his voting habits, all of his votes would have to change, which means that we would have to change all of his legit votes as well as all of his non-legit votes. And since he has more legit votes than non-legit votes, there are better places we should focus our attention on."Again, he does not have to change all of his votes in order to change his voting habits. According to the definition of "change", just changing a few votes is changing his voting habits. Not votebombing from now on is changing his voting habits.ConclusionBy not votebombing and using better RFD's, Weirdman is changing his voting habits.Sources:http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Weirdman needs to change his voting habits.

Generally, I am never against advocating for a bad voter's habits to be changed. But with only four samples provided by my opponent, one not even being a legitimate votebomb, I had to wonder to myself: "Is this really who he is?"As it turns out, it wasn't indeed. After a few pages of his votes and a sad sigh of disapointment, I find our good instigator a bit confused. If we would be changing his voting habits, we would also have to change all of these LEGITIMATE votes as well: http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...I will provide more sources next round, but I figure that this would be sufficient to prove my point. Next, let's look specifically at the second link that my opponent provides. While I don't contest the first, third, and fourth link, the second link ought not be considered a votebomb. He gave three points to each side, effectively doing nothing for the round. It would work out the same way as giving both sides zero points. It can't be a votebomb if the vote didn't bomb any result in the debate. So that link doesn't prove his side in any way.Again, if we have to change his voting habits, all of his votes would have to change, which means that we would have to change all of his legit votes as well as all of his non-legit votes. And since he has more legit votes than non-legit votes, there are better places we should focus our attention on.
Weirdman needs to change his voting habits.

My argument is that Weirdman has votebombed on many debates, (or at least had a bad RFD) and needs to change his voting habits.On this debate, Weirdman's RFD is "m". http://www.debate.org... On this one, his RFD is also "m" http://www.debate.org...; On this debate, his RFD was "...." http://www.debate.org... On this one, his RFD did not explain anything. http://www.debate.org...;I can state more in the next round.
We need a coffee tax!!! For the good of alll!!!!

If I have the mental energy I will save my retort for the final round as you seem confused as to why you accepted this debate. The military is .gov jobs, am I wrong? All .gov jobs are subsidized by earnings confiscated from the selected sinners. I love the soldiers, just not the folks that utilize them to protect their own interest, while at the same time, taking advantage of the people that have no stake in the game, except the wish for a good and honest life. Jobs for others? We are all a bunch of Jesus Christs, and .gov is the god that decide where our hard earned wages should be redistributed? You are on acid maybe? As for governmental jobs, refer to paragraph 2. You are stuttering, and should have not taken this debate as your argument is peehole poor. Bring it for round 3.
Calling homosexuality a perversion/dysfunction is equally valid as saying the same for heterosexuali

Again, my opponent has presented no argument. He has also conceded this debate. In closing I would just like to state that this debate was not about whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature- that is a point that I made. The debate was about whether or not arguments for homosexuality being a perversion or dysfunction are equally valid as arguments stating the same for heterosexuality. I believe I have made arguments that defend my position, and my opponent has presented none whatsoever defending his. Thank you.
Calling homosexuality a perversion/dysfunction is equally valid as saying the same for heterosexuali

you stated being gay is natural, meaning it occurs naturally, meaning it is not man-made the same can be said about cancer, etc. but by definition, it (cancer) is an abnormality this was just a fun fact to point out (which is why i tried to divide that part from any "argument" i was going to present) ...anyways, as stated in the comment section, these arguments i've made came from other people. I can neither accept, nor defend such a fallacy : "Calling homosexuality a perversion/dysfunction is equally valid as saying the same for heterosexuality" since it does not have any basis on reality i doft my hat to you sir, you won the debate the moment i posted it
Calling homosexuality a perversion/dysfunction is equally valid as saying the same for heterosexuali

yes, cancer, diabetes, priapism, Polydactyly are all natural but by definition (lets take cancer) it is an ABNORMALITY, hence something must be amiss, thus a disorder so cancer is a disorder when it is just as natural as being gay _____________________________________ ...back to our debate she also said she has, not one, but TWO graduate degrees, AND she teaches 3rd graders and because of this, she was able assure me that this notion (given in the title) is correct let me try another approach: there is no god (<<<--- not a possility, rather stated as fact) because there is no god, we have no reason to continue to exist since our existence is meaningless, we do not need to procreate since we do not need to procreate, this surely means that given body part has no single use (example: no one can prove that the anus wasnt meant for sex, you know, because there is no god) this also means that there is no natural order because of this, being gay is equally as valid (even in the context of biology) as heterosexuality
Calling homosexuality a perversion/dysfunction is equally valid as saying the same for heterosexuali

Thank you for posting this debate. First of all, my opponent poses no argument. I will simply state that though homosexuality may not actually be a perversion or dysfunction (depending on who you ask), thinking so is a matter of personal opinion and belief, and may be based on scientific considerations. For example: one may take the scientifically strict position that sex is a function reserved strictly for reproduction, and the pleasure associated with sex is an evolutionary trait which ensures reproduction and continuation of the species. Homosexuality is a dysfunction of the pleasure function, which negates the scientifically essential result of reproduction due to sex amongst heterosexuals. In order to imply that heterosexuality is a perversion or dysfunction, one would have to take an irrational approach to science, as well as morality, even if the morality of homosexuality is never brought into question. Science can prove it is perfectly natural that homosexuality exists, as well as heterosexuality, but the ultimate function- reproduction, is lacking in homosexuality and therefore "may" be labeled a dysfunction, while heterosexuality cannot using the same logic, or any other rational logic for that matter.