BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Potential Abuse / Voter Issue

First, thank you for debatingAnd now..Looking back at the definitions, one sees many re-iterations of the same core concepts. Lemme try to clear them up so that this round is easy to evaluate- Abuse: something violating the standards set by debaters, which in turns skews strategy/fairness/education, etc.- Potential: having the possibility to…X- Thus, potential abuse is action which violates evaluations standards but does NOT qualify as abuse because it doesn’t necessarily skew voting standards strategy, fairness, education, etc.My opponent claims that round become regressive because each time might have been abusive, I have a few answers (sorry that I didn’t make them earlier)1. Not every argument has the potential to be abusive..rounds don’t become regressive2. If an argument DOES have the potential to be abusive, there’s no reason NOT to vote against it3. Debaters…they tend to debate. (lol). The fact of the matter is that I stand up and say “having a value is abusive”, the opponent will probably answer that and explain WHY it doesn’t even have the potential to be abusive. This checks abuse4. My second argument went conceded out of the second round – not considering how an action could have been abusive ALSO makes debate regressive, because teams are encouraged to nestle right up to the line between in-round abuse and potential abuse. My example, in round 3, proves this point5. Reality checks his offense – “voter” doesn’t mean something a judge walks into the round thinking about, it means something a debater has full liberty to bring upTo elaborate on #5, I’m advocating a punishment paradigm, not some round where the judge evaluates arguments that weren’t made6. Reality checks his offense in a second way – teams won’t run stuff like “plan texts are a voter”To elaborate on #6, you should also look at the third argument I made – if ridiculous arguments are made, they will aptly be anwered (and if they’re not, then they should be voted on)In conclusion, the question you should ask in the end is “can debaters really make claims that ____ is bad because it could POTENTIALLY cause abuse?”the answer, as I have shown, is yes. Thanks (:
Potential Abuse / Voter Issue

The problem with my opponent's last round is he's trying to come back and redefine potential after having already conceded to the definition I gave. Hold him to his concession, as it's going to be key to judging the round.Potential, since my opponent already conceded to it, will be defined as expressing possibility. So the resolution can thusly be reworded like this:Possible Abuse should not be a voter.If we allow something that is POSSIBLY abusive to be a voter in a round, then the round will become an infinite cycle of regression, as each side could've potentially been abusive. The round, at that point, would become indeterminable. But if there is actual abuse, as my opponent keeps stalwartly arguing for, then it ought to be a voter, provided that the argument is made. But, again, actual abuse is not what the resolution is talking about. His arguments are only responsive as to why ACTUAL abuse ought to be a voter. This doesn't correspond with the resolution, though, so hold him to a) the resolution and b) the definition he conceded to.At this point, I'm a little confused as to what to put here. His arguments are, more or less, saying the same thing as before, and are still not responsive to potential abuse. He conceded to the definition I provided, so hold him to that. So it's an easy pro vote.
Potential Abuse / Voter Issue

This round looks like it's going to come down to the definition of potential abuse. Potential abuse, I should clarify, doesn't just mean "abuse that never ever happened", it means "abuse that doesn't necessarily degrade the particular round". For example: If I punch my friend in the shoulder, that's not abuse. But if I punch a baby in the shoulder, that's probably "abuse".What I'm saying is that, in a world of debate, it's ok so solidly vote on "punching" (metaphorically), even if it isn't necessarily "abusive” in the round. The word “potential” in the phrase “potential abuse” doesn’t mean “it could potentially have happened”, it means “it happened, and it could potentially have been abuse”. When I defined “potential abuse”, I should have just labeled that as “abuse”. Potential abuse is when something happens that wouldn’t necessarily be defined as “abusive”, but has the potential to degrade debate. We know it has the potential to degrade because it violates the standards set by the debaters, even if it doesn’t trigger the impacts they bring up. Violating the standards is when it’s potential, and causing the impact is when they are abusive IN round. **example A reads 3 off – 2 counterplans and a kritikB says: condo badInterp – condo bad Violation – 3 condo positions Standards – Destroys argument interaction the can read contradictory arguments making it impossible for us to answerVoter – [whatever] NOW – potentially, if A was really good in that round, none of the arguments had to be contradictory. the problem is that, if we let A get away with that, s/he might run 4 kritik later, each saying completely opposite things.
Potential Abuse / Voter Issue

While my opponents arguments are, more or less, logically sound, they all have one error in common that I will be exposing as the reason why his case fails. It comes down to a undisputed definition (call it semantics if you will, it's still a legit definition).Even if I concede to my opponent's definition of abuse, which for simplicity I will, we must first distinguish between ACTUAL abuse and POTENTIAL abuse. This is where my opponent's case becomes incredibly flawed. If there is actual abuse in the round, say perhaps a shift in advocacy or some other violation, then it is up to the debater (or debaters, if I'm defending policy as well now) to prove that there is a violation and prove that it should cost them the round. This is the premise of my opponent's arguments. To this, I can concede to. Sure, when abuse is present, it should be countered and be considered a voter in the round. That's just common logic. But there's one key flaw that my opponent DOESN'T adress, which is the difference between POTENTIAL abuse and actual abuse. This difference is going to make his case entirely non-relevant to the topic at hand. If there is actual abuse, then that abuse should be a voter. I won't dispute this. But just because there is the POTENTIAL for abuse to happen, doesn't automatically make abuse present. If POTENTIAL abuse were a voter, it would be impossible to determine any round, for both debaters (or teams) have the POTENTIAL to run abusive arguments. But, again, just because I have the potential to run abusive arguments, it doesn't mean that I will actually run abusive arguments. This is a key flaw in my opponent's case, and it's the reason why his case doesn't apply to the resolution. All my opponent's case talks about is if there is abuse in round, then it should be considered a voter if the argument for it to be is made. Fair enough. But we have to distinguish actual abuse from potential abuse, and the actual abuse, which my opponent advocates against, isn't actually in question. If we allow potential abuse to become a voter, then we put debate rounds into an infinite cycle of regression, as both debaters have equal potential to run abusive arguments.Thusly, POTENTIAL abuse should not be a voter.
high school students should be required to take a basic medical class

1) Curriculum The pro says that these new first aid classes would just be implemented int school medical classes, however there are a good number of schools that do not have medical courses and a large majority of schools dont make them mandatory..... So if ALL high school students had to lean basic first aid it would have to come through medical programs that might not exist in schools, but these medical courses would have to be vastly expanded if these courses were to become mandatory.... Making such classes mandatory would require expanding the courses but with school budgets like they are these courses would be very poorly funded and not a good idea if the point is to teach students how to stop a cut.... 2) Basics The Pro says that just the basics would be taught.... But the Pro said earlier that the point of this whole thing was for bystanders to prevent people from dying from their wounds, so if we only teach them the basics then we would be forfeiting the original goal of giving everyone the ability to help potentially save a life since we would only be teaching kids how to stop a bloody nose or basic stuff like that.... 3) Other initiatives Pro completely missed what I was trying to argue here. The point was that if we are supposed to give students the tools and knowledge to help people, then why are we not trying to give them different skills to help people too, and if we decided to do that then where would it end. The pro has no answered this question.... 4) Drug abuse They dont teach kids in chemistry classes how to make Meth Pro, they dont even come close to letting kids handle anything even remotely dangerous... With pharmacology classes though we would be telling kids how to find these drugs, what they look like, what does what to who, basically a crash course for figuring out how to get a cheap high.... 5) Goal of this program My question was whether or not this program was being introduced to give people the knowledge to help people in need, or to help people save money. The Pro danced around this question and instead talked about how giving students basic prescription drug knowledge would trigger price controls on the drug industry or something. My point was that these courses are supposed to let students have the power to potentially save a life, not turn them into savvy shoppers....
high school students should be required to take a basic medical class

First counter:.....well i didnt make this clear earlier but....these classes will be covered by the schools medical program already in place.....and at least at the lowest level will be health and fitness class.....witch the cirriculum will be twerked a little bit...to include some first aid......(im not requiring pharmacology....but i am saying that it may be introduced) Second counter......im not suggesting that these students be taught how to cauterize bleeding arteries......but just Know to hold the wound and possibly flush it with water....nothing extensive just basics. Were not gong to teach them how to do any risky procedures....because they could mess up....... Third counter.....we are teaching kids how to find criminals with criminal justice classes........and we are raining students basic firefighter skills.....at least at my school we do....in these courses theres no risk to the student.....its mostly book work........... Fourth counter.......Basic over the counter drug knowledge and possibly pharmacology........indroucing this will have the same risks of the already in place chemistry program.....chemisry has the possiblity of teaching how to make drugs.....but limits the cirriculum as to not stimulate the thought.....so say..... Fifth counter......i can understand that this could damage the drug industry....but we also have the possibly of forcing industries to lower there prices............and as i stated earlier people cant afford there meds introducing bsic over the counter knowledge will help with that problem Thanks for the round.......
high school students should be required to take a basic medical class

thanks for excepting this debate....I'm not the best typist so my spelling may be off....This is actually a bill that I'm going to submit for congress.....so feedback would be appreciated. proposal: students should required to graduate with basic first aid,and over the counter drug knowledge. civilians can increase there chances of survival if they know basic first aid. If a person knows to stop the bleeding then they wont bleed to death by the time paramedics get there. also, There is this good sumeritan law witch states it is against the law when you get into to an accident and you don't help them. How can a person help if they don't know what to do. No one wants to watch people die or be helpless, by requiring high school students to learn some basic skills, America will most likely have lower death rates Basic pharmacology should also be introduced. every year people spend lots of money on prescriptions. Most prescriptions have a generic version or naturally occurs in some other retailed product that is way cheaper. just recently i almost spent 200 dollars on panoxl.......I found the same thing in the same pharmacy and it was only 9 dollars........if students are required to learn basic over the counter drug skills then we could save lots of money
ATM's should encourage selfish users to show some consideration for others

In any case, the cost should be borne by the bankers who, if you remember, ripped the taxpayer off to the tune of trillions of dollars and used the cash to pay themselves huge bonuses as a reward for their greed and incompetence. (1) Moving on, I should like to make it clear that I wasn't referring to retards in the literal sense, rather people that behave like them. I mean, if someone is so profoundly backward that they can't use a cash machine properly they wouldn't be let out of the asylum unsupervised, much less entrusted with a bank account. No, the people that I was referring to are the ATM users who do not concentrate on the job in hand and instead send texts or chat on the phone or just daydream rather than getting their money out as quickly as possible. Yes, my opponent's sympathies are certainly misplaced. What about all the mentally ill people in the ATM queue behind these inconsiderate scumbags? Some manically depressed person who has been waiting for ages might lose the will to live and top himself right there and then (2). Or there might be a schizophrenic amongst them who will get so stressed that he will suddenly flip his lid and start lashing out at the general public (3) - you just don't know. Certainly I do know that these unnecessary delays upset irascible girlfriends who, in turn, do their innocent boyfriends' heads in by saying things like: "Do you think I spent hours getting ready to waste half the night sitting in a supermarket car park waiting for you…rabbit, yak, rabbit, yak…why do you have to make us late every time we go out…rabbit, yak, rabbit, yak…I remember now why we split up the last time…rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, yak, yak, yak. " Finally, if someone is so lackadaisical that the ATM decides to swipe their card I believe they deserve to be inconvenienced and, given that more than half the population of both the US and the UK are overweight (4), if that means they have to walk to the bank rather than drive there is a better than even chance that the exercise will actually do them some good! Thank You. (1). http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2). http://www.mind.org.uk... (3). http://www.nhs.uk... (4). http://www.choicesmagazine.org...
ATM's should encourage selfish users to show some consideration for others

I also wish to thank the audience for taking the time to read this debate. First I would like to say, there are thousands upon thousands of ATM's in the world. In order to accomplish what you suggest the government would have to spend millions of tax dollars. They would have to pay for the software, they would have to pay for the shredder, they would have to pay for the timer, and they would have to pay the programmers. Those millions in tax dollars could be going towards education, health care, road work, ECT. .. . Secondly, there are many people who are mentally ill. These people take a longer time processing thoughts than the normal person. When the machine says, 'Are you some sort of retard? Press ‘Yes I am a retard' to RETURN CARD' That would be discriminating. It would mean that they could not get any cash because they are retarded. It is not their fault that they were born mentally ill. Thirdly, people are already depressed in this world; they do not need an ATM to degrade them. Many people find curse words offensive especially the one that you are suggesting the ATM says. There will be a lot of angry people. There are also some people with a retarded family member or friend. Some people find it offensive when you insult someone by calling them retarded. Lastly, sometimes there are emergencies where someone needs to use their card to pay for something. But if the ATM shreds their card, they can't do anything about it until the bank reopens. What if someone runs out of gas? Then they must walk to the bank. I look forward to your argument. Thank You. Sources: . http://www.agingsociety.org... . http://answers.yahoo.com...
ATM's should encourage selfish users to show some consideration for others

Have you ever been unnecessarily delayed queuing for beer vouchers at the hole in the wall? I bet you have. Unfortunately, wherever you live you are going to encounter the type of thoughtless, ignorant scumbags who allow massive queues to form behind them while they faff about doing god knows at ATM's. For this reason, I affirm that it's time the banks revised the ATM's on-screen messages to encourage selfish users to hurry up a bit. Perhaps the programmers could adopt something along the lines of the following: "We notice you are taking longer than normal to enter your request. Do you have a problem? Are you some sort of retard? Press ‘Yes I am a retard' to RETURN CARD or ‘No, I'm sorry, I'll stop wasting my time and everybody else's and bloody well get on with it' to CONTINUE." And if they still don't hurry up then a new message should flash up: "Look, there are people queuing up behind you and we are sure they have got a lot better things to do with their time than stand and look at the back of your head. Now if you don't get a move on we're going to retain your card and you can bugger off and whistle for cash instead." Finally, if they are still dilly-dallying about a final message should be displayed: "Right, we warned you. We f^cking warned you didn't we? Yes we did and now we've swallowed your card just as we said we would. We hope this will serve as a lesson to you not to be so selfish in the future. You can get your card back from the bank when it reopens but in the meantime, kindly get out of the way so that the person behind you can use the machine. Thank you." By employing these revised on-screen scripts, inconsiderate cash machine users would be prompted to conduct their financial transactions without undue delay, thus reducing frustrating queues at ATM's. Thank you.
We should Amend The Constitution to Overturn Citizens United

One of the greatest deceptions ever carried out on the American public is the false reporting regarding the Supreme Court Decision on Citizens United vs the FEC in 2010. People foolishly think they know what happened based solely on the reporting of talking heads in the mainstream media and the forked tongue of con artist politicians. These subjugated people are mindlessly falling for the aristocratic treachery by agreeing to a nefarious amendment to the constitution.
We should Amend The Constitution to Overturn Citizens United

As my opponent and I have each used two rounds to post our main arguments, I will give Con the courtesy of being able to have the final word (note that I posted my first main argument in Round 1 while he waited until Round 2). With that, I ask the voters to read the full debate before voting, and vote on terms of whose argument was most convincing - ask yourself which of the debaters presented more fact-based, well-sourced, actual evidence for their side of the debate (I'm resisting a huge urge to post an argument for this round but don't want to be unfair). Please also note who used more sources in this debate, as well as whose sources were more reliable/relevant. With that, I would like to thank my opponent once more for creating this debate, and wish Con the best of luck in voting! "America is by the people and for the people, not by the corporations and for the corporations." - Me
The human brain is biologically designed to bluff.

To start off this argument, i would like to point off that the human brain technically speaking is m"biologically designed" to do nothing. We must learn to breath, must learn to crawl, must learn to walk, must learn to consume, must learn to speak, must learn to learn, and in context, we must learn to lie, or "bluff". Now, as Aerogant points out, yes, many people must muster up courage so that they can converse with another being, and in most cases, when one tries to act out the imagined scenes, they panic when its doesn't go as planned, causing the brain to think of a way to get back into its comfort zone. That is very true. But we didn't come out of the womb able to immediately able to bluff or lie. First, one must comprehend what is socially acceptable before they can even began to lie. We are able to lie because of deception. We lie or bluff for different purposes, but say someone grew up in a world where their household was only honesty, where their society was honest, the person wouldn't even know how to bluff. So, no, i do not believe that one is biologically, or genetically, designed to bluff.
The human brain is biologically designed to bluff.

It's very easy for someone to make a claim (imaginary matter), then completely miss the point of making the claim (to replace that imaginary matter with genuine matter); it's the same feeling as, say, building up all these thoughts and emotions for someone you're about to have a big talk with, so on your way there your head feels big, your heart feels big, your nerves are wild and you have it all there, but frankly when you finally reach your destination, it all goes *poof*, why? The human brain is biologically designed to bluff. Hence the behavioral patterns of a bear or that of a puffer fish. Therefore all those that do this are in reality still primitive creatures that haven't reached the remote surface of their human potential.
The human brain is biologically designed to bluff.

Information exists within the DNA like information exists in game coding. Do not waste my time with your blatant lack of knowledge towards biological assets of the human mind; I know these things more than you do. I study these things for a living, while you're just wanking off what little you understand in this debate. Then you talk about double joints, when it's clear what the bear is doing in the first place. What the puffer fish is doing. What the dog is doing. And what the human being is doing. You just cannot be that dense. Your avatar does well in reflecting your depth of character.
The human brain is biologically designed to bluff.

no, it is not biologically implanted you moron. its learned. the blow fish, the species you seem to prefer to use as an example, finds the technique its famous for through trial and error. Its body was also made specifically for that purpose, just as a bears limbs are all double jointed so they can stretch their limbs farther and look bigger. IT IS A PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC, SOMETHING OF WHICH HUMANS HAVE NOTHING TO COMPARE TO. God man, seriously. you call me a idiot but look at you, your infering we have the same physical capabilities as those animals. Simply idiotic.
The human brain is biologically designed to bluff.

the definition of bluff is to try to deceive someone. my point is that you cant just bluff, its not a genetic ability, nor is it biological, and not in our DNA. You really shouldnt target someone, or a group of people, or let alone issue a challenge on the internet if you dont even know what your talking about. I think your a tiny bit outside of your knowledge zone my friend, not the other way around. And please keep in mind this site is made for FRIENDLY debates about subjects they please to debate about, attacking someone on this site is well, childish.