BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bose are better than beats

This round has been forfeited by Pro, so the vote will default Con. Pro was not nearly as specific as he needed to be because this debate could have been about anything. He did not prove that "bose" are/is better than beats, because he did not define what "bose" are/is. Essentially, my argument in the first round goes to show how definitions help a case by allowing there to be something to vote on. Voter's cannot assume what the debate was about. I argued that "Bose" is better than beats, I did not argue Pros side of the case in that he did not define what his side of the case actually was.Voting issues:1. My final arguments were untouched by Pro.2. Spelling and grammar have been proven to go to Con.3. Conduct to Con because of the forfeit and the lack of a true case by Pro.4. Sources to Con because of the cited definitions.5. Convincing arguments to Con because Pros arguments had no real structure and were too vague.
Bose are better than beats

Let's first go back to spelling and grammar:1. "Hey" should not be entirely capitalized, as we do not automatically know the acronym for it.2. The period after "Hey" should be a comma.3. Pro does not mean the number one, but one as a pronoun.4. There should be a comma after "debate. "5. The "e" in "secondly" does not need to be capitalized. 6. "I" needs to be capitalized.7. "Know" should be "no. "8. "You" should be changed to "your. "9. You quoted something I did not say.10. Within that quote "thatn" needs to be changed to "than. "11. "Please" should be capitalized. In response to your only point:I am saying that Bose is better than beats by my definition. You have no supplied a definition of "bose" therefore there is no reason to vote for you as "bose" can have multiple definitions. Your case is flawed to the point that the vote defaults to Con because you have not proven that whatever "bose" you are talking about is better than beats. My argument was simply to prove to you that, say, if you were more exact, you would be correct, but because you were not, you are unable to prove that "bose are better than beats. " Simply enough, without a real case, you cannot win. The round defaults to Con.
Bose are better than beats

I would like to start by proposing a few definitions:Bose: (according to The Free Dictionary) Indian physicist whose work in quantum mechanics provided the base for a statistical description of the behavior of large numbers of bosons. Beats: (according to The Free Dictionary) plur. a. To strike repeatedly. b. To subject to repeated beatings or physical abuse; batter. c. To punish by hitting or whipping; flog. We can see that Bose is obviously better than beats because simply enough, Bose has contributed much more to today's society. Whether of not the sounds quality of Bose's voice is better than the sound quality of a beat, we can ultimately see that just because Bose has helped society more than simple beats, he is by far superior. Now let's check on some spelling and grammar:1. Pro needs a comma after "Personally" (which he spelled incorrectly).2. "Different" is spelled incorrectly.3. "I" needs to be capitalized.4. "Bose" needs to be capitalized.5. "Are" should be changed to "is" because Bose is one person, or singular.6. The period at the end of the second "sentence" should be changed to a colon.7. A comma needs to be added after "first of all. "8. "Pair" is spelled incorrectly.9. The incorrect form of "to/too/two" is used, it should be "too. "The resolution itself also needs to be changed because of reason 5 above.
Your knowledge about anything and everything is not unexpected

Since this is the closing arguments round I will not present a rebuttal to Cons last round. In closing I have shown that expected knowledge can only be defined by the 7 categories I listed above. I have also shown that unexpected knowledge is knowledge that can only be defined once it has become past tense. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. VOTERS - PLEASE REFRAIN FROM VOTING YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS. Thanks!
Your knowledge about anything and everything is not unexpected

Please note Con has went off topic - whether it is beneficial or necessary is not being debated. Anything that can learn something has expected knowledge. However, you are not understanding what expected and unexpected knowledge is. I will try to break it down for you again. Expected knowledge - If you can define something in past tense, present tense or future tense, it is expected knowledge. Unexpected knowledge - If it is impossible to define something in present tense or future tense, it is unexpected knowledge.
Your knowledge about anything and everything is not unexpected

One needs knowledge to have the expected knowledge. The expected knowledge may be useful for researchers. How a common man be befinited by the expected knowledge? My mother is a nice cook. Is it necessary for her to know the parts of potato or it forms, sensitivities,,,? All animals inherit their actions and their activities without going to a school. They are doing it perfectly. For example, cat, which does not go to school. Yet does all the basic functions clearly. Does it has any expected knowledge?
Your knowledge about anything and everything is not unexpected

I will attempt to explain this in a different way to help you understand. You have 2 rooms. One of these rooms has a windowless door, no windows and no way to see inside. The other room has a door with windows, regular windows, and a window wall so you can clearly see inside. Expected knowledge is represented as the room with the windows, because without opening the door, you can describe what the room looks like, whats inside the room and what kind of materials are inside the room. Unexpected knowledge is represented as the room without windows, because the only way to figure out whats inside the room is by opening the door, however once you open the door the contents of the room are definable so it then becomes expected knowledge. Expected knowledge is anything that can be defined by the seven categories. Unexpected knowledge is anything that cannot be defined in the present or the future. Once something can be defined it becomes expected knowledge.
Your knowledge about anything and everything is not unexpected

The statement "your knowledge about anything and everything is not unexpected" is true. What it is saying is that no matter what subject you learn about or discover, whatever you learn will be defined by 7 (seven) different categories. Knowledge of everything (even of things yet to be discovered) rests in these 7 categories - 1.its parts, 2. its abundance, 3.its connections, 4.its sensitivities, 5.its forms, 6.its uses and 7.its substitutes. Anything after that cannot be defined in any way shape or form except in the past tense and therefore becomes unexpected knowledge. Think of something, anything. OK? Now try to describe what you thought of. You can try this with anything, and I assure you your description will fall under one of the seven categories mentioned previously. THIS IS EXPECTED KNOWLEDGE. So lets say you thought of a tennis ball. Now lets describe a tennis ball listing the corresponding category as they are described. A tennis ball is a spherical object (#5. form) made of 7 oz. (#2 abundance) of rubber polymers and polyurethane and color dyes (#1. parts) which are bonded (#3. connections) to create a ball that has a bouncing effect (#4. its sensitivities) that is used to play the sport of tennis (#6. Its uses) which can also be played by using a similar ball of similar construction (#7 its substitute.) Now that we have our expected knowledge we can now take a look at the unexpected knowledge. So now we have this beautiful tennis ball, and you must be wondering, well how long will this tennis ball last? Believe it or not there is a answer to this question, the only problem is we wont be able to figure it out until the tennis balls life ends. That is what makes this knowledge unexpected. Everything that falls under the first 7 categories can be defined (whether it has or has not been defined already means nothing, if only for the simple fact that when it is discovered it will be defined) and is thus called "expected knowledge" everything else is impossible to define, and therefore the knowledge in unexpected.
should alternative voting replace the first past voting system

Given that my opponent has disappeared, as I see it, I just have to provide one disadvantage of AV and one advantage of STV to win arguments and conduct. So:AV is an inferior system to the present First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system as the person with the highest number of first preference votes - the most popular candidate - is not always elected. STV is a superior system because the most popular candidate is always elected yet other candidates can be elected to represent differing views within a multi-member constituency. Therefore AV < FPTP < STV.
There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.

Hello thank you for accepting.The only evidence have ever been presented with for why gay marriage should be illegal has come with a religious bias of some sort. gay and lesbians are perfectly happy tax paying members of society and deserve the same legal rights that any loving couple would be entitled to. The reason that gay marriage is important to be legalised is as follows: 1. It will help end discrimination. Many gays are the victims of horrible hate crimes and while I don't suggest that the government condones this if the government is treating them differently then it will be easier for the rest of society to do so as well.2. Married couples get benefits better than a civil union can offer. Gay peoples tax dollars go to helping married straight couples so gays should be allowed to benefit from them as well.3. The majority of the US supports it. In July of 2012 48 to 44 said they supported gay marriage: http://www.pewforum.org...5. It will not effect anyone but gay people. I always hear people saying that "If gays marry It will hurt my marriage" I don't see how this is possible. If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married.6. Adoption. Many children need loving homes and ending this discrimination ageist gays will make easier for gays to help out these children.Thanks for reading.
There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.

I believe there is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.The purpose of this debate is to decide if gay marriage (In the US) has any reason being banned using only secular agreements. There are 3 rounds of debate.Rounds:(1) Acceptance(2) Opening statements(3) Rebuttal(4) RebuttalRules:-No bible references-No references to god-All statistics or other such evidence must come with a sourceIf no secular argument can be found I beleve there is no reason for marriage to remain illegal in many states because of the separation of church and state.
There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.

I'm going to start this round by making my position clear on two things: weather sexuality is a choice and weather it is immoral.Is it a choice?I am going to assume that you are under the impression that sexuality is a choice. I want to make it clear to save this coming up in later round that I do not believe this is the case because of scientific and anecdotal evidence. I believe in the Kinsey scale. However in a secular world if homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Saying that I was in love with a man (but could chose to love a woman) nothing would be wrong with me choosing the man as life partner as there is not way to argue that this act would be wrong and remain secular.RE: The Argument from SemanticsYou are right in saying that I did not want to debate with semantics. But you are correct and I suppose this will be up to the audience to say wif your argument is worthwhile.RE: The Argument that isn't AbusiveIf it is true that government only does marriage to encourage offspring then why can these people get married: the elderly, the sterile and those who just never wish to have children. Shouldn't the government put tests in place to make sure couples can and want to produce offspring?Even if that was true gay couples can adopt children. So if as you say "The public purpose of marriage is to connect children with their parents" shouldn't the adopted (or surrogate) children be given the same connection with their gay parents and another child would get?RE: "This relationship is grounded in the nature of humans"Just because something has sprung up all over the world doesn't mean it is the right or in this case only way. See slavery that was also (and still is) grounded in human nature. The reason that unions are traditionally between a man and a woman is because most people are sexually oriented that way. Or to not contradict my "Is it a choice?" above most people chose that. This makes homosexual relationships more rare and therefore weaker to being outlawed. Much like when women who were not given rights because they were traditionally in a physical sense seen as weaker. Homosexuality has been seen all over history. The Greeks cared little about sexual orientation. So really no type of relationship has been grounded in the nature of humans only one has been more popular.
There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.

Since Round 2 is only for opening statements, I will only make an opening statement. This is not me dropping any arguments. Note that my opponent should have the burden of proof to prove that there is no secular argument for a ban against gay marriage.My Case:The Argument from SemanticsMy opponent never said semantics weren't allowed, so I present this nearly irrefutable case.Premise 1: Some people think gay marriage should be banned.Premise 2: We should listen to those people.Conclusion: Gay marriage should be banned.Whether or not this argument is good, sound, or anything else is irrelevant, because it is an argument and it is secular. Therefore, the resolution (There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage) is negated, because there is a secular argument for a ban on gay marriage, even if it's no good.The Argument that isn't AbusiveBecause I doubt my opponent wants to debate the Argument from Semantics, I have devised this new argument that I call the "Argument that isn't Abusive".The public purpose of marriage is to connect children with their parents, otherwise there would hardly be any need for a union of one man and one woman. This relationship is grounded in the nature of humans, which is why it has risen in pretty much every society. Although there are many private reasons for marriage, the only interest the state has in marriage is its public purpose, otherwise it needn't be involved.There is a legal precedent for banning people from being married, as evidenced by the laws against marrying a close relative.Because homosexual parings cannot produce children, there is no need for them to have marriages, so the marriages should be banned.I'll write more later, but for now I turn it over to my opponent.
There should be no NFL team outside of the USA

My first point is of the word national, National: Of, relating to, or belonging to a nation as an organized whole. Key word here, whole. The nation. in this case america as an organized whole. Organized by the 50 states. As con stated above it is the national football league, and this should be located in said nation. The nfl can't put a team outside of the country when it goes against the very name of there organization. I state my second point and that is of travel. Panthers wide receiver said this of the idea of relocating to a different city. "Oh, no. The relocation that is required and the travel and all that stuff, you're constantly on the road. The time change is brutal for the physical work we do. If it was a complete league out there, that's a different animal. But to live in London and travel to the United States to play, whomever that team is, they're at a disadvantage every time they hop on a plane. Currently the Jacksonville jaguars are considering a relocation to London. The last thing the jaguars need is a disadvantage. Every other week the team would hop on a plane and travel back to play in the states, it creates a disadvantage to any team that moves there. Teams already have a huge problem with travel within the states, the move to London would cause extreme changes to the game as it is played. My opponent stated that a move to a different country would promote diversity because not one team does not have players from a different country such as Mexico or Cuba, however this would not be true. Consider a move to Toronto, is around one or two players originally from Canada on the team. This doesn't support diversity at all because the players from Mexico or Cuba or South Africa or New Zealand are not from Canada. It doesn't help these players that they move to canada instead of the us. All the move to Canada would do is anger the American players and wouldn't help the players from other countries because either way they are in a different country. The only people who would be satisfied with the move would be the 2 Canadian players on the team, that is not diversity, thus a move to a different country would not support diversity. Based on the points I have presented I stand by my original opinion that no team should be allowed to relocate outside of the national (and by national I mean American) football league.
There should be no NFL team outside of the USA

As the majority knows, NFL is a widely known football league that promotes two separate divisions; The American and the The National. Why cities from around the world should not be able to compete in this league does not make sense to me. Let's say that the San Diego Chargers relocated to Tijuana, Mexico. This would make sense because there 2 other teams in California and Mexico has zero. To make a long story short, this would create less competition for ticket sales. Now why should this team not be able to compete? Afterall, N.F.L. stands for NATIONAL Football League not AMERICAN Football League. If teams were only allowed to locate themselves in America, why not ban all the players from foreign countries? Why? The answer is simple, sport organizations such as FIFA, NFL, NBA, all promote diversity. There is not one professional sports team out there that contains all American players. Players might originate all the way from Cuba, Mexico, Korea, and Australia. So why not let the location of teams promote diversity for the main goal of sports and life (in my opinion) is to unite and form one peaceful world. That is why teams should be able to relocate to foreign countries.
There should be no NFL team outside of the USA

Although I see what my opponent is saying behind the statement that they have to deal with travel, it doesn't change the fact that the players will still be at a disadvantage because of it. Even if they can deal with it and not have a problem with it they still can't recover as easily as a team traveling within the USA. This puts the team at a disadvantage with takes away from the game itself. My opponent insists that the word "national" can mean outside of the limits of the United States, however he has not presented a definition that presents this. Thus the definition I presented stands in this round. Again this definition was: National: Of, relating to, or belonging to a nation as an organized whole. Because it is the rebuttle period no definition can be presented and thus this definition stands. My oponent referenced the CNL, however I believe he meant the CFL because the CNL doesn't exist. He states that the NFL is more famous because "it has teams from around the country and diverse players" and he states that the more widely spread a league is the more success it will have. However this is not true, because the NFL is extremely successful within the USA, not outside of it. The CFL proves that the attempts to bring football outside of the USA have failed, and thus we should not bring a team outside of the USA because the foreign countries will not enjoy it.
There should be no NFL team outside of the USA

My opponent stated earlier that one huge disadvantage of relocation of another country would be the travel. I understand the logic behind that statement. But in reality, if your career is a professional sport player, you have to deal with the travel and frankly, I do not think that a travel to another country is going to change anything. Also in my opponent's argument, he stated that the word "national" limits to the United States. That is not always true. The word national can be used to represent a country, or the world. I think that in this case, it relates to the world. There are only two major football organizations in the world, one is the N.F.L and one is the C.N.L. . Now think which one is more famous. The answer is obvious. It's the N.F.L because it has teams from around the country and diverse players. My conclusion to this is that the more widely spread a league is, the more success it will have. This concludes my rebuttal.
the game!!! serious debate

I think I'll take this one just for the fun of it. Ok, so the topic as I see it is: There is no way to lose the "game". I have to prove that there is a way not to lose the "game," and my opponent has to prove that there is no way to no lose the game. 1. The game is continuous. My opponent says this himself. You only lose the game if you think about it. Therefore, every time you don't think about it, you are not losing. I win. 2. There is no conclusion for the "game," so we have to say at some point someone wins. Seeing as there are only 2 states to the game, losing and not losing, the not losing part of it must be winning, since losing is not winning. So every moment you don't lose, you win. Thank you. I have fulfilled my burden. I win.
the game!!! serious debate

ok very surprised that I did not see this anywhere in the archive of debates... many people know about the game and with knowing about the game, everyone who read this just lost it. My question is"Can you win at the game?" or rewording,"How do you not loose the game?" ok so what is the game you ask? There are five rules to the game, they are as follows: * Rule number 1: You are playing The Game. * Rule number 2: Whenever you think about The Game, you lose. * Rule number 3: Loss must be announced. * Rule number 4: Anyone who asks about the game MUST be told thus bringing them into the game * Rule number 5: There is no break period in between losing the game…once you forget, the game starts again Everyone is playing the game, they may just not know it, yet. So, if you lose the game around someone who does not know about the game, and they ask what it is, you have to tell them about the game, and thus induct them into our society. You are now playing The Game. WARNING! PLAY ONLY IF YOU INTEND TO LOSE A LOT. FOR THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE THERE TO MAKE SURE YOU LOSE THE GAME. P.S. I LOSE. taken from :http://www.communitywiki.org...