BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fast food questions on this site are becoming a public nuissance

public - 1 of or concerning the people as a whole. My opponents resolution implies that as a whole the community of DDO(no just my opponent) agrees that fast food questions are a serious annoyance to this website. C1 "I am not against the fast food question" My first contention in this debate is that I'm not bothered by these questions in the slightest. In fact I've hardly noticed any fast food questions here on this website. P1: Public of DDO is concering all users as a whole P2: I am not annoyed by the fast food questions P3: I am part of the public of DDO C1: The fast food questions of DDO are not a nuissance to everone over to my opponent.
Will Trump's Wall influence the war on drugs

Group #6 With expensive efforts to eliminate the drug infiltration as well as other important illegal imports that Mexico has brought upon the US, President Trump is proposing to build a 55-foot wall between the two countries. While it could have some impact on the flow of drug trafficking. it really will not make any sort of permanent impact, In fact the current boarder wall had little to no influence on the percentage of drugs being imported into the United States. Over the years, the cartel has concocted several ways of transporting illegal narcotics into this country that are beyond the limitations the wall will bring. There"s tunnels, aircrafts, cars, even submarines have been used as a source of transport. The most current common way now is through the Canadian border. The United states focused is on the southern boarder so much that they neglect the northern border. Aside of the fact that drug traffickers do not consider going over the wall but instead mostly drive right through the border check stations, they"ve even figured out ways to trick the dogs by putting the narcotics with coffee beans or cayenne pepper, to avoid them from being able to sniff out anything they may have on them. This wall can end up costing this country billions of dollars, all to have little to no real impact on the drug war. The wall"s efficiency has no certainty to it in reality. Even if it were to cover every square inch of the sharing border, there"s so many alternatives to transferring drugs into this country.
Resolved: playing devil's advocate is healthy.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think at least like 95% of you know what to do. If you don't, let me walk you through it. Conduct: I started this debate to have some form of an intelligent discussion because I disagreed with a user. This, of course, is what debat.org is for. As some of you know, I rarely do serious debates, so you can tell this is something I legitimately wanted to discuss. My opponent acted like he would debate it, then he said he didn't care and instead tried to evangelize to everyone (bringing people to Jesus by the buckets, which is unfortunate because humans can't fit in buckets unless they're mutilated). He also may have tried to condemn me, which I'm pretty sure the Bible says not to do. Anyway, this was either trolling or just the general state of being a d!ck. Concerning the forfeit, here's what happened. I saw my opponent's response and decided I would troll him. I thought about it for ten seconds then decided to do something with my life and totally forgot the debate existed till I got on tonight. The forfeit should not way too heavily since there was no argument for me to respond to, I just sort of showed bad form, but for a lesson on disrespectful things you don't ever do in a debate, read above and don't ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do that. Spelling and grammar: Might as well just give me a point here since my opponent deserves to lose two conduct points. Arguments: I presented legitimate and relevant arguments. My opponent disrespectfully posted nothing about the debate and took a crap on his rounds. Sources: Might as well just give me another two points here for at least backing arguments with reason and stuff that can be verified. Also I was most relevant to the debate. Although I won't be upset if you don't give me these points. Anyway, this is what I get for trying to have a legitimate debate. Fortunately I get to debate bsh1 now, and he won't do this. So yeah thanks for reading! :D
Resolved: playing devil's advocate is healthy.

That whorish picture should have been loss of conduct points without anybody saying a word. The new picture is not much better than the old one. If you die today, are you sure your sins are fogiven and you are going to heaven, or do you think it does not matter and you can do anything you feel like doing as long as you haven't lost your freedom in the fire of Hell? I'm sorry, I really didn't care for this debate. I simply looked and thought, wow, I bet there a a bunch of people who are going to follow this who need to get saved from the Lake of Fire before their countdown in time of the first death is finalized and they enter the second death forever banished from God's Kingdom in the fire of Hell. Atheist-delusional 3 days ago There is a very fine line between trolling and disrespect, and in my opinion Pro just stepped over the line.
Resolved: playing devil's advocate is healthy.

That whorish picture should have been loss of conduct points without anybody saying a word. The new picture is not much better than the old one. If you die today, are you sure your sins are fogiven and you are going to heaven, or do you think it does not matter and you can do anything you feel like doing as long as you haven't lost your freedom in the fire of Hell? I'm sorry, I really didn't care for this debate. I simply looked and thought, wow, I bet there a a bunch of people who are going to follow this who need to get saved from the Lake of Fire before their countdown in time of the first death is finalized and they enter the second death forever banished from God's Kingdom in the fire of Hell.
Resolved: playing devil's advocate is healthy.

Oh man that hurt. Right off the bat I got insulted over a picture that's not even me. I'm not sure but I feel like that necessitates a loss of conduct points.Anyway, moving on to the actual debate, I just have a few points that prove playing devil's advocate is healthy.1) Playing devil's advocate informs you of an opinion other than your own.Actually that's the whole point of playing devil's advocate. You get to research and even argue for a position you do not personally believe. When you truly play devil's advocate (as in actually try) then you have to inform yourself. Now allow me to explain the benefit.THE BENEFIT:Here's the thing about holding a position. When you hold a position, there is a possibility that you are wrong. I know, we don't often like to think that, but when you play devil's advocate you may actually find somethinig that can strengthen or contrdacit your view.For example, while researching about the death penalty and its harms, perhaps you read an article that shows you a benefit. This doesn't even necessarily have to change your opinion of the death penalty, but you are more informed and your opinion may actually be improved.Whether your position is strengthened or weakened by your research there was no harm done. In fact, you were benefited. It is inellectually healthy to become more informed. It is also good for the spirit, as you can feel more resolved about an opinion. Knowing more can actually relieve your mind.2) Playing devil's advocate can be funIt can be really fun to play devil's advocate. This is due to the fact that generally you're not emotionally supportive of something you disagree with. When you are debating something you're passionate about then you can actually feel a little emotionally hurt if you lose. This obviously depends on how seriously you take debating, but if you don't take the debating very serioulsy then you won't be emotionally tied to the opposite position anyway. If you are emotionally tied, then it will be nice to get away from your normal debates.THE BENEFIT:Things that are fun can be healthy depending on what they are. Something that is intellectually stimulating and fun at the same time is one of the more healthy forms of having fun. This sort of fun is much healthier than various other forms of fun that can be used as alternatives.In conclusion:Playing devil's advocate is a fun intellectual exercise that can benefit the mind and the spirit, which fits the definition of healthy. Thus I affirm the resolution.Thank you for reading, and now I will let my opponent speak.
Resolved: playing devil's advocate is healthy.

I have seen LifeMeansGodIsGood making the assertion that debaters who play devil's advocate are not respectable. I was originally going to make the resolution "good" instead of "healthy," but "good" felt a little too vague. We can actually choose a focus with healthy. I'm not really sure why LifeMeansGodIsGood doesn't like playing devil's advocate, so I couldn't really write a more in-depth resolution. I'm sure we'll get a little more in-depth during this debate. I haven't seen him support this position (doesn't mean he hasn't, just means I haven't seen it), so this will be an interesting debate. Here is his chance to show everyone his standpoint. To clarify, playing devils advocate is "Arguing a belief which you do not personally hold. " Healthy will be "promoting health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit. "
Resolved: playing devil's advocate is healthy.

So you really did not want a debate, you only wanted to harass me and try to build a case for your animosity toward me. That first pic you used as your icon was a whorish picture, a young lady almost exposing herself in a sexually provocative way. I believe the picture was of a hollywood or music world whore who gets paid big bucks for promoting her whorish appearance. It's no different than prostitution, making money by provoking suckers with sexual enticement so they become followers. I suspect a lot of the boys here follow you around for the same reason. They want your body, and you feel like a star for enticing them to be your fans. You are not trash for the wild cats to pick through, but you seem to think attention of wild cats is good. I hope you do post a hundred comments and get this on the front page. Why do you think I'm trying to push your buttons? You can play the devil advocate all of your time for a hundred years of God gives you that much time, but playing the devil's advocate will only take you to the devil's hell fire and if you wake up there, you will know that playing the devil's advocate is a losing game and it's no good.
BOP should always be shared in debates

Thank your for your argumentRefutationMy opponents argument boils down to the idea that every claim or theory can befalsified. This is false. One can make an infinite amount of theories and claims that cannot be falsified, and most likely never will be. This site [1] provides two more examples, along with explanations for each example. My example of the cube is also still perfectly viable, as I have explained previously. ConclusionIn a rational society, we need accepted facts or theories to be based upon evidence. For a theory or idea to be accepted as truth, it must have the greater amount of proof infavorof it compared to other theories. This means that people can't come up with impossible claims and theories, or ones that are impossible to falsify, without having to provide proof for it themselves. This is the way of any rational society. If it wasn't this way, people would be able to come up with the most absurd things and make people accept it as truth, because there was no evidence against it. During the Dark Ages, many women were burned or drowned as witches by the church, because people were convinced that they were witches. There was obviously no actual evidence for it, but no evidence against it either. Is this what we want in our modern society? There is a very important principle in law, which states: "Innocent until proven guilty. " This can be translated to "False until proven true. " It is always the task of the claimant to provide evidence for the claim. Surely we don't want a society where it is the other way around: "True until proven false"? "Guilty until proven innocent? "Vote Con. Sources[1] Bennet, Bo. "Unfalsifiability". Logically Fallacious. . http://goo.gl...(accessed
BOP should always be shared in debates

Falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory. If someone claims 'God exists', it is not possible for a scientist to disprove or falsify this YET, but should the BoP rest on the person making this claim? A proof doesn't need to be scientific, so the BoP can always be shared equally. I didn't mean to "attack" your cube example, I was merely trying to show that a claim which is unfalsifiable is actually possible to falsify and that there is no statement which cannot be proven wrong or shown to be less likely to be true than another.
BOP should always be shared in debates

Thank you for your argument. First of all, let me apologize for and correct two mistakes from my previous round. There was a small spelling error in the second source. This is the correct one: [2] Shuttleworth, Martyn. "Falsifiability". Explorable.com. https://goo.gl... (accessed 23. 05. 2015). The last sentence was indeed cut of. It was not in any way central to my argument, but it should have ended like this: "However, there is still a minority of debates where the claim is unfalsifiable, and thus require the BoP to be fully on one side." Refutations, by section: Section 1: With the example of the nuke being a hoax, I agree that the BoP should be shared, because it can be disproved, as according to my previous conclusion. Marcello Truzzi's quote ("An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.") holds true, in that would indeed require extraordinary proof to show that nukes are a hoax. This would involve disproving articles, video recordings, personal accounts, and parts of established science itself. All this is definitely what I would characterize as extraordinary evidence. Section 2: Secondly, Pro asserts that "we should always assume that if someone makes a claim they have a reason for believing it, no matter how strange it may seem to us". This argument is actually in my favor. If they actually have a true reason for believing it, then surely they should have no problem showing evidence for this? If they do so, the opposing side in the debate actually has something to agree with or argue against. If they can't show evidence, then surely they have no reason for their beliefs. Moreover, if they do not show any evidence, yet claim something unfalsifiable is true, the opposing side again has nothing to disprove or approve. I'm also not sure why Pro attacks my example with the cube. It was simply meant as an example of a ridiculous claim that someone could make, that is also impossible to argue against. My point is, people can make claims that are unfalsifiable by definition. Therefore, the BoP must lie on the one making the claim, because it is impossible to falsify it. One could add to the cube the characteristics of being omnipotent, that it defies any law of nature etc. but I'm sure you get the idea. Section 3: I agree with the example of the dog: As I have already explained, as long as the theory or claim in question is falsifiable (as in this example), I agree that the BoP should be shared. Conclusion: My case, as explained in the first round, still stands true. As long as a theory or claim is unfalsifiable, the BoP must rest on the one making the claim. My opponent has not made any arguments for why the BoP should be shared when a theory is unfalsifiable.Good luck!
BOP should always be shared in debates

Thank you for accepting, and I'm pleased you have started. If someone makes a claim against what's established e.g. nukes are a hoax, this might seem like an extraordinary claim to many people, but it won't be for everybody, when I heard it my first thought was it could be true, therefore extraordinary claims do not require an extraordinary proof. Although it is illogical to demand evidence for an absence of something, or to ask someone to prove something does not exist at any place or time, like the cube you described, we should always assume that if someone makes a claim they have a reason for believing it, no matter how strange it may seem to us, and that someone who does not believe them also have reasons for not believing. The burden of proof should thus be shared equally to make the debate fair. There is no need to wait for someone to present their argument first either, you say there is no way someone can disprove your cube, but they can by showing it defies the laws of physics. Someone cannot possibly prove that there is a dog somewhere which can talk like a human, if someone makes such a claim because they saw a dog talk on Britain's Got Talent, someone can prove dogs can't talk by referring them to the link below, and using other sources. http://www.mirror.co.uk... A positive assertion is when you say something is true, a negative assertion is when you say something is false. It is often said that the burden of proof rests on the person making the positive assertion but not the person making a negative assertion (because apparently you can't prove something doesn't exist). However it is possible to rephrase a statement so that a positive assertion is a negative one e.g. 'X is even' = positive which is the same as saying 'X is not odd' = negative. This means it is just as easy to prove something is false as it is to prove something's true. Unfortunately it looks like the last part of your argument has been cut off, but I think I have made my points clear and I look forward to the next round
Circumcision is more harmful than beneficial

Why did you make it only 1 round? Anesthesia is provided for the babies for circumcision. Babies usually cry right after they are born. So they're already crying before the circumcision. "As small babies are rather unlikely to have sex and get STD, This argument doesn't make sense. "What you said just made no sense. Of course a baby will not have in sex in the first place. Protection from STD means it protects them when the male gets older towards adulthood. "So more people are damaged than saved from suffering. "Your standpoint was that babies are suffering. I understood that. Now it seems that you're saying circumcised adult males are suffering when that is not true. When someone is circumcised, It doesn't affect them the rest of their life. I'm circumcised and I'm just fine. Most people don't even remember things when they were a baby after they were born. This includes circumcising and how it feels to get circumcised. I sure don't remember. But I do not regret that I am circumcised. Pros and benefits for circumcision:Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, Syphilis, Gonorrhea and herpes. It reduces HIV risk by up to 60%. For women, A circumcised partner may have a reduced risk of HPV, Therefore reduces the woman's risk of developing cervical cancer. Circumcision protects against STI's and STD. Uncircumcised penises can obtain much more bacteria than circumcised penises. The foreskin may be susceptible to infection. However, With good hygiene, That risk can be minimized. Research indicates that the removal of the foreskin reduces sensitivity of the penis. Even the most sensitive part of a circumcised penis is not as sensitive as an uncircumcised penis, But the reduced sensitivity of circumcision could allow men to last longer during sex. Source: Circumcision Basics - Article | webmd. ComIf you need to respond, You can in the comments. Thanks for the debate.
Circumcision is more harmful than beneficial

100 babies in the U. S. A. Die every year as a result of circumcision. Some babies even have their penis damaged or bent as a result of circumcision. Circumcision is in great majority of the cases completely unnecessary to remove any suffering, As there is no any suffering to be removed. Circumcision hurts. It actually hurts a lot. It causes suffering and pain to the infants. They cry in pain. All of them. Ok, In order to disprove me, Just name one logically consistent argument in favor of circumcision. You cannot name: 1) Protection from STD As small babies are rather unlikely to have sex and get STD, This argument doesn't make sense. Not giving birth to a child is more effective method of protecting it from STDs, So maybe do that instead. Regular washing after sexual relations and using condoms is a more effective way of preventing STDs. 2) Protects from prostate cancer Barely an argument, Considering that this benefit, Which will only benefit a few people, Comes at a cost of damaging much more. So more people are damaged than saved from suffering. 3) Urinary infection Again, Same way of refuting. Protection from urinary infections only affects small minority of the circumcised people, While in order to happen, A lot more people are damaged and suffer by circumcision. "Furthermore, The studies in Denmark suggest indirectly that good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision. " "most Australian surgeons find it difficult to justify circumcising 100% of the male population when only one per cent will benefit by reduction in urinary tract infection risk. " "Circumcision does offer some health benefits to babies, Boys, And men, But only in a small percentage of the population. All surgeons know that circumcision, Albeit a simple operation, Is still dangerous and carries potential risks to the patient. As surgeons, We need to weigh up these risks carefully against the possible benefits of any surgical intervention. The surgical argument for circumcision of all neonatal males at present is very weak, And with rising public health standards in the developed world, Is likely to remain weak. These issues raise numerous ethical questions about surgery used as a social or religious custom, And as a potential preventive measure for possible diseases far into the future. " h t t p s : / / j m e. B m j. C o m / content/30/3/238