BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO Should also Use My Voting Standards Guide

THE, "REBUTTAL" Round*** (:; Alright. Now that I have asserted that my model was better, thus proving my point sufficiently that I stand to, 'not use Pro's' new standard for voting, Let me address the problems with their debate thesis. IE. Pro = I am pro for this case being true. Con = I am PRO for this case being UNTRUE. In a debate Both participants are PRO for their arguments. You are not CON, You are PRO for your own stance. IN other words. If I said, I am PRO that Gravity is false. and You accept the debate as Con, then you are PRO Gravity is real. Now If I assert that you have no evidence, and that all observed effects associated with gravity have an equally or more plausible cause; then by you presenting the commonly accepted information, you did not prove me wrong, nor did you prove the original theory correct. You as CON, PRO that I am wrong, MUST PROVE me wrong, by evaluating my contributions and disproving them, Not by rejecting them, nor by discrediting them because they are uncommon, But by actually proving me wrong. You cannot assert that my lack of evidence means I am wrong.*** YOU CANNOT ASSERT MY LACK OF EVIDENCE PROVES ME WRONG*** You don't know what is next o me on the table, If I said, "It is a bottle." and you accepted CON, you don't win because I lack evidence. HENCE, I win this debate. BoP is always on both participants, and asserting that it should not be, as is your entire debate, is asserting there should be a TROLL in every debate who wins by maintaining ignorance, insolence or impudence. And that By providing BoP he was being redundant, because all he had to do was suggest that PRO as incoherent - and a crowd of incoherent voters would thus vote CON the winner for being a moron. That is ridiculous. You can't begin to defend that claim. which whether you lie to admit it or not, was your entire debate case.
Right for Women to Go Topless

From my words of speaking, you can't say that anyone doesn't now English once you start writing properly."You do not understand anything that am saying," has a grammar issue, and my first debate which I wrote, says clearly from a website, that women wear bras for religion, and their own safety laws. And anyways, why would women want to go topless? I mean like that is like saying that men should go out in no shorts or anything under. If you are going to describe topless, you should put a definition. At first I had thought that you fore said as topless, as if having no shirt covering the upper body. Not as in the definition I put in round 4. We were both clearly mistaken of our words, and this debate went in different directions. And what was the point of saying that I am not American, nor that id don't speak English A debate isn't a mad riot to get over mad at when things don't go right. It was a confusing debate. I am willing to redo this debate against you with the definition of Nothing covering the body from bottom to above. And in round 1, the source that I cited in the debate must have gotten cut off or somethi9ng, because I had place my source. This is all I have to say to finish this debate.
Right for Women to Go Topless

You do not understand anything that am saying, and no one understands anything that YOU are saying, because you cannot speak English. It's not like English is the *greatest* language, but it does happen to be the language in which this debate is taking place. You cannot debate me here if you cannot speak English. It is not correct that women (in America) can already go topless. Generally---except for in certain cities, like Eugene, Oregon---women in America will be arrested if the bare their breasts in public. Even breast-feeding with a towel covering your breast is frowned up. If you're talking about some country other than America, well... I should have specified "in America" right at the start, and in the future I will be more careful not to assume that we're all talking about America. Regardless, it should have been obvious that I wasn't posting about a country in which this was already legal. Moreover, I even referred to "American children" (in Round One). You said "If I had knowing what you were debating about, I would've never done this debate. But for I still don't quit on debating." So, you admit that you did not know what the debate was about, yet think it is honorable to continue to pretend to argue with me even though you don't actually disagree with me? Clearly, I have won this, but I am sad that I did not get to have an actual debate with someone. I put a lot of work into my Round One arguments and wondered how anyone could refute them.
Right for Women to Go Topless

Well if you shall say that you do not understand this debate, then why do you still debate?? Just fortify the rest of the rounds if you like, just don't be shame for your lost. I have tried to understand what you have said. And according to what you said, "topless" qualifies as the definition of nude above the waist or hips: topless dancers Dictionary.com. Women have BEEN HAVE RIGHTS to HAVING NO SHIRT. I have uppercase those words for a reason. Since women already wear no shirt, then what is the point of this debate. according to what this debate topic was on, Should women be able to be topless, doesn't that mean no bra like men??? I see no point then in making this debate for such an already known cause. Women wear a shirt if they want to, but it is mostly mandatory to wear a bra. If I had knowing what you were debating about, I would've never done this debate. But for I still don't quit on debating such as you have for round 3. This is all I have to say for this round of debating.
Right for Women to Go Topless

I did not respond because what you are saying makes no sense. You are incoherent. I made several good points arguments for the legality of toplessness for women. You responded by posting a plagiarized chunk of text about the history of the bra--and which actually concludes by implying that bras might not be good for us. (A commenter even showed us where you plagiarized it from.) You have not, so far, said a single thing refuting anything that I said. In fact, you haven't made a single comment that indicates that you actually oppose the right of women to go topless, period. Your comments actually sound like you agree with what I am saying. As someone who has taught English (English as a Second Language, I mean) in several countries, I'm pretty good at telling when people are using babelfish to translate. Really odd things like "from the fortify" often indicate that. If you do not speak English, that's fine. For all I know, you might speak three other languages! However, you really can't go on debate.org and try to argue with someone--in English--if you don't speak it and don't even realize that you have no idea what the debate is even about. If you want to debate me, then please look back to round one and actually respond to the things I said there. Otherwise, this is just ludicrous.
Right for Women to Go Topless

What? How is this a response to the debate I opened up? It looks like you've just copied and pasted, from somewhere, the history of bras. Not only that, but it's a history which, in many cases, contains statements about women not needing to wear bras. How does argue AGAINST my claim that women should be able to go topless in public? So... I win already? Woo-hoo! It's my first debate here, too :)
Right for Women to Go Topless

It should be legal for women to go topless. (1) It seems that the constitution already grants that it is (several court cases support this.) First of all, we have equal rights (supposedly). Second of all, breasts are not genitals and, thus, revealing them is not "indecent exposure." It's legal in many states and cities, based on this reasoning. Let's make it nation-wide. (2) The typical argument that it is "offensive" is ridiculous, and biased toward particular religions or personal moral beliefs not held by all members of society. We should not be catering to random beliefs or upholding religion, or certain religions, in our national laws. (3) The typical argument that it will incite rape is problematic and, in fact, downright disturbing. It is eerily similar to the reasoning I've heard behind why women have to wear burqas: Men can't resist raping women, so woman (darn them! it's THEIR OWN FAULT, isn't it?) should cover up. So... where do we draw the line here? Going topless incites rape. What about wearing mini-skirts? A regular skirt? A low-cut tank-top? A regular tank-top? Do you see how this goes? It's never okay to rape a woman. If men think otherwise, it's the MEN we should be focusing on passing laws regarding (or punishing more severely when they violate the existing laws.) If I start raping every man who has a nice six-pack at the beach, will it eventually become illegal for MEN to go topless? I doubt it! 4. The whole man-boobs thing... If you want to talk about what is or isn't "offensive," then that depends on many factors, such as hairiness, physical fitness, and a slew of others. I don't see why MY breasts are "offensive" and some nasty man-boobs aren't. Should we go by size? Skin health? Or should we just admit that it's STUPID to say that my breasts are "offensive" and a man's aren't? 5. The "it's damaging to children" argument: No. It's not. European children are fine! American children, on the other hand, more than children in most other countries, have complexes/eating disorders and generally unhealthy ideas about their bodies and sexuality in general. (Lack of info about sexual health, lack of info about controlling reproduction, and so on.) Our country is also a "leader" in violent crime, including rape. I *welcome* change in how we teach our children to view the human body! The "it harms children" argument is invalid. 6. It's possible, though not yet proven, that constantly wearing a bra is bad for your breasts. At any rate, it's hot and uncomfortable (I don't need a scientific experiment to prove that to me!), so why can't I take my shirt and bra off? 7. People flip out when they see so much as a BRA---despite the fact that bras cover as much as, if not MORE than, a typical bathing suit top. I think this shows how irrational we are about women's breasts.
God Would Find the Practice of Voter Fraud Morally Reprehensible

I enjoy that you have no faith in Christ Jesus, I could not care whether I win or lose. Although it would be nice to see the right side win. If you are going to lable quotes then do that, they are meaningless with out faith. God does not need you, you need God. Thats all. I would love to speak about this but I think that this debate is here just to lower my score. God hates fraud so go treat you self to a Bible and restart your life in Jesus. Stop niglecting the right for wrong. Use the Bible for you. Life is God and God is wisdom, it was wise to made life. Every time you sin you come closer to death. Sex, drunkenness, anger, lying etc all are death related. Hell is death God is life only thought Jesus Christ can you accept your life to continue after your death. There is not such thing as death for me as for you death is the end because it is. Evolution and all these bogus theories just contain you to thing death is the end, the longer we have been here on earth the less sinificant you come, it also allows you to think that there is no God as there has been too much death. So this can not be from God you may think. I say because it is not from God but from man. I buy a brand new bike and leave it on a beach, it will rust. Rust is sin and the bike is the world. We are the person riding the bike. What will you say "This bike must be 10 years old?" When in fact its only 1 month old. Same with sin, earth and us humans. The only good way to use the Bible is for right. Do not pick and choose but believe it as the writers did of the book Psalm. You are only backing up my side when giving verses from the Bible like that. As God is on the side of the rightous. Not saying I am perfect, my heart though is on the rightous path. "Here's what God does to cheaters...." God will be just and destroy the those who are evil. "For God so loved the world He sent His only son, for who ever believes in Him shall not perish but have ever lasting lif." John 3:16 That has ended and sums
God Would Find the Practice of Voter Fraud Morally Reprehensible

This is no agument here, you have chosen the wrong topic. In fact what you have done is used the Bible as a reference for your use when you think in intails fairly tales. You should have used the law not the Bible even though I could have just said, "Have you used Lime Wire before?" If yes then go a delete you music from that then come back to me. You have refered to a double edged sword here where your end is blund and mine is sharp. I admit that what has happened should not have happened, dispite the evidence. I still insist in seeing who voted for me. After all who is really right, who should really win the debates? Atheists? Who know nothing or True Christians who know God? Science is not knowing. But understanding Knowing a friend or family is knowing. Knowing God is better than not. Also think for a second, "If God existed, what would God do? A all powerful God would create a creation with living being, creature and plants." It is more likely that God made the universe that science, as science begin when the universe was created by God. God is the base for all things good. Maybe its a mirical I am winning 12 debates on very difficult sujects to win against an atheist. Think! If something debating is it science? Or a belief? I leave you here,Im tired.
God Would Find the Practice of Voter Fraud Morally Reprehensible

>> "Yet when I have an uncontrollable use of voting you blame me for winning." That's been the general consensus - it's not my view. >> "If you have sex before marriage that is cheating." That would be premarital sex, not cheating. Adultery is cheating. >> "Cheating on God as you as human were not built to sexual relations in that way. " What?? >> "There is no balancing system when you die, no scales you step on. God has made that very clear." Judgment day? Excuse me? Your misdeeds weighed against your good deeds? >> "Those who have voted, I would like you to "come out of hiding" so this can be justified and voted correctly and fairly." The first intelligible thing I believe I've heard. >> "All you atheists repent from all those sins so this can be made fair. JCMT repent all what you have done so this can be made fair or leave this and do not reply back by forfeiting the debate." Right - I'm going to forfeit a debate because you think I'm living in sin. Fairness in debating is somehow linked to one's religious views... right. ******************************************************** Godsands has posted no argument on the topic at hand. I can only conclude that he completely agrees with me that God would abhor all forms of cheating. I wait for an actual argument in the next round.
God Would Find the Practice of Voter Fraud Morally Reprehensible

Firstly I find it odd when a none believer in the Bible who thinks its a book on fairly tales would use correct verse which are in the right. You use quotes from the Bible to back up what is right of course, yet you do not use quotes from the Bible when things are wrong. Sex before marriage, drunkenness etc... When one downloads music from such sites as "Lime wire" That is fraud and thieving. Yet when I have an uncontrollable use of voting you blame me for winning. If you have sex before marriage that is cheating. Cheating on God as you as human were not built to sexual relations in that way. Oddly you are using the Bible in a good manner this time to fight me off in a debate. For a none Christian, who is praticaily a atheist, you only use the Bible in times of need, no science will work here. Yet you think the Bible is false. This will be repeated on the day of Jesus' return, people will not ask mercy from God but use His word against Him (God). "Happy are those who live pure lives, who follow the LORD'S teachings." Psalm 119 "Happy are those who keep his rules, who try to obey him with their whole heart." Psalm 119:2 "They don't do what is wrong; they follow his ways." Psalm 119:3 Just read the whole of Psalm 119. "are those with wicked balances and deceitful practices pure?" - No like you said, nobody is pure. Time does not wash away evilness. Nothing you can do will wash away sin. Only the blood of Jesus him self. There is no balancing system when you die, no scales you step on. God has made that very clear. "Voter fraud is bearing false witness and in some ways, stealing."- Those who have voted, I would like you to "come out of hiding" so this can be justified and voted correctly and fairly. But JCMT clear up your sin as well. We are doing it God's way now. Acts 2:38 - "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."" All you atheists repent from all those sins so this can be made fair. JCMT repent all what you have done so this can be made fair or leave this and do not reply back by forfeiting the debate.
God Would Find the Practice of Voter Fraud Morally Reprehensible

The proposition on offer is that God would find the practice of voter fraud (vote bombing, voting without reading the debate, etc...) to be morally reprehensible. As evidence for this claim, I present the following: Voter Fraud is obviously a form of cheating. Cheating is dishonest. Thus, the practices of voter fraud are repugnant to the notions of fairness and honesty. Psa 11:1 - "A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight." Voter fraud creates a "false balance." Eze 45:9 - "Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD." Voter fraud constitutes an exaction from the people, and prevents the execution of judgment and justice. Amo 8:4-5; 9-10 - "Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail, Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day: And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day." Voter fraud is a form of deceit to "falsify the balances." God has outlined the punishment for this sin. Mic 6:11 - "Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?" A rhetorical question - are those with wicked balances and deceitful practices pure? Obviously not. Mat 19:18 - "He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness," Voter fraud is bearing false witness and in some ways, stealing. ******************************** Acts 2:38 - "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."" Repent from the ways of voter fraud and you can avoid hell and receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness for this heinous sin.
Do you believe The Ghost,Jin Exist. or have you seen them

Firstly, on a small note, there is a spell checker available on the site, and some voters do judge a speech based on its grammar and spelling, so I'd recommend that you use it next round. Now, since you've told me little to nothing useful about your own experience other than that you saw a ghost, not giving proper context to the scene, I'll go back to that later. John Kachuba, (I'd also recommend that you cite your sources, don't make others look for you) has a degree on creative writing. You know, stories and fiction. He is as qualified to produce factual novels as a scientologist is. You've also talked about energy conversion; that energy cannot be created or destroyed. We'll assume for this example that the body was buried in a coffin. First up, the heat energy from the body leaves into the air. Then, the decomposer (bacteria) break the body down into hydrogen sulphide and methane. This is classed as potential energy because it can be used by micro organisms. Potential refers to when it can be converted in another type (eg a boulder on a hill is potential energy, if it's pushed it becomes kinetic energy.) There is no spectral energy and a creative writing degree cannot prove anything. Your move, Duncan.
Do you believe The Ghost,Jin Exist. or have you seen them

welcome friend. People who claim that they see the ghost, is basically true and is a fact, . If I say that personally saw the Ghost and it exist , you will not believe as you believe in figures .Seeing is believing, and for anyone who has ever witnessed any type of entity, be it active or residual (a "recording" of an event that repeats and cannot interact with the viewer), there is no question of their existence. One bright day light ,at 12 'noon', I was sitting with my cousin, near a grave yard, discussing on some topic, when ,suddenly, I saw a white bright human shape passing from one to an-other grave. Following my eyes, my cousin also looked in the direction,and asked me what is that. and it proved that he saw the same which I witnessed. It was not an illusion. we are finding most ghostly activity, such as noises, visible appearances, various disturbance, communications, feeling of heaviness and touching, which are well explained by psychics. The ghost researcher John Kachuba, in his book "Ghost hunters", writes, "Einstein proved that all the energy of the universe is constant and that it can neither be created nor destroyed. ... So what happens to that energy when we die? If it cannot be destroyed, it must then, according to Dr. Einstein, be transformed into another form of energy. What is that new energy? ... Could we call that new creation a ghost?" yes ,we shall call that energy The Ghost. Gettysburg-in America,-Diplomat Hotel in Baguio City, Philippines, and lot more in the world ,the most haunted places , I suggest to visit these places and proof will be found. My advice is to do what many of us have done - start your own journey to determine for yourself if they exist or not, and keep an open mind when doing so. In the end, YOU will believe the reality of their existence.
Do you believe The Ghost,Jin Exist. or have you seen them

Welcome to debate.org. I'll be your opponent. I will start off with an opening statement that ghosts of any kind are not real. People who claim to see them have as much proof as Jesus appearing on toast. Saying they exist and that you see them over and over again proves nothing. We can detect electrical impulses. Eye conditions are not ghosts. Remember as proposition, the burden of proof is on you.