BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is unfair that I am unallowed to vote on debates because I don't own a phone.

I thank you again for the debate. That is interesting, but you didn't answer my question about poverty gaps, the terms of service, etc. That study is also in America, not everyone is an American on DDO. To quote from my opponent's resource "Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to always hide the public IP address of a home network. ". It is possible to setup other security measures besides cell-phone confirmation. That is a good argument I will agree. However, this does not refute my argument. Cell-phones can easily abuse the system. If we have ip address tracking, it atleast curves the abuse. You would just have to wait until you went home. Even if ip addresses are not the sole system, my point is there are alternatives to cell-phone confirmation. On the last point my opponent has made, it proves my argument more. If Airmax is willing to go around the system of cell-phone confirmation, then why should it exist? If it wasn't a flawed system, Airmax would not have to do what he is doing now, or would he? Moreover, my opponent never addressed how this was never mentioned in the Terms of Service of DDO, or anywhere else when we sign up for an account on this website. To conclude, my opponent has made good arguments against ip addresses as well as cell-phones. However, he has yet to defend or claim at all that the cell-phone system is positive. What I mean is, he has yet to state that the current system of cell-phone confirmation is a good thing. My opponent used a source showing how many people have cell-phones and how you can borrow somebody elses. This raises two issues I have already addressed. The first being that the cell-phone confirmation system is easily abusable and can be used to create multiple accounts. The second is that it is unfair to people who do not have friends, or cannot afford a cell-phone on their own. Lastly, my opponent showed the weakness in ip addresses. I agree with his argument that there are flaws with ip addresses, but not as much with cell-phones. You can always link an account to an ip address. Moreover, ip addresses are traceable. Multiple cell-phones are not.
It is unfair that I am unallowed to vote on debates because I don't own a phone.

Contention 1: Use of Parents phoneMost American adults have adults. In fact 90% do! (http://www.pewinternet.org...) You see when I first joined the cite I had a cell phone except there was one problem. My parents had blocked my texting so I could not get a confirmation number. I then turned around and asked my parents if I could use their phones for this website and they agreed. I ended up using their phone and received the ability to vote.Contention 2: SecurityMy opponent brings up that you could track IP addresses, but there is a distinct problem with that. IP Addresses can easily be masked by the user making things hard for Juggle (website owners) to do so. (http://compnetworking.about.com...) We also have several members whom of which go to the same school on this site and tracking their IP Address may lead to an unnessiary closing of an account though Airmax1227 had already been notified. Example: DPowell and myself go to the same school and tracking our IP addresses would be futile. He also does not have the voting ability yet either. (http://www.debate.org...)Contention 3: Airmax1227 This problem has actually been brought up several times. All you have to do is PM Airmax1227 and he will get things worked out with you as he has done so with many other users on this cite. (http://www.debate.org...)
It is unfair that I am unallowed to vote on debates because I don't own a phone.

It should not be taken too seriously. I am just having a fun debate with my opposition on this issue. My main problem is that I do not own a phone, I do not have any friends who have phones, and I shouldn't be required to have one in order to vote. The order of my arguments are as follows: 1) Terms of Service 2) Security 3) Money 1) Terms of Service. If we read the terms of service, there is a section called "Eligibility". I would like to cite from that below: "Eligibility By using the Debate. org Services, you represent and warrant that (a) all registration information you submit is truthful and accurate; (b) you will maintain the accuracy of such information; (c) if you are under the age of 18 you have permission from your legal guardian to utilize Debate. org Services. (d) Your use of the Debate. org Services does not violate any applicable law or regulation. (e) Your profile may be deleted and your Membership may be terminated without warning, if we believe you are not "eligible" to utilize the site's services. " It never stated I needed a cell phone to access certain features anywhere within the Terms of Service. Moreover, I would like to cite the following: "Content Posted and Code of Conduct You agree to use the Debate. org's service in accordance with the following content posted and code of conduct guidelines: Will not create more than one account. " They already made us accept that we should not have more than one account, therefore, I shouldn't have to verify via my cell-phone. Moreover, nowhere in the Terms of Service is there any indication that this is required. 2) Security I understand the main reason for this is so that votes are not faked with multiple accounts. However, someone can always just make multiple accounts and use their friend's phones. Especially when most people may not do this, they would have an automatic advantage. They could however track IP addresses. Make sure that only one account pure IP address. If the same account is used in another IP address location, it can be monitored and tracked. It is used on many other services and is not too difficult to do. 3) Money This assumes that people have to have a certain level of income in order to vote in this website, or not be allowed to protest cellular phones. In a way, one can see this as discrimination. If I, or the people surrounding me, cannot afford a cellular phone, then I am unable to vote. I thank my opponent again for this debate. Keep in mind everyone, I don't care too much that I can't vote. This debate is just for fun. May the LORD GOD bless you all.
Law banning the second employee from the train engine.

Believe it or not, there is a rule ( I think rule 1.11.6 of the BNSF rule book) about if one of the trainmen in the engine must go to the restroom, it is ordered to find a siding (like turnout), stop, and use the restroom as quickly as possible. As stated before, Positive Train Control does not always help. I older train engines, such as the Elecro-Motive Division GP-30 (which were built around the 1960s and '70s) are obviously not fitted up with PTC than an EMD SD-70ace-p4 that was built this year. A lot of class 2 and class 3 railroads use older models ,such as the GP-30, because that is all they can afford to own. Sometimes these lower class railways have a pact signed with class one railways to use their tracks to commute to distant facilities that they don't have tracks to. During that long travel, they may encounter other trains heading towards them. With out the PTC system, they will not know that the other train is heading towards them until it is too late. On August 26, 2000, a Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern train bound for Central South Dakota was derailed in Brookings, South Dakota, killing the conductor and severely injuring the engineer. The accident was caused intentionally. The suspect called it a 'prank.' PTC doesn't and cannot prevent this type of wreck. PTC has a homing device, like radar, that sends up an alert message saying that a train is to close. It cannot tell if a switch is lined against them until they wreck. (When a switch is lined against them, it means that the switch is set up for a train to cross over to the other track on the other side. It is set up as a one way deal.) Chatsworth is just North of Los Angeles; definitely not a desolate area. This happened when A Metrolink commuter passed a red signal and collided with a Union Pacific freight train. That line is one of the routes that sees more trains a day than, lets say, Detroit and the Great Lake areas. Since it is that place sees more travel, it would be key to protect that route from wrecks. The only way to protect it is with Positive Train Control (PTC). Still, even with PTC, Metrolink plows right into the Union Pacific train. Chatsworth Derailment: http://en.wikipedia.org... DM&E derailment: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Law banning the second employee from the train engine.

If we were to get rid of this law, and if another derailment happens, it may be found that it happened because one employee was in the bathroom, and the other fell asleep, putting pressure to hire another employee to make sure there is always two employees in the control station (or whatever it's called). That means three employees would hired, which triples the regular cost for a trainmen. I am basing this off how the U. S. pilot system works. Also, you mentioned that the PCT doesn't work well in desolate areas. Philadelphia doesn't not exactly remind me of a desolate area. Plus, how many accidents have happened that are caused by the failure of PCT in a desolate area! I haven't heard of many. Still, I acknowledge that I am ignorant of this subject
Law banning the second employee from the train engine.

There are some automated devises called Positive Train Control that prevent a train from train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a main line switch in the improper position. The only problem is that they don't always work. Most of them depend on microwaves to transmit the codes to stop the train from disaster. If you are in a desolate area or something is jamming the frequency, the code isn't always delivered. Most of the time it is up to the engineer to decide what to do. Another reason that it is up to the engineer is that, what if the train is in a canyon and he has a heart attack or falls asleep (because of the railroad calling him to duty early, It has happened). Since the engine is locked to the passengers, the other crew members can't get to him in time and then, boom, there dead due to the train stopped in front of them. I say that technology can't always help and it always realise on the trainmen to operate saftley. Positive Train Control: https://www.fra.dot.gov... (You could argue about how we don't need another trainman in the engine.)
Law banning the second employee from the train engine.

It will be difficult for me to debate this for two reasons. One, I think regardless of anything I might say, there still should be a second, and two, I don't know any sources I could cite. I will accept this challenge to make sure there are no points that are overlooked. To start, perhaps other changes could be made that are more efficient. Is it possible to have automatic systems that slow the train down for a turn if it's going too fast? Then you don't have to hire an employee, and guaranteed, there won't be another train derailing if everything works fine. Again, I don't know then first thing about trains, but please consider it.
Law banning the second employee from the train engine.

On Thursday, Amtrak commuter 188 on the Philadelphia Northeast corridor derailed due to speeding to fast on a 50 mph curve. They (the train) was going about 106 mph. It is not known at the time of this publication but it is possible that the train derailment happened because of the engineer fell asleep during this operation. Not only that, there is only to be only one trainman to be in the locomotive. Federal law permits only one trainman in the locomotive so if he has a heart attack or falls asleep because of Amtrak crew base calling them early or so, there would be nobody to help him or wake up. The reason that Amtrak got rid of the second locomotive trainmen was so that they didn't have to pay as much money on both of them. I state that that law should be banned due to safety reasons.
gun control laws being stricker

if have stricter gun control then we run the risk of increasing gun violence. we have the right to bear arms according to the second amendment. if your house was robed you should have the right to defend you and your family and a kitchen knife wont do much. people also use guns to hunt which keeps the deer and other animal populations down. so if we have stricter gun control laws then we could increase gun violence but other animals population would go up and it could hurt the environment
Strong Muslim outrage over satire relating to their religion is not justified

The muslims have an absolute right to be in outrage over their satire. It is not a choice to wear covering, it is engraved in their religion, from burqas to hi-jab's they are required universally (especially the females) to wear covering. In some instances severe punishment as it is in Iran is acceptable for refusal to wear such satire. This not only oppresses females (because in some middle eastern countries like in Iran they are required to wear full body covering) but it destroys expression and basic freedoms like we have here in the United States. Freedom of expression is a right. And separation from society or even legal punishment for exercising that right is a form of discrimination. They should absolutely be outraged that a religion that is over a thousand years old is dictating what they wear, how they pray, and even who they can be friends with or communicate with. It states countless times in the quran to cover themselves. Like in Quran 24:31 "And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, (with their Khimar) and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed." 24:31 So in countries as Iran or Saudi Arabia where the government is a theocracy or ran by religious leaders they will force it upon the people to wear what they say to wear. Which is clearly taking away people's rights. So it's only logical to protest when you are having even the most basic of rights taken from you, such as the right to wear what you want or express yourself how you please.
The Doctrine of the Sin Nature

I am a Bible-believing Christian and I am arguing against the doctrine of the sin nature. The text of the King James Bible will be my final authority. You may use any version you like, but I will be defending my case using the KJB and not other versions. Greek and Hebrew may be referenced by both Pro and Con. Rules for the debate: 1. ) Pro must be a professing Bible-believing Christian 2. ) The Bible is to be the final authority in this debate, not church creeds, church fathers, etc.
The Doctrine of the Sin Nature

The universal nature of original sin is plainly laid out in Romans. A full understanding of original sin is only possible in light of the Gospels and Jesus' sacrifice for man's salvation. Original sin brought on the universal damnation of man kind, but Jesus offers the universal salvation of man kind. Con's primary objection to original sin is rooted in a flawed philosophical argument that a sin nature is incompatible with free will. I have shown that free will is no more mitigated by man's natural tendency to sin than by man's tendency to be cruel when physically exhausted or his tendency to commit crime when placed in poverty. The sinful nature of man does not consume his free will and it does not absolve him of personal responsibility. Original sin is in harmony with God's infinite mercy and justice. God holds each man accountable for his sins and through Jesus offers salvation from the spiritual death incurred by Adam. Thank you to all who took the time to judge this debate.
James Lacriox, known child sex offender should be executed.

First of all, I think you're completely ridiculous for even trying to lie about a person so great. However, although I know the original intent of yours was to talk about a great man by the name of James LaCroix, we will debate a man by the name of James Lacriox. I have never met this man, but I have an idea of who he is... he's one of your second personalities. As I know you and have to spend time around you, I would formally like to diagnose you with schizophrenia. You have different personalities where you are nice, mean, sad and now introducing the pedophile side of your personality. Eugen Bleuler, the man that coined the term schizophrenia, says that in severe cases, people begin to name their personalities after people that were great influences in their earlier lives, whether they had that particular personality or not. Now that the debate has been clarified, I would like to move on to the actual argumentation. Now, even though you may have a mental disease, I do not believe that I should execute you. Now it seems to me that alongside your schizophrenia, you are also suicidal and need some serious therapy to assist you, but not to execute you. Therefore, I can only see you voting negative. Thank you.
I Most Logically Will Win This Debate

Rules: 1) Con must concede this debate 2) The Instigator of this debate automatically wins 3) Pro automatically loses this debate 4) Any Arguing of The Rules is considered a full concession of all points 5) Adding of rules any more rules is a full concession (Note: If ANY rules contradict themselves the rule listed first is the OFFICIAL rule for this debate.) Arguments: I win.
YEC is unlikely

Hello everyone. I will accept the burden of proof in this debate since I am Pro and the Instigator. Note that I'm not arguing that YEC is impossible, or didn't even occur. I'm just arguing that it is unlikely. YEC - Young Earth Creationism : The belief that the earth is around 6000 years old unlikely - not likely : improbable http://www.merriam-webster.com... Although the burden of proof is on me and my opponent needs to only rebut my arguments, I would like to clarify a few things. When I provide empirical evidence, my opponent find flaws in my evidence WITH evidence. They can't make up hypothetical scenarios stating what COULD have happened, because even though it could have likelihood favors the side with more accurate evidence. I would prefer if my opponent dedicated the first round to making sure we both agree with definitions and procedure, rather then debating. :) Thank you
Sexual penetration of any kind is a form of rape.

Well, so much for a format. The case is based on the idea of what sexual penetration is and does coinciding with what rape is. Sexual penetration as in intercourse between two people involves one party forcing a part of themselves or an object into another person. The process of which does harm to the second party equal to the stimulation of the act as sex can lead to disease, pregnancy, or other pain resulting from penetration. Therefore sexual penetration causes a risk for harm or causes harm ( especially in the case of pregnancy which can kill or severely injure the woman.) Now what makes it rape is by definition rape is the act of compelling a person through force or duress into sexual intercourse. In order to haves exist intercourse one has to literally force something into another person. On the emotionally side, penetration is also a form of rape when you look at it from the standpoint of a person convincing them to engage in an activity that could be harmful for the purpose of personal pleasure. One reference is the real world example of dating. In dating one party with the purpose of gaining sex from another individual by acting in a certain way until that other party gives in. Giving presents, compliments, buying dinner, and spending more time with the person is all in order to reap a benefit of having sex with them. This is a similar ideology of date rape: giving a person more and more mentally inhibiting substances until their defense is so low that they are convinced to let another person stick a piece of themselves inside them, and all for the express purpose of gaining sexual stimulation. In a normal circumstance a person would not place themselves in the resulting torture of blunt force, illness, labor, or death; but in sex these are exactly what results: blunt force in the form of a foreign object pushing inside their body, STD, carrying another living thing within themselves for a little under a year, before having to expel the living thing through very painful means, a procedure that can cause death. Thus, sexual penetration is rape physically as it involves forcing something inside another person, outing that person at risk for pain, suffering, and death, and for the emotional aspect of lowering someone's guard and then taking advantage of their guard being let down for said sexual stimulation.
Sexual penetration of any kind is a form of rape.

Disclaimer: I am not a radical feminist, but this is an idea that is rather interesting, and I actually think is based in truth. The Argument: Sexual penetration of any type is a form of rape. Sexual penetration = the act of penetration for sexual stimulation. Rape = the compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. This argument includes but is not limited to sexual penetration commited by one's self, with permission, and by any object. While originally the argument for PIV, it is not limited to it. Note this is not a legal debate but an argument on the idea of sexual penetration itself. This round is for acceptance of the challenge and statement of argument. Round 2 will be for opening arguments, 3 for rebuttals and new arguments, round 4 for final arguments and conclusions. Extra reading for background of this debate: http://witchwind.wordpress.com...
The Soda policy in New York

Since my opponent didn't give an argument. I will just finish by saying this would be wrong for people's and business' freedom and liberty to sell and buy what they want. If someone wants to put this much sugar in there body (http://www.sugarstacks.com...) they should be allowed no matter the damage to health. The government can't be our mother telling us what not to eat, but keep each person to have freedom.
The Soda policy in New York

The current soda policy is that a sale of many sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces,will not be allowed unless in a super-market. This is in hopes of trying to end obeisidy in the New York area. People who want to enjoy a soda can't do so if they want one over 16 oz this is wrong for two reasons one taking freedom from the people and businesses and also having too much govermental control in or lives. Is obesity a proplem yes can soda make that problem worse yes, but is that for the governmet to decide. The person who is over weight that drinks soda isn't going to stop just because of a new law. There is more health changes in ones life than soda if they wnat to be not over-weight. Give people freedom and take government out of our lives.