BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jifpop09 should be DDO's next President

As you can all see Jifpop09 is the way better candidate by far and even though 9spaceking says he's against him. I think deep down he knows Jifpop09 is the better leader. I still believe 9spacekings eyes will be open to the truth and to see what is best for the future DDO. Please vote Revolution in the upcoming elections, and Jifpop09 for Supreme Leader. Every vote counts, and hopefully even you 9spaceking will vote for Jifpop09 too. And for those who thought I forgot sources? If you think all dictators only did bad things? Take a look at this video. You may be surprised? . http://www.youtube.com...
Jifpop09 should be DDO's next President

Jifpop09 wants to bring reform to DDO. He will do away with elections and declare him self supreme leader of DDO. WHAT?? SUPREME LEADER??? THAT WOULD BE OVERPOWERED!! He will also expose the DDO elite and start his own elite group that will act as a gestapo. German pronunciation: [ɡeG2;staH0;po, ɡəG2;@3;taH0;po] ( listen); abbreviation of Geheime Staatspolizei, "Secret State Police") was the official secret police of Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe. THIS HAS BEEN AGAINST. SEE http://www.msnbc.com.... THEY DIDN'T SAY "THE GESTAPO ISN'T BAD". THEY SAID "MAYBE...."Making sure that all users follow his strict rules. WHAT STRICT RULES??He will also rename the site Jifpop09.org, so everyone knows who liberated DDO from the evil hands of democracy for years to come. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK "DEMOCRACY" IS EVIL?? USA HAS A DEMOCRACY, AND IT'S WORKING QUITE FINE! Jifpop09 will replace all political parties with the Revolution sects (Jihad, fascist,...etc.) . I'M PRETTY SURE MONARCHY/DICTATORSHIP IS ONE OF THEM....He will bring order and power to DDO. An iron fist is what's needed to destroy all opposition. HIS FIST IS PERHAPS TOO IRON. You are with Jifpop09, or against him. Choose wisely. I AM AGAINST HIM!!
Jifpop09 should be DDO's next President

You didn't really say why Jifpop09 shouldn't be president. You really just campaigned for yourself. I am forced to assume that you support Jifpop09 as a friendly opponent in the upcoming elections. I think you and Jifpop09 have more in common then you think. Most of the things you said he agrees with except the part about lowering himself down to level of the people. Jifpop09 knows that the only way to lead a successful government is to lead it with an iron fist. If people see you as weak they won't respect you. That's why Jifpop09 is renaming the position from president to Supreme Leader. Don't forget to vote for the powerful Jifpop09, and not for weaklings and traitors like 9spaceking and WilliamsP in the upcoming elections!
Jifpop09 should be DDO's next President

My policy: - Instituting more moderators so that the site can remain safe and enjoyable. I shall do this by emailing my friends, who email all their friends, whom email to their friends, and etc. etc. - A new vision for debate. org: an enjoyable site almost without trolling and immaturity (some exceptions, such as in the funny section)- Increasing reporting/blocking powers--because of the mods. - Improve relations between users. I agree with WilliamsP. 's quote here: . http://www.debate.org... "I want the DDO community to be more than just a site. I want it to be personal as well. "- Removing accounts that have not been used for over a year--we email them before we make sure they're not on the site anymore. - Removing biased and unjust votes immediately so that debates are fairIf I were president I could be a mod. myself. Hey! Everyone elected me! They obviously trust me enough to be president. So why not contribute to DDO yourself? What a great idea! The other moderators have less pressure, and they are relieved, trusting the prez. even more, as they all have the same job, similar to in Julius Caesar, when Mark Antony makes his funeral speech, he lowers his own status down to the people, saying that he doesn't want to wrong the high postition, the "honorable men", and the common people trust Mark Antony, as Antony is just like them. This presidential election is similar. If presidents were lowered down to the moderators' powers (plus their own, of course), the moderators would like them better. A leader AND worker is much more efficient than just a leader, don't you think? Based on your argument you are obviously trolling. Although I am a troll in some debates I am serious, very very serious about running for prez. on DDO.
Jifpop09 should be DDO's next President

Thank you 9spaceking for accepting. Jifpop09 wants to bring reform to DDO. He will do away with elections and declare him self supreme leader of DDO. He will also expose the DDO elite and start his own elite group that will act as a gestapo. Making sure that all users follow his strict rules. If you are found breaking any of these rules your user will be deleted and email unusable for DDO. He will also rename the site Jifpop09.org, so everyone knows who liberated DDO from the evil hands of democracy for years to come. Jifpop09 will replace all political parties with the Revolution sects (Jihad, fascist,...etc.) . He will bring order and power to DDO. An iron fist is what's needed to destroy all opposition. You are with Jifpop09, or against him. Choose wisely.
Jifpop09 should be DDO's next President

Hello, I am here to debate why Jifpop09 leader of The Revolution should be the President of DDO. Anyone who is against him because he's a dictator, troll, has bad flags, constantly changing avatars, gay loving white "Progressive" (Liberal), or any other reason should debate me on the topic. There will be four rounds. First for acceptance, Second to express our opinions, third for rebuttals, and fourth for closing remarks. Don't forget to vote for Jifpop09 in the upcoming elections!
Pokemon is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

Okay, before we begin I will have to ask you to use better grammar, I am having a terrible time reading your arguements. Since you failed to argue about the studying, how Yu-Gi-Oh only has the card game over Pokemon, and imagination points I am going To insinuate that you forfiet those points. A. Its cheaperYu-Gi-Oh cards are not more expensive than Pokemon cards, they cost about the same. But I was compairing the two best things about each franchise. B. Yu-Gi-Oh doesn't make your brain largerYou say "Yu-Gi-Oh card games not only can increase our brain to make the startegy but also can trained our brain to think more deeply. " This is false, Yu-Gi-Oh doesn't make your brain increase, cite some sources and tell me where your getting these statistics; otherwise your just making things up. C. Yu-Gi-Oh strategy is nothing like warPlain and simple. .. explain to me why you think Yu-Gi-Oh and war are similar At all. ConclusionI believe con is just making things up.
Pokemon is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

The reason why the Yu-Gi-Oh card more expensive than Pokemon card. Because Yu-Gi-Oh card trained our brain to think deeply and it's mean Yu-Gi-Oh card is not anly as the card games. Actually, Yu-Gi-Oh card games not only can increase our brain to make the startegy but also can trained our brain to think more deeply. You can see the advantages of the Yu-Gi-Oh card game, that not only for have fun but also can make the palyer smarter. Startegy in Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon. Pokemon game need the srategy too, of course. every games need startegy. but actually it's different with Yu-Gi-Oh card game. Yu-Gi-Oh card game's startegy is simillar with war staretgy. we not only think startegy for that time but also we should think the staretgy for the next time and the strategy in Yu-Gi-Oh card game, we need more than 1 or 2 startegy. So you can see the level of difficulty from Yu-Gi-Oh card game is absolutely differen with the other games
Pokemon is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

Okay, your logic is so flawed its not even funny.1. The imaginationPokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh both actively exercise our imagination. Which is a GOOD thing. Since most Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh fans are children, it is good for them to use their imagination.A. StudyingUm... If your trying to study, ANYTHING will distract you. I don't understand why you say only Pokémon would distract someone while studying. Yu-Gi-Oh would distract someone just as much as Pokémon, or anything for that matter.Let's be real here, the only thing Yu-Gi-Oh has over Pokémon is the card game. The Yu-Gi-Oh card game is more popular that Pokémon, but not by that much. Pokémon's television show first aired in 1997 and is still far more popular than Yu-Gi-Oh. Yu-Gi-Oh's television show started in 2001.2. It's cheaperThe main seller for Pokémon is the video games, and for Yu-Gi-Oh it's the card game. The Pokémon games sell between $20 and $40, while Yu-Gi-Oh cards sell for $10-$20 for a STARTER PACK. Than it's $3 or $4 for a booster pack. You need quite a bit of booster packs to mix with your starter pack to make a real, good deck.3. StrategyYes, i'm aware that the Yu-Gi-Oh card game involved more strategy than Pokémon. But there is still a lot of Strategy in Pokémon, like using the right type of Pokémon against your opponents Pokémon, and using the correct type of moves so that they are more effective. Than there is EV and IV training, that is a little more advanced. Getting the right natures on your Pokémon, deciding which types of Pokémon you want to use in your team. Picking 6 types out of all of them for your team. So yeah, there is alot of strategy in both.
Pokemon is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

I Absolutely disagree if Pokemon is better than Yu-Gi-Oh. Because I believe Pokemon only give us bad imagination and it will disturb the us when we are studying (for student like me). Different with Yu-Gi-Oh. This movie and this games can teach us to make the strategy how to beat our opponent, and it can teach us how to break opponent's strategy. So, I do believe that Yu-Gi-Oh give us many advanteges.
abortion

Okay, so much for expanding. The fetus is not capable of communicating, therefore, I do not think the fetus would say "no". To say abortion is killing an inncoent child is to pressume that is child and that it is innocent. The fetus is not innocent because it lives of the mother as a parasite, much like a tapeworm. These are the only arguments my opponent has advance so now I guess I will wait for him to respond and expand.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

I may be mistaken, but is the first rule you list not "No semantics"? I find it remarkably ironic that you presume to lecture me about breaking the rules, then base your entire argument upon a technicality? Either your title should have been more clear, or some part of your argument beside your final statement, in round five, should have mentioned the meaning of your title, which gives the default impression that Creationism being taught at public schools is a reference to teaching of its doctrine as truth, not as mythology.Your point is ambiguous, weak, and based on a technicality. Now, I happen to agree with your point, that it is not wrong to teach Creationism as a historical chapter, or an aspect of mythology. However, an entire class dedicated it is ill-placed in the basic teachings of high school. When you saw that my argument was based from the perspective that Creationism should not be taught as a legitimate philosophy, it would have been polite of you to make some note of the ambiguous meaning of your title, which was not at all clear.Now, it has been an interesting debate, to say the least. Not altogether unlike some of the more famous ones of late. You start the debate by harping on the value of the rules, which you do not honor, then finish the debate by making only one statement supporting your case, by the merit of a technicality, which is, questionably, in violation to the rules you have so vehemently advocated. You lack focus, detail, and sincerity. It has been a pleasure debating you.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

I guess I will present my argument now: Why should they teach about Creationism? Christianity, is an important part of history. So if one wanted to teach Creationism in a mythology class or ancient history class they may wish to do so. As biblical studies and mythology are advanced social doctrines (although not necessarily true) in today's advanced society. On the other hand, Creationism is so much more minuscule theory in scientific doctrines, teaching it in Biology would be a failure. In conclusion, Creationism is fit in classes such as theological studies, biblical studies, mythology, and perhaps social history. But it is not applicable in Biology or any other form of Science.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

I am still allotted two rounds to make my case, and whether or not you have anything valid to say, I do, and I shall take advantage of these two rounds to do so. Now, I have already made the case, with no resistance, that it is unconstitutional for Creationism to be taught as a legitimate science by the American Public School system. I shall now establish that Creationism cannot be taught in such a system, without restructuring the entire system. There are hundreds of religions and myths throughout the world, not to mention extinct branches, each with its own version of a Creation myth. Even the myths of the five most common world religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism, differ fundamentally (although Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have marked similarities). Now, say it takes a single course per year to teach each one of these doctrines, then that would devote over four hours of class time to learning Creation myths, leaving only four hours for students to study science, mathematics, history, English, and a number of electives. This highly limits what students can learn in a school year. This limitation to a student's learning would greatly reduce the quality of the education, thus requiring additional years of education for him/her to learn what he/she would normally learn in four (referring to public schools at a high school level). Now, if we were to say that only one Creation myth were to be taught, which one? Christianity is the most common world religion, with many denominations, making up the religion of over 30% of the world's population. Perhaps the Christian mythology should be taught? But then what about the conflicts between denominations? And what about the other religions, who, when combined, outnumber Christianity? I maintain that even if Creationism were considered scientifically valid, teaching only one myth would be unfair and biased, but teaching all of them would be impractical.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

I am beginning to agree with the Pro, that the rules have been violated: they specifically state "No trolling," and so far, your histrionic display of indignity at my supposed violation of your rules greatly resembles trolling. Now, I have made a perfectly valid case for my position in the debate, and you have yet done nothing but complain about my first statement, and insist that my arguments be ignored based on your incredulity that I might have anything to add to your initial definitions.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

The voters, I think, should vote for the debater able to pose the most convincing argument, not the one who is easily offended by a simple misunderstanding, on their own part, regarding technicalities. You have, of course, inconvenienced yourself, by throwing away an entire round of debate to critique my specificity. I shall approach the issue from multiple angles, beginning with the notion that it is unconstitutional, by the Constitution of the United States, for Creationism to be taught in the public schools. The Constitution specifically states that there is to be separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. Since the public schools are a government institution, as I specified earlier, it is unconstitutional for them to favor the beliefs of one religion or religious group over another, by teaching only one Creation myth in its classrooms. People are free to believe as they will. By enforcing one specific belief in the classroom, the government would be violating its core establishment. What is currently taught is a purely scientific angle: what can be proven, or is most supported by scientific evidence. There is little, if any, evidence of any form of Creationism, and thus, even if it were constitutionally sound in teaching, it would still be illogical to teach in any government-controlled institution.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

How unfortunate it had to end this way:In my round 1 rules, definitions and terms. .. .. .. I clearly state: "If you read this debate and do not accept my definitions, do not accept the debate. If you accept the debate, and then challenge my definitions later or claim they are unfair, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO CONCEDE THE DEBATE AND THE VOTERS WILL BE URGED TO VOTE FOR ME. THANK YOU. "My opponent has violated my rules, for he has challenged my definitions.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

I accept your debate, but amend your definitions: In the United States, the public schools are controlled by local government, making them, by extent, institutions under the control of the Federal Government. Additionally, teaching is not necessarily the concrete causation of something or someone to know a specific data or set of information, but an attempt at endowing said information in the something or someone. A thing need not necessarily learn what it is taught, and what is taught need not necessarily be what is learned. That much said, I look forward to your opening statement.
Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

Rules:1. No semantics2. No trolling3. No profanity4. No vulgarityStructure: 1. Acceptance/Definitions2. Opening Statement3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals 5. Closing Arguments/ConclusionDefinitions: public school- a free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.should- used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency.teach- to cause to know something.about- with regard to.creationism- the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God. By accepting this debate, you are accepting my definitions.........If you read this debate and do not accept my definitions, do not accept the debate.If you accept the debate, and then challenge my definitions later or claim they are unfair, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO CONCEDE THE DEBATE AND THE VOTERS WILL BE URGED TO VOTE FOR ME.THANK YOU.
It is acceptable for a man to hit a woman in self-defense.

What way am I acting con? What I have said about you not stating arguments is true. If a man hits a man, it is acceptable for the other man to act in self-defense. Same goes if a man hits a woman. I know men are stronger and more physically able than women ON AVERAGE. It is not this that makes it acceptable, it is the fact that a woman can have the same if not stronger intent to harm than the man. The intent to harm is what allows self-defense. The intent to harm, not the damage done, is what makes self defense moral. Con has stated no arguements. Only stated their opinion. In the second round I stated an argument of why it is acceptable. Women wanted equal rights and I'm tired of them abusing that. They want if equal but in thier favor. If the only difference between a male and female candidate is gender they'd want the female. No matter the job. They wanna be in the army, yet they want safer and easier jobs. They want to say whatever they want and do whatever they want including cheat and abandon and neglect partners and children with no real consequence. They want to hit, and not get hit back. Women now think they are superior to men and only because morons raise this issue. I'm not saying you should be a cowardly SOB and just do it to make ya feel tough or whatever, nor at the first bat of an argument, but if a woman just keeps saying horrible things I'll walk away a few times and ask them not to say that again. Eventually I'll get sick of it cropping up and yeah one short swift backhand or something is bad but acceptable. It's just a shame it couldn't be sorted any other way. But tbh I honestly hand to god believe the only language women understand is violent. I think it explains all the culture of the past. I would never put a woman down. Do any job, do my thing you like but live your lives as good and respectfully as you want us too, don't speak to us like crap fret us like crap or assault us and you should be treated the same, or face the very subject of this debate just like we should vice versa.
It is acceptable for a man to hit a woman in self-defense.

If a man hits a man, it is acceptable for the other man to act in self-defense. Same goes if a man hits a woman. I know men are stronger and more physically able than women ON AVERAGE. It is not this that makes it acceptable, it is the fact that a woman can have the same if not stronger intent to harm than the man. The intent to harm is what allows self-defense. The intent to harm, not the damage done, is what makes self defense moral. Con has stated no arguements. Only stated their opinion. In the second round I stated an argument of why it is acceptable. Women wanted equal rights and I'm tired of them abusing that. They want if equal but in thier favor. If the only difference between a male and female candidate is gender they'd want the female. No matter the job. They wanna be in the army, yet they want safer and easier jobs. They want to say whatever they want and do whatever they want including cheat and abandon and neglect partners and children with no real consequence. They want to hit, and not get hit back. Women now think they are superior to men and only because morons raise this issue. I'm not saying you should be a cowardly SOB and just do it to make ya feel tough or whatever, nor at the first bat of an argument, but if a woman just keeps saying horrible things I'll walk away a few times and ask them not to say that again. Eventually I'll get sick of it cropping up and yeah one short swift backhand or something is bad but acceptable. It's just a shame it couldn't be sorted any other way. But tbh I honestly hand to god believe the only language women understand is violent. I think it explains all the culture of the past. I would never put a woman down. Do any job, do my thing you like but live your lives as good and respectfully as you want us too, don't speak to us like crap fret us like crap or assault us and you should be treated the same, or face the very subject of this debate just like we should vice versa.
It is acceptable for a man to hit a woman in self-defense.

I will excuse my opponents actions as well, my opponent said that the first round is for acceptance only, what I thought my opponent meant was that he just wanted to hear an opinion in the direction of pro, not only had he not stated his opinion in the first round, but he did the same in the second round, he went further to state a neutral fact, no argument. Now as I am on the con side, I will argue for con. For a man to hit a woman, out of self-defense, even if it is not really necessary, is un-acceptable, it is only alright if the woman is threatening the man's life, not reputation.
It is acceptable for a man to hit a woman in self-defense.

I will explain my point thoroughly in this debate. If a man hits a man, it is acceptable for the other man to act in self-defense. Same goes if a man hits a woman. I know men are stronger and more physically able than women ON AVERAGE. It is not this that makes it acceptable, it is the fact that a woman can have the same if not stronger intent to harm than the man. The intent to harm is what allows self-defense.