BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This website is like a dictatorship

"He gets rid of people he doesn't like, that is what I'm trying to say." Again I could cry foul and exclaim my esteemed opponent has shifted the goalpost but in one final act of defiance I will continue to refute the new and improved resolution. Let us take the first part of the resolution : "He gets rid of people ..." C1) he is not a decision maker Askbob at most can do either one of two activities to remove people : 1) he can report them 2) he can harass them If he exercises the first option then it is not askbob but the moderators who remove the people as they are the ones who close the account thus it is they would are doing the "getting rid of". But wait you exclaim, if he exercises the second option then surely it is he who is "getting rid" of the people. but no I counter for two reasons 1) the people are deciding to leave 2) the membership as a whole tolerates and even encourages such behavior Thus under the first paradigm it is the individuals who decide to leave which are responsible. While this may seem unfair on the surface, as exemplified in "The seven habits of highly effective people" by Stephen Covey, the first habit is : "Be Proactive" This means that you have to take responsibility for your life and not put it in the hands of others, realize that you and you alone have the ability to make the decisions that you need to to obtain your desires and needs. Thus the people who leave under harassment do not need to, they can take actions to stop it and the website does provide for such behavior. Second, as was noted in the cinematic masterpiece "The Accused" those people who watch and encourage an act can be held just as liable for those that perform the act, thus it is the membership who tolerate and even encourage such behavior that is the cause. For just consider if the entire DDO community was openly against such behavior and made this clear - could askbob actually continue - obviously not. C2) that he does not like them is an unwarranted claim It is simply stated without support that his motivation is to act out against those he does not like - now this may be true, but warrant has to be provided. On the face of it, it seems unlikely as he could not possibly know these people as many of them just joined. How could any rational person form an opinion to like or dislike someone that fast? C3) it is all the fault of the twinkies anyway It is not commonly known, but for quite some time askbob was a pure vegan and would not even partake of the humble egg. This was mainly because he was trying to catch the attention of askshaniqua, whose rapturesque beauty can not even begin to be described in mere words, especially by one such as myself - maybe badger. But such was not to be and after being rejected for the last time askbob fell into a fit of depression and ended up eating a steady stream of twinkies which lead to diminished capacity from highly oscillating blood sugar levels and mood swings. If you read the packaging no where at all does it warn that excessive consumption will lead to fixation on radicalnet-copping and thus the fault has to lie obviously with Hostess. Resolution(s) Negated
This website is like a dictatorship

" you can't build something by destroying part of it If you care about the site, if DDO means anything to you then focus on improving it not removing the parts you object to. Just as you can not make a fruit pie if you get rid of all the fruit you do not like then what would a site be if you removed all the members you think are nobs. Ok, well you could still have a fruit pie but the only people that would like it are the people that like the same fruit you do and what about if you like some strange fruit like the ones that are full of spiders and when the spiders come out they shoot bees out of their mouths. Who is going to eat that hell crazy pie?" He gets rid of people he doesn't like, that is what I'm trying to say.
This website is like a dictatorship

"The website needs to do something about this even though they said they would. They need to ban him. This is borderline criminal on what he is doing." Pro has dropped both arguments in the OP, they are thus considered conceded. They have simply repeated their OP and added the extra sentance as quoted which will not be further refuted : Contention 1) "The website needs to do something about this even though they said they would." Now looking at the above this appears to have merit on the surface (the without limits part of the definition), but again consider the definition clearly. This argument only works if said individual (askbob) is actually part of the government, i.e., he is employed and/or represents the owners. Thus to fully supply warrant for this argument it has to be shown that this is the case. If he is acting simply on his own then the most that could be said is that they are passively supporting him, i.e., by not doing anything they are in fact encouraging it. However even this is not a trivial argument to make, to fully warrant that it has to be shown that their expected behavior should be different than what is seen. Contention 2) "This is borderline criminal on what he is doing." Even if it is true, and even further if it was shown to be fully criminal, this does not actually support the resolution. Again for this to be relevant it has to be argued that said member has at a minimum the support of DDO - and to make an extremely solid case they need to be shown to actually be in their employ or at the least represent them. In summary, given a community, company, web-site, anything which is lead/controlled/governed etc., in order for the claim to be supported that it is a dictatorship because of the actions of an individual or group of individuals such people have to at a minimum have the support of the controlling party and ideally work for or represent them. This contention has not been fully warranted here and thus the resolution is negated. As we have some space/time, things you learn from the new Thor movie : 1) Just because you used to be able to pick up a hammer does not mean you always will be able to. 2) Gods do not need to shave 3) Even women warriors have to be saved by the men folk when a truly bad situation develops 4) Ice is cold 5) Giants are actually not really giant sized 6) Odin gets really cranky when he doesn't sleep 7) Shield agents can not tell science from magic 8) Real scientists don't use flash drives, network backups, keep equipment schematics, or apparently have any long term memory 9) Just because you can see everything doesn't mean you can see everything and of course 10) Vikings would destroy navy seals in the UFC
This website is like a dictatorship

Resolution : This website is like a dictatorship "I was reading some of the forums and whenever someone was doing something wrong, askbob would put there personal info up. It is not right." Adidas, I can understand your frustration, resentment and possibly even anger at askbob's methods and I fully agree that it is not right under any sensible standard of what could be argued to be right. However consider the following : dictatorship : form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. [1] Now you are implying that askbob is the dictator in question, and if he was in fact the owner then you would have a decent argument but consider the following thread : http://www.debate.org... Recently askbob took similar action to a minor, mvpbob, for rather minor infractions which askbob decided he was guilty of, and acting yes as judge, jury and executioner he tracked down said individuals personal information and posted them on the forum and then as he commonly does, encouraged harassment of said member. However, DDO is not a dictatorship and the members have the freedom and ability to act if they feel such behavior is not justified and have many methods at their disposal. The standard response would be : 1) Said members need to note that the behavior is not appreciated and they you wish it to stop. This is fundamental in any harassment claim, if you do not say you are being harassed then the other side can claim it was not harassment, so prevent that defense. Note that if you notice it and you feel strongly then make post of that nature supporting the individual and being clear that you do not support such harassment towards them. 2) If it continues then contact the moderators. 3) If the moderators do nothing and the behavior continues then contact the site owners/representatives. No one in this age will tolerate harassment due to the increasing crackdown on harassment laws. Plus there is absolutely no need for it, DDO is supposed to be about debating not threats and personal wars. In short : 1) DDO is not ran like a dictatorship because you have these freedoms to voice your opinion including making debates such as this one. 2) DDO is not ran like a dictatorship because of askbob's behavior as he does not represent DDO. It would be like saying the US is a dictatorship because of some vigilante who was imposing personal justice. In short, relax, don't let the behavior upset you, don't let it create a negative opinion of DDO and the many great members - take action as you are able to do and resolve the situation. [1] http://www.britannica.com...
Should fracking be legal

Pro seems to think that I know nothing about how hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, works. This is a big assumption on his part.Pro also has not read many of the sources that I have quoted. I will go back to some of those sources in this closing round.1. "And when I talked about josh fox's film Gasland you FAILED TO READ THE REST OF THE SENTANCE. " But when the government tested it, it was fine. Also when it was privately tested it came back fine."I did read the whole sentence, and the second part is irrelevant to my argument. Pro has still proved that methane gas can catch fire, or cause an explosion risk at higher methane gas levels. This becomes a MAJOR safety issue if that gas gets around a spark. 2. "he sent me the design of the pipe."The pipe is obviously not fail proof. Pro has not looked at my Duke University study. 115 of 141 drinking wells tested found methane gas in the water. 12 wells had hazardous levels of methane in the water. 11 of these drinking wells were within 1 kilometer of natural gas drilling rigs.3. "The process of fracking (in the Ohio valley) is not draining water sources."Pro is only looking at the Ohio valley with this statement. Pro fails to state that the Marcellus shale covers four different states. Fracking is causing issues to the water sources in other areas.Pro in this debate has failed to show that fracking doesn't cause risks to its workers, and the environment. Pro has also conceded some of my arguments with the statements he has made.1. Methane gas can catch fire, or cause an explosion - risk to workers and others. This statement was admitted by Pro2. Fracking uses tons of water in the process causing a major problem to drinking water sources. Pro admitted that fracking uses a large amount of water.3. Leaks into the drinking water. Pro has not refuted my Duke University study showing hazardous levels of methane gas in drinking water of wells near natural gas drilling rigs.Pro has clearly not proved his case.
Should fracking be legal

Con misunderstood when I said "Fracking has nothing to do with the water table". I was referring to his misconception of "We want to get to the methane gas in the water". The methane we are trying to get is in shale. When I said "Con- if you are unhappy with the water then the fracking company must give you good water by law." I was referring to the fact methane in the water is natural. And when I talked about josh fox's film Gasland you FAILED TO READ THE REST OF THE SENTANCE. " But when the government tested it, it was fine.Also when it was privately tested it came back fine.". AND THE MOVIE FRACKNATION IS MY SOURCE(which I doubt you watched) my source Dewey Gerdom of PDC Mountaineer is not bias because he sent me the design of the pipe(which how is that bias). The company thanked me for trying to find my own information. The process of fracking (in the Ohio valley) is not draining water sources. All water used in the process in sucked out of the hole and left out to evaporate. It is not fracking fault if it does not rain in the west. Sources is the direct company of PDC Mountaineer and the Movie Fracknation. also these websites-http://fracfocus.org... http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov... PLEASE NOTE THIS IS THE LAST ROUND DO NOT BRING UP NEW TOPICS.
Should fracking be legal

Pro keeps going back to his ONE source; Dewey Gerdom of PDC Mountaineer. I would like to show that his source is going to be clearly biased toward the fracking process. PDC Mountaineer is a West Virginia based company that is drilling in the Marcellus Shale area. The Marcellus Shale area covers areas of Maryland, Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia. This information can be found at the website listed below:http://waytogoto.com...PDC Mountaineer is a fracking company; therefore, the information from the CEO is going to be heavy pro fracking in order to keep his job.1. "Fracking has nothing to do with the water table."Pro seems to contradict himself. First pro stated "the large volume of water is needed"; then pro stated this. Pro has failed to look at my source showing that the large volume of water needed IS becoming a problem to the water table. 2. "Con- if you are unhappy with the water then the fracking company must give you good water by law."Pros statement hear shows that contamination of the water is possible then. Con, if the water is fine as you state, why would the fracking company even need to give people better water? 3. " In Josh Fox's film Gasland it has a famous scene of the water catching on fire"Pro admits that it is possible for the methane gas to catch on fire, or that an explosion could occur. This becomes a major safety issue, and health issue. Pro has only quoted his one heavy biased source; the CEO of PDC Mountaineer. A Pro fracking drilling company. Pro has failed to show from unbiased sources that fracking is not a major concern, and doesn't present any safety, health, and environmental issues.Pro one other source fracknation is a site to purchase a CD. It provides no further information.
Should fracking be legal

Con is clearly misinformed "We want to get to the methane gas in the water to use it as a natural energy source.". Fracking has nothing to do with the water table. The drill goes down below the water table so it can reach the SHALE that has the natural gas. For more on why people are misinformed check out this http://fracknation.com.... Con- if you are unhappy with the water then the fracking company must give you good water by law. In Josh Fox's film Gasland it has a famous scene of the water catching on fire. But when the government tested it, it was fine.Also when it was privately tested it came back fine. when I said "methane cant get in the water due to fracking because of the pipe is made of four layers...." you fail to recognize my source. I learned about what is in the fracking fluid and what the pipe looks like simply by asking. My source Dewey Gerdom, CEO PDC Mountaineer, LLC . Thanked me for asking questions and not simply believing the bias media. Also "becoming a problem in drought areas of the country." you have never seen a map of Delaware.
Should fracking be legal

In the last round, pro has left many of my arguments against fracking unanswered. In this round, I will rebuttal the arguments that he has made in the last round.1. "Methane gas in the water is natural."Of course it is. That is the whole reason we are drilling. We want to get to the methane gas in the water to use it as a natural energy source.2. "or let the methane naturally bubble out."I hope that pro is not saying just allow the methane gas to bubble out into my home. Methane gas is an aspyxiant. At higher concentrations, methane gas can cause high pulse, lack of muscular coordination, emotional upset, vomiting, and respiratory collapse.Methane gas is also highly combustible. When methane gas is mixed in the air, even the smallest spark can cause an explosion. There are numerous cases where this has happened because of methane drilling."Health Effects of Methane". Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety. December 11, 2006http://mining.about.com...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...3. "methane cant get in the water due to fracking because of the pipe is made of four layers...."I fully disagree with pro on this statement. A very recent study by Duke University has linked fracking to methane gas found in water wells, and the public's drinking water. Because of the drilling, the methane gas leaks into the ground water, and hence into public drinking water.http://www.ewg.org...4. "the water is neccary otherwise they would get much less methane."Pro has clearly stated a large amount of water is needed to get the methane. As I stated earlier, this amount of water needed is becoming a problem in drought areas of the country.
Should fracking be legal

Methane gas in the water is natural. So if it is in the drinking water they can do two things- sue the company killing millions of jobs, but getting free water, or let the methane naturally bubble out. methane cant get in the water due to fracking because of the pipe is made of four layers each layer containing steel and concrete. the water is neccary otherwise they would get much less methane. this methane is use as energy and gives much less emissions than oil. source-Dewey Gerdom, CEO PDC Mountaineer, LLC If fracking is made illegal then where would we get our energy needs?
Should fracking be legal

So far in this debate, Pros argument goes the following:1. Methane was found in 1930s before Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) was invented in 1940's.2. Fracking has created jobs.The above arguments do not prove pros main case that Fracking should be legal. I will argue that Fracking has many different concerns for the environment, and should not be legal because of these environment concerns, and health risk.1. Air Emission Concerns Studies have shown that higher, unhealthy, air emissions are are result of hydraulic fracturing methane leaks. These leaks originated from wells, drilling rigs, and pumps.http://www.netl.doe.gov...2. Water Consumption Hydraulic fracturing uses 1.2-3.5 million US gallons of water. Larger projects can even use up to 5 million US gallons of water. The huge use of water by fracking is becoming a major concern in drought prone areas. In drought prone areas water supply is becoming a huge issue, and water may not be available to the general public.http://pubs.cas.psu.edu...http://www.politico.com...3. Contamination Issues Methane gas is a huge issue to our water supply. Many studies have found that methane gas has caused contamination to the US water supply. Because of this contamination to the water supply, our drinking water is becoming unsafe. In extreme cases the methane gas can cause an explosion releasing harmful methane gas into the area.http://www.pnas.org...http://trib.com...4. Health Impact Issues Methane gas, even at lower levels can cause a person to become dizzy, tired. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov... http://www.nrdc.org...
Entertainment Should Only Promote Positive Lifestyles

This is ridiculous. Pro is advocating for the censorship of media. Not just the bland censorship of curse words or pornographic material, but the gross censorship of whatever someone can interpret as a "negative" lifestyle. What would constitute a negative lifestyle? Whatever the government decides as bad? That is an extremely toxic and dangerous authority to give the government. You cannot let the government determine what art can and can't be. But this is just extremely vague. Would it never hint at sex because that could cause unwanted pregnancies? Would it never depict the LGBT community because they are more likely to be victims of violent crimes? Would it never depict anything that could possibly have a negative impact on one's life? Besides, a lot of media, specifically TV shows and movies that young adults consume, show the impacts of drugs, alcohol, sex, etc. in those shows. They themselves promote positive lifestyles. "People are very impressionable and may be impacted negatively." This has never been proven. The only thing that has been proven is that it desensitizes some people. Neither children nor adults see a movie like "Terminator" and think they should do that. Of course the mentally ill are an outlier but we shouldn't restrict our entire culture, and that is not a hyperbole, to MAYBE prevent something bad. "Entertainment should not upset, disturb or frighten people." This is EXACTLY what the greatest entertainment of all time does. Just look at Macbeth by Shakespeare, Black Mirror on Netflix, any war documentary or accurate depiction such as Saving Private Ryan, etc. These amazing, although my opinion, media productions not only depict human behavior, although sometimes in an exaggerated way, but also do so to act as a "warning" or at least a cautionary tale of what human's are capable of. Could you imagine a show that doesn't upset anyone? There would be no conflict! The biggest driver of plot in any media form. There would be nothing considered "weird" to people because that could promote a "negative" lifestyle. This is by far the worst argument I have seen for the censorship of the entertainment industry, and I've delved into that rabbit hole a couple of times.
Entertainment Should Only Promote Positive Lifestyles

Entertainment - Video Games, Musics, Plays, TV, Movies - should only promote positive lifestyles. There is so much violence in the world and it is only promoted and exacerbated by the media. People already have enough negativity naturally in their lives and should be encouraged only to lead positive lifestyles. People are very impressionable and may be impacted negatively by entertainment and may imitate and do bad things. Entertainment should not upset, disturb or frighten people.
Biggest Military Mistakes

Invade Gallipoli World War 1 By 1915, World War 1 had ground to a halt. The trench lines stretched through Russia, Belgium, and France and no one was making progress. The German Navy had also successfully blocked all trade routes between Russia and Britain and France. So British Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill had a plan. The plan was for a third front to be opened up by attacking Germany's ally, the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. Then they could reach Russia through the Middle East and bring them supplies. The Gallipoli Campaign took place from April 25, 1925 to January 9, 1916. On theory the idea was good and the plan called for British and French troops to march from Gallipoli to the Ottoman capital of Istanbul. However, the invasion failed. The Ottomans were able to prepare for a land assault and 220,000 troops from the British and French Empires were killed. The Ottomans suffered to with 251,000 of their troops dead. This campaign was a major failfure for the Allies. While they still won the war, they could not get to Russia and bring supplies nor could they capture Istanbul. It was a failed plan that led to the war in the Middle East to go on longer and contributed to the ultimate defeat of Russia.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://listverse.com...