BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Division I College Football Should Implement a Play-off System

My opponent has conceded the following logical argument: "So, you say that the people who run D-I have the opportunity to have the 'Ultiment Event in Sports'? Then why haven't they done this yet? They must obviously have a reason. Perhaps they can't. They might be locked into a contract. They might not have enough time. They might be unable to afford it. I don't know. But they do. They might be unable to do a lot of things. Perhaps they don't want to. They might like the current system better. They might have more profits under the BCS. They might appreciate the fan excitement. They might want their students to study for finals rather than watch football. I don't know. But they do. They might want a lot of things. However, there must be a reason why they have the current system they have, as opposed to a new one. If play-offs were so beneficial and viable, as you claim, then they would have implemented it already. But they haven't. They either can't do it, or they don't want to do it, or something else. Obviously, they know more about this stuff than you do. But they shouldn't do something that they can't do. But they shouldn't do something that they don't want to do. Therefore, Division I College Football should not implement a play-off system. " All I needed was for this to lack opposition to win. It lacks opposition. I win. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to entertain all of my opponent's arguments. Also, I am not the computer. I don't know exactly how the computer does it. I can, however, vouch for the reliability of a computer in sports. Anyways, because my opponent did not make a single direct argument against the string of syllogisms that I made, my opponent has conceded a negation of the resolution. My opponent has conceded.
You are a sock account.

There is nothing unethical about remaining inactive for nearly a year, but it definitely is a little suspicious. I met someone on another site about 7 years ago, they attacked my account with 200-odd sock accounts for disagreeing with them on something (I don't remember what), and all the accounts fit the description yours did (started a long time ago, had somewhat aggressive posts, etc.). It got so bad I decided to leave the site, but I always felt kinda bad for the person that felt that they needed all those accounts to get their ideas across. When I saw your post and the state of your account, I thought you were that same kind of person, hence the open letter. I am sorry if I came off as mean or negative, I just really don't like the sock account generals (a new term I just made up) that hate and shout their ideas over a dozen plus accounts, silencing any criticism. And I wanted to stop anyone on this site that might be doing that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
You are a sock account.

Hello, you recently commented on one of my opinion section questions "Do you find gender equality philosophies (i.E. Feminism and the Men's Rights Movement) to be stupid and/or hypocritical?" (http://www.debate.org...). I would like to inform you that the question you answered had a few missing words, which I corrected in the actual question "Do you find gender equality philosophies that focus on only one gender (i.E. Feminism and the Men's Rights Movement) to be stupid and/or hypocritical?" (http://www.debate.org...). After reading your rather intriguing comment, I checked out your profile. Your profile has been active for a year but its only activities were three opinion comments including the comment on my own. I can only conclude, nicoliecola, that you are a sock account to someone else. You might be a sock account to BrooklynHaze, but I am not sure. To whosoever sock account this is: Really? Why do you need a sock account to give your opinion on something? The internet is an open forum where everyone's ideas can be expressed, not free from criticism mind you, but you can at least express your ideas and opinions, no matter how hateful they may be. Are you afraid that your friends and family will find out about your beliefs? That would be understandable if you didn't seem to have this sock account for purely hateful purposes. Don't be afraid, let your inner hate out on your real account, or if you don't have a 'real' one make one, and let the internet see who you really are so everyone can see you and criticize your beliefs with logic-based arguments. And, if you are the least bit mailable as you were as a child (probably when all those bad ideas and misconceptions got into your head in the first place), you will be able to accept new beliefs and change and grow as a person. I hope you don't just dismiss me or unleash your army of sock accounts on me, because I only want to help you to grow as a person. And by the way, the only people who use sock account armies are the people that don't want their beliefs challenged or criticized, but you need to let that fear of criticism go, or it will turn you into a bad person.
You are a sock account.

You would be surprised how stupid some people are, they just want to spread their ideas. Even if it means silencing all others, even if their ideas are wrong or misplaced. Some people just have egos like that. As I explained, when I saw your account I was worried someone like that was on this site. I would have sent you a message, but your account wouldn't receive them, so a debate challenge was the only other thing I could think of. No, I did not expect all my answers to be 'yes' answers, actually I like it when people disagree with me. But your post seemed to be (at first glance) a troll/hater comment. At first, I just left a response directing you to the actual question, then, on inquiry I decided to check out your account, which led me to believe that you were a 'sock account general'. This whole experience has been rather embarrassing on my part, I plead your forgiveness. Once again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
The world would be a better place without hand sanitizer.

I do not think my opponent is seeing the entire scope of the issue here. What my opponent has done is started off with the presupposition that hand sanitizer, over time, actually can cause any type of "super bug". This is quite a leap, as no evidence was given for this claim, the claim was merely posited. Let us, for the sake of this debate however, suppose that hand sanitizer did indeed carry this potential. The benefits of hand sanitizer far outweigh a remote risk such as the one my opponent presents. Think of all those who work in hospitals. Each and every day doctors and nurses are exposed to a plethora of pathogens on an hourly basis. Now think of how many doctors and nurses use hand sanitizer, and how much the spread of illness has been prevented by this simple measure. My opponent states that there would be less of a chance in launching humanity into a "bacterial infested world", what my opponent has not realized is we already live in one. As such, measures like hand sanitizer provide a way to, at least in part, prevent the spread of bacteria.
Poem about a naive 4 year-old girl

Poem about a naive 4 year-old girl I was walking down this dark alley of doom When in front of me, A 4 year-old girl I said to her "Well hello there pretty" She was alone and it was kinda pity I said to her "A girl like you shouldn't be out here by herself Someone might take you and keep you for himself" She said something that I didn't understand well I said to her "Why don't we go to my place" She didn't say no so guess that meant yes We arrived at my room, She was kinda blue I told her "Now I gonna make a mess out of you" You belong to me now, You are mine Your little body and your mind I gonna do to you whatever I want She looked at me and said "Please dont". It's too late now to withdraw your consent There is no escape from this event Sweetie, This nature doesn't forgive mistakes you climbed on a train that doesn't have brakes
students should not be graded on their handwriting

Con has already forfeited but I will continue my argument in case con wishes to continue this debate in the next round. Since I am pro I am going to argue that students should not be graded on their handwriting. It is true that handwriting is important and children should be helped to improve their handwriting however being graded on their handwriting can give children a false sense of their progress and what they need to improve on. If a child who is struggling to keep up with the rest of year or their class could be lead to believe that they don't need to work as hard because their grades are higher because of their handwriting. Children should be judged on the quality of their work not how neat the work is. It is acceptable to praise them because of their neat handwriting but lifting their grades could have drastic impacts. - They believe that they are doing better and as a result they do not work as hard. - Their parents may feel the need to cancel tuition because their child has higher grades. - People will spend too long working on their handwriting and too little studying the actual work. If a child is doing exceptionally well and has bad handwriting having lower grades because of it is unexceptional. They will try to perfect their handwriting and as a result the good grades that they once had will drop down. I would like to remind con that we are speaking of bad handwriting - not unreadable writing because if their writing is so bad that the teacher has difficulty reading - only then is it acceptable. The impacts include: - Low grades for good work - Parents given a false sense of their child's progress - The child's self esteem will drop I would like to remind voters that conduct should go to me due to the forfeiture and spelling and grammar should also go to me due to the fact that in round one con failed to use a capital letter or a full stop. Source http://myanimelist.net...
Taxpayer funded abortion

I agree that adoption is a better choice however, adoption entails actually having the baby. This includes check ups and appointments, dealing with all that comes with being pregnant such as cravings, sickness etc. A lot of this costs money and looking at it realistically, it's costing them money for someone they are going to give up. In a lot of cases, women are too afraid of people finding out that they're pregnant, namely their parents or other family members but also from the general public who they feel would persecute them for their action. Aborting a baby at an early stage of the pregnancy makes it easier when there is hardly any "baby bump." Having said that, abortion seems like the easiest option in the eyes of young or poor women.
Taxpayer funded abortion

I would first like to start by saying thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present a counter argument. Please note that the views expressed throughout this debate on my behalf are not solely representative of my personal views and are solely for the purpose of this debate. CON: "Taxpayers money going to fund abortion clinics is unfair to the people who personally oppose abortion." "I believe that abortion clinics should not be government funded or taxpayer funded." PRO: [1] According to the Hyde Amendment, it is illegal to fund abortion using federal funds unless in the case of rape, pregnancy due to incest and saving the life of a mother in which life-endangering complications have arisen as a result of the pregnancy. In which case, the question is raised whether it is a person's right to abortion in order to save their own life? Should a woman or young girl who is raped have to live with the consequences and reminder of what has happened for the rest of her life? It all boils down to personal choice whether an abortion should even be committed but at the end of the day, money is being used in various branches of the economy that not everyone agrees to such as the death penalty, housing inmates, nuclear bombs and military service [2]. Statistics show that abortion rates are higher for poor women than for rich or middle class women [3]. Women who have limited access to funds rely heavily on government funding to support them. If a woman suffers an unforeseen circumstance that she has no control over, she should have the option of help from the government should there be any in place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3] http://prospect.org...
The earth is flat

First I would like to refute my opponents refutations 1: My opponent has stated that not all flights have random stops. This has no relevance because I never claimed that all flights ended up with a stop over. I only brought up the fact that this stop can only make sense if it was under the flat earth theory. 2: My opponent asked if I know why the treaty of 1959 was instituted. I intact knew why but again it has little to do with the debate. To make my opponent's refutation make sense the governments would have to be entirely honest about its purpose. If they are hiding this information they would follow past precedent and lie. An example of a government lying is the American president. 3: I have a cooler argument because of its extreme swag factor. For these reasons I can only see a pro vote.
The earth is flat

There are many pieces of evidence that the earth is flat. For one a flight from the Philippines to L. A. Started like any other. But mid way through the flight a woman's water broke and they had to land. If you look at a globe(False representation of the earth's actual shape) the stop in Alaska would have been longer then just continuing to L. A. But if you look at the flat earth map the path from the estimated location of where the detour started to Alaska would be a straight line that would be a shorter distance than continuing the flight thus justifying the the stop in the only way that makes sense. (See figure 1) Another piece of evidence is the Antarctic Treaty of 1959(Put into affect in 1961) states that no civilians may enter Antarctica. This is the exact place that on a flat earth map would be the border around the edge of the world. By blocking our entrance to this continent the governments of the signing countries have thus blocked our only way to see the truth. The last piece of evidence is how photos of the earth from space are taken. When looking at earth from the ISS one can only see about 1/3d of the entire planet. To take a full photo the ISS needs to circle the earth to get all angles. By doing this it provides warrant to the fact that to make the full earth photos are indeed Photoshoped by NASA. This gives NASA the ability to fake the earth's shape and provides plausability to this claim. This is a joke. 1: https://steemit. Com/flatearth/@kerriknox/emergency-plane-landing-shows-idiocy-of-flat-earth-thought-refuting-flat-earth-memes-1
Evil exists

Rebuttal"This is a canned argument, you could say this about anything. If it objectively true that ideas exist, then we could say elephants made of bananas that shoot lasers from their trunks exists as an idea."It is true that you could say this about anything, but I don't see why that is a detriment to my argument. Even though my opponent has used a zanier example with laser shooting bandana elephants, it doesn't change the fact that it can exist as an idea, as long as the idea did actually occur to someone.
Evil exists

Skirting around my main contention we find the topicality argument. As I previously state "Objective evil is immeasurable by the methods of man, there are only ideas, and the idea of evil is the idea that evil exists objectively, which we debate." "Whether or not the idea of evil exists is just a coin flip of who gets pro, unless you want to debate the existence of ideas, using ideas." You will cross apply these two points to my opponents justification of his non-topical interpretation of the resolution. He wants to debate the existence of ideas, whatever the subjective context, and prove the existence of evil by proving the existence of a thought, which as we both have stated is the only provable thing. His interpretation of the resolution that I gave him "EVIL EXISTS" was that evil exists as an idea. If I had meant that I would have said that, but I didn't because that would be a loaded debate. If my opponent is allowed to add to the resolution instead of just interpret it, you allow him to add anything he wants. Meaning he could say, evil caneval exists, evil doesn't exist, evil exists nowhere, evil exists but only in the mind of Dennis Leary or anything he chooses. Extra topicality does not add to the debate, it allows whoever is Pro to rewrite the resolution however they please. The IDEA is that evil exists. Two words, interpret evil, interpret exists, then write a claim. "My opponent should've said 'Evil exists as an idea' wasn't fair game when he started this debate. It's hardly fair for me to see this debate, formulate an opinion, join, post my stance, and then have my opponent tell voters (for the first time) to downvote me if I use the argument." We must always call on the rules, the reason is to ensure a fair debate, which is the link to an educational one. We look to the best and most universal interpretation in order to be on the same level, and be talking about the same thing. How could I have known to say "Pro is not allowed to say, evil exists as an idea" before you even said it? That is why that came out in my constructive. VOTE HERE-to ensure fair debates, this takes priority over the rest of the debate, because a vote in the direction of fair play will have a positive effect on the mindset of debaters in this forum, when it comes to skewing the resolution. )()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()( If you do not agree with the procedural, let me answer his paragraph. "If it is objectively true that ideas exist, then it can be true that evil exists as an idea." This is a canned argument, you could say this about anything. If it objectively true that ideas exist, then we could say elephants made of bananas that shoot lasers from their trunks exists as an idea. Despite the fact that he relies on unwarranted claims to support his extra topicality, I am going to refer to this being a value debate weighed on analysis and supporting logic, which weighs heavily to one side of this closed case.
Evil exists

"If my opponent violates the interpretation of the debate, then you vote them down before voting on the round, much like a flag thrown after the play, procedure must procedure the actions of the debate."My opponent should've said 'Evil exists as an idea' wasn't fair game when he started this debate. It's hardly fair for me to see this debate, formulate an opinion, join, post my stance, and then have my opponent tell voters (for the first time) to downvote me if I use the argument. My ArgumentObviously this is a debate centering around objectivity. What evil is/means is subjective, so I won't start with evil itself, I will start with ideas.Ideas are not something we can physically touch, only something that exists in our minds/imaginations. We can objectively say that ideas exist, all people have ideas. When a person thinks of an idea, they have conceived of a notion in the realm of reality, it should be considered real. If it is objectively true that ideas exist, then it can be true that evil exists as an idea. What exactly the idea of evil is, is subject to the holder of each idea, but no matter the subjective interpretation of what it means, we know that it does exist-no matter the form-as an idea.
Evil exists

Objective evil is immeasurable by the methods of man, there are only ideas, and the idea of evil is the idea that evil exists objectively, which we debate. Whether or not the idea of evil exists is just a coin flip of who gets pro, unless you want to debate the existence of ideas, using ideas. If my opponent violates the interpretation of the debate, then you vote them down before voting on the round, much like a flag thrown after the play, procedure must procedure the actions of the debate. This is to ensure a fair round, allowing both the ability to meet their arguments together so that the most logical analysis can be held. Education is the objective of debate, not winning or losing, a fair debate is most educational. We are debating on the existence of a thing called evil. THIS IS A VALUE DEBATE, YOU WILL VOTE ON THE MOST CONVINCING ANALYSIS BY WHO SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIM BEST Contention 1 From Whence Cometh Evil? A) FREE WILL VS NECESSITY i. Tolstoys metaphor describes a man sinking who pulls a man from shore to the depths, a starving mother of an infant who steals bread, and a soldier in rank executing an order to kill an innocent civilian. ii. The sinking man was drowning, and grabbed anything to keep from doing so, the mother broke the law to breastfeed her child who she would not allow to starve, and the soldier was conditioned to follow orders absolutely and without question lest he be court marshaled and imprisoned. iii. The balance of freedom and necessity in an action depend upon the understanding of the situation witnessed from whatever perspective. I.E. nobody in jail is guilty, it is always a mistake. iv. Man and all actions we take, feelings we feel, are inevitable phenomenon of which nothing, even consciousness can control, unless one tries to look only at the face value of an action. B) RELATIVE MORALITY AND YOU i. If you wished a dog dead and it died, then the death of the dog is good, if you wished the dog survived and it died it would be bad, if you wished for your childs happiness but didn't care about the dog and it died it would be bad. ii. Stimuli is filtered through belief, what one holds to be a priority dictates the morality of an action. iii. Morality is subjective and depends on the relativity of the action, there are plenty of people dying right now, plenty of orphans being made, why aren't you crying? There are plenty of babies being born, plenty of villains being reformed, why aren't you jumping for joy? iv. Morals are subjective C) THE ACT OR THE APPLAUSE? i. What dictates the quality of the show? ii. A single act, or the overall impact of every act? iii. Can an actor forget his line, in a good show? iv. Can an actor deliver the perfect monologue in a bad show? v. Neither action nor consequence matter, only the opinion of the viewer. D) THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH i. Everything inherently neutral ii. Morals are subjective iii. Absolute evil is a myth
defending against a dragon

Stage 1: a portal entrance on winter rose mountain, into the dark of snake maze. no one has ever died in snake maze, altough many have come close to death at the silent white and black snakes hiding in the noises of falling winter rose leafs, slithering in darkness of the maze. Stage 2. A microscopic lightning strike from the center of a spider trofy. Statue columbs of fearful eyed snakes in a tunnel with a promising light of a cave exit at its end, but caught in a giant spiders sticky web, a talking spider that in its revealed lights offers you a choice, and says you must jump from the edge of the cliff at the end of the tunnel or becomes the spider food, and first you must grab on to one of its legs to escape with it from the edge of the narrow cave cliff, to land on a ground camouflaged inflatable mattress, and should you do so the power to control fire will be granted to you Stage 3 and 4 in progress..