BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The only people on this site that make original debates are Max.Wallace and Me.

I accept. Definitions (from Oxford Dictionaries): 1.) Only: And no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively. 2.) Original: Present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest. 3.) Debate: A discussion involving opposing points; an argument. In order for me to win this debate, I must prove that Max.Wallace and Aerogant AREN'T the ONLY people on this site that make ORIGINAL DEBATES. Arguments: Many debates are considered "original debates." As long as they existed from the beginning, debates are considered "original." Well, aren't most debates original? Let's take a look. Here's a couple of "original" debates: 1.) http://www.debate.org... (existed from the beginning since 7/19/14) 2.) http://www.debate.org... (existed from the beginning since 8/3/2014) 3.) http://www.debate.org... (existed from the beginning since 7/20/14) All these debates are original. These debates existed from the beginning, and they consist of actual arguments and refutations. Thus, there are several others who make original debates. Now, let's discuss about Max.Wallace and Aerogant's debates. Some of their "debates" shouldn't even be considered debates. For example, http://www.debate.org... (Max.Wallace Vs. Me) Throughout the debate, Max.Wallace drops all of my arguments. This is basically not a debate because he fails to provide a single argument. Refutation: "We also don't cherry pick by restricting who can argue. We also don't put more effort into our rules than the actual argument. We also don't talk about X Vs. X, conspiracy theories, ghosts, gods, weed, manga, cartoons, wars - no, we talk about why all of this is getting old and is BS in an originally witty way." First of all, these "arguments" have nothing to do with the topic. The topic clearly states: The only people on this site that make original (existing from the beginning) debates are Max.Wallace and Me (Aerogant). Second, Max.Wallace created a X vs. X before: http://www.debate.org... Third, just because people at DDO talk about X vs. X, Conspiracy theories, etc.; doesn't mean that the debates are unoriginal. My opponent has failed to bring up any arguments relevant to the topic. For all these reasons, please vote for the Negative side of this debate. Thank you.
The only people on this site that make original debates are Max.Wallace and Me.

We also don't cherry pick by restricting who can argue. We also don't put more effort into our rules than the actual argument. We also don't talk about X Vs. X, conspiracy theories, ghosts, gods, weed, manga, cartoons, wars - no, we talk about why all of this is getting old and is BS in an originally witty way. Come at me, trolls and children.
The only people on this site that make original debates are Max.Wallace and Me.

Refutation: "They are not original- such things have existed before the 20th century. Try again. " Ha! That's funny because you got the wrong idea of the word "original. " Original basically means first. All those examples I brought up were the FIRST debates with that title. You, as Pro, failed to prove how the only people in this site that make original debates are Max. Wallace and Aerogant (you). You can't tell me to try again; you brought up no arguments. "Your argument does not stand at all. " Well, my arguments stand tall compared to yours. :) RTP: 1. ) I actually brought up sources (sources from DDO). 2. ) I brought up arguments relevant to the topic. 3. ) My opponent did not bring up any arguments relevant to the topic. Instead, he insults me by calling me a whore. 4. ) Most of my arguments were dropped.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (The McDonalds Coffee Case) was not frivolous

Stella Liebeck sued McDonalds when she spilled hot coffee on herself. The case has commonly been made fun of because a lot of people believe the woman should have known the coffee would be hot-- however, these people apparently never actually read anything about the lawsuit. Stella Liebeck suffered 3rd degree burns from the coffee all over her butt, groin, and thighs. She had to get skin grafts. She was parked when she opened the coffee to put cream and sugar in it. During the trial, it was brought out that McDonalds was supposed to serve their coffee at 180-190 degrees farenheit, which was hot enough to give 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. It was also brought out that in 10 years there were over 700 reports of people burnt by the coffee to varying degrees of severity. The Health Department had warned McDonalds to lower the temperature of their coffee before but they had not. So, when people say "idiots can sue McDonalds for having hot coffee" in reference to frivolous lawsuits, they obviously haven't researched it at all.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (The McDonalds Coffee Case) was not frivolous

First, there have been other cases in which people did try to sue Mcdonalds for burns from coffee. Most of the judges however dismissed the cases. Second, Starbucks, Burger King, and other places that sell coffee also serve it at 180 degrees or higher temperature. The National Coffee Association (yes there is one) suggests that coffee be brewed between 195 degrees and 205 degrees F. and be consumed "immediately." If not consumed immediately it should be kept at 180-185 degrees farenheit. Third, The attorney for Liebeck sued McDonalds for coffee burns even after McDonalds lowered the temperature of their coffee to 155 degrees farenheit. Not a convenient fact for someone trying to prove that this was not a frivolous lawsuit. Fourth, I've read many accounts of this case and apparently the cotton sweatpants that Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin for 90 seconds. That is what really caused the obcene amount of burn damage. Fifth, the judge actually lowered the amount of money awarded to Liebeck by the jury. Last but not least, the jury awarded Liebeck the money based on the fact that the warning was not on the lid but on the side of the cup. Again I say, having the warning on the lid of the cup would not have prevented Liebeck from accidently spilling coffee on herself.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (The McDonalds Coffee Case) was not frivolous

You totally ignored my entire argument. THE LAWSUIT WAS NOT OVER HER SPILLING THE COFFEE. IT WAS OVER THE TEMPERTURE. Your analogy doesn't work because if you sell a DEFECTIVE hammer, the company who sold it IS negligent. And it wasn't just a jury, it was a judge. You didn't study the case at all, you relied on hearsy and did no reading on your own-- if you did, you would realize the case was not frivolous.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (The McDonalds Coffee Case) was not frivolous

You still haven't proved that my analogy doesn't hold up. Hundreds of everyday objects we use could be extremely dangerous. If you accidently hurt yourself with them it's not the makers fault. Also we're debating the validity of the lawsuit not what twelve jurors decided. Jurors are average people who are fallible. They are not professionals in the law field. As to the 700 people who complained, why didn't they sue also? The only reason Liebeck won the case was because there was no label on the lid warning that the coffee was hot. Again, I regardless of the temperature of the coffee Liebeck would not have tried to spill coffee on herself. The warning on the lid would not have kept her from spilling it on herself. This is just another example of people not taking responsibility for themselves and always trying to blaim someone else for their problems.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (The McDonalds Coffee Case) was not frivolous

It's not what I think it's what the health department, 12 jury members, 700 other people who complained, and a judge think about the temperature. Your analogy doesn't work. McDonald's sold their coffee so that it was almost at boiling temperature which was against the health department's standards. They had received many complaints. Liebeck didn't even sue at first, she asked for them to pay for her skin grafts, because normal coffee doesn't give you 3rd Degree burns. Also you seem to think the Liebeck sued because the coffee spilled. She didn't. She sued because the coffee's temperature was unsafe. Even if she hadn't spilled it she would have drank it and it would have burned her. "In order for this lawsuit to be valid you would have to prove that the coffee cup was unsafe. Then you would have a valid lawsuit." No, in order for the lawsuit to be valid it would have to prove that the temperature of the coffee was unsafe. And that's exactly what prosecution did.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (The McDonalds Coffee Case) was not frivolous

Despite what you think about McDonalds serving their coffee at that temperature. McDonalds did not spill the coffee on Liebeck. Her lawsuit was frivolous. What if I sued a company that made hammers because I broke my accidently hit my thumb and broke it with a hammer while nailing it. It's not like Liebeck was sitting there thinking "I'm sure this coffee is not 180-190 degrees it's ok if I spill it on myself." Regardless of the temperature I'm sure that Liebeck was attempting not to spill the coffee on herself. You cannot sue someone because of your mistake. In order for this lawsuit to be valid you would have to prove that the coffee cup was unsafe. Then you would have a valid lawsuit.
Competition should never be against food companies

"But seriously, McDonald's food sucks. Fast food in general sucks."Again, that's totally subjective. But it's near undeniable that it's the best food you can get for the price."...they're in it for money. 100 percent too... McDonald's is a competition-loving company in the first place. Fame and good food don't mix."Like I said in my last point, fast good isn't supposed to be great, it's supposed to be fast. You think that the food would be better if the advertising stopped? The food was always of such quality, it's just that the advertising increased."Why do you think supermarket products are much better."Citation needed. In whatever case, it's been said more than once in this debate that advertising has zilch to do with food quality."They do it because they love giving people something fresh and delicious."Heheh, yeah right. Citation needed. If they just wanted to give us something fresh and delicious, why would they make it much more expensive than fast food corporations? In conclusion, my opponent has said that fast food companies are basically greedy corporations who feed us garbage because they want more money from their advertising (I'm taking a couple liberties with that, but Pro made it political first). This is clearly not the case, because advertising and promotion has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the food as my opponent has tried to insist. Many of my points have gone unrefuted, and the basis for Pro's argument is questionable at best. Vote for whoever made the better argument.
Competition should never be against food companies

I never said that food companies shouldn't have free-market. After all making money is a natural part. But seriously, McDonald's food sucks. Fast food in general sucks. And they're in it for money. 100 percent too. Reason why, an unhealthy amount of competition. McDonald's is a competition-loving company in the first place. Fame and good food don't mix. Why do you think supermarket products are much better. They do it because they love giving people something fresh and delicious. They don't do it to compete with another. McDonald's is the complete opposite.
Competition should never be against food companies

"Aside from it's disgusting logo..."First of all, this point is absolutely irrelevant. Second, even if it did have something to do with the debate, I fail to see how the logo is "disgusting". It's simplistic, immediately recognizable, and has not changed one bit for 50-ish years. If anything, it's the posterboy of logos."...which is why food sucks. It tastes like doodoo but that's a different story."I assume you mean, "why their food sucks." Anyways, it hardly does. It's near impossible to find food that costs that little that tastes that good. I mean, it's not gourmet by any standards, but it's far from "doodoo". You even say above that this has nothing to do with your main point, so why bring up these irrelevant ones?"It has promotions. Gangsta rappers, hip hop. Etc."I need some clarification. Like, do you have a problem with rappers in particular sponsoring their food? So have world-class athletes and actors. Justin Timberlake, Venus Williams, Samuel L. Jackson, Yao Ming, Michael Jordan, and plenty of others (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_advertising) (The Wikipedia link will not work for some reason, but can be found by searching for "McDonald's advertising" on the site). If you have a problem with promotion in general, this has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the product. What, just because a high-class, five-star restaurant in New York has advertising, it's worse than some cheap taco stand down the road that does not? I believe this is the crux of your argument, in which case it makes no sense. The amount of advertising a company invests in has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the food. If anything, the more a company can advertise, the more food they have probably sold, which does not tend to happen with poor-quality food."Great food never is from competitive food companies."Fast food isn't supposed to be great, it's supposed to be fast, hence the title. Nine times out of ten, I'd rather have a 2.5-star burger in one minute than a 5-star burger in twenty-five minutes."Competition should be for other types of companies, not for the delicious food that we eat, that gives us the energy to compete with others..."Okay, let's entertain this idea for a second: No more advertising for fast food companies. Now, a couple of questions: How fast does the food have to be to be considered "fast" food? What if a 5-star restaurant has your dinner ready in two minutes? Can this place not advertise because the food was fast? If McDonald's decided to cook their food more slowly, would it cease to be a fast food restaurant, even if the food is exactly the same? Can they now advertise? Does the star-ranking of a restaurant speak to if they are "fast" food? There's absolutely no way to implement such an idea, and it's a poor idea in the first place due to the fact that advertising has nothing to do with quality of food. And what is this "competing with others" thing? Like, business-wise or physically? This seems random, as does the communism comment.
Competition should never be against food companies

McDonald's is a good example of why food companies should never have competition. McDonald's is garbage. I'm sorry. I'm the first to say it. Aside from it's disgusting logo, lol, they are in it 100% for money, which is why food sucks. It tastes like doodoo but that's a different story. It has promotions. Gangsta rappers, hip hop. Etc. Great food never is from competitive food companies. Competition should be for other types of companies, not for the delicious food that we eat, that gives us the energy to compete with others. That's not to confuse this with communism.
The Moon isn't real

R1 Rebuttals I am going to exclude the point about Bollywood not existing because that has no purpose in this debate and I am tempted to give an explanation on why the sun exists but that would be going off topic. Pro has done many things in his first round. He has: a) Shown poor conduct : "dumb idiot" b) Shown poor spelling: "yea right" c) Shown that he is too self confident: "argue against my wit and intelligence." The R1 argument provided no evidence as to why I should believe their false claims. It is extremely unlikely that we are living in an experiment created by the Government. If we were that weak and inferior in comparison to the government then what would be the point of an election and all of the election campaigns. Also it would have to be a pretty big test chamber to contain us (an Earth sized one) I have been to England, Wales, Spain, USA, Portugal, Australia, Thailand, New Zealand and France. Others have been there too. There are countless examples of people going in other countries so you cannot deny that the world is small and there is no evidence that there is more than 1 country. Examples: https://www.google.co.uk... https://www.google.co.uk... https://www.google.co.uk... https://www.google.co.uk... https://www.google.co.uk... Here are my R2 rebuttals: My opponent claims that the key word is thought and therefore my theory is wrong however my opponent's theory is not even thought to be true. My theory is more plausible as well as likely since the most commonly used theory is the one presented by me. My opponent has not provided a source of anyone else genuinely believing his theory and he has not told me why his theory is right with any evidence unlike my arguments that were backed up with sources and evidence. My opponent states that this theory is come up by scientists to make them look smart. I'm almost certain that if there was a giant projector projecting a hologram of the moon then tell me why nobody has discovered this projector. It would be clear which direction the projection would coming from. You are asking me how the hell that I know that it isn't made up but really since the BoP is completely on my opponent I should be asking my opponent the same question. My opponent further claims that I can only win this if I can say that I have been to the moon and physically been on it yourself. Okay, so all I need to do is say that ... okay then is everyone reading this: I have been to the moon and physically been on it myself. There you go. I win this debate - only joking, but seriously you can only make that claim if you have tried to go to the moon and seen that there is not moon. Your logic works both ways and since the BoP is on you it your own logic harms your argument more than it harms mine.
The Moon isn't real

The Moon is thought to have formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, not long after Earth.Key word: Thought it is thought to have formedThere are several hypotheses for its origin; the most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia.That is all bs theorys that scientists make up to try to look smartAs for the rest of your arguement it is null.All of this information has been told to you, from who? Government slaves.How do you know that it isn't a projector holographic image of a moon, and the whole sky and all of our concept of month, bright night sky, space race, moon walking, and wearwolves, how in the heck do you know that it isn't made up by the masterminds at the pentagon and whitehouse. Or the new world order who control the information we get. All I can say is, you would win this, if you can say you have been to the moon and physically been on it yourself.
The Moon isn't real

Pro still fails to understand that the BOP is on him. He has not attempted to refute this and therefore I can only assume that he accepts this - meaning that I do not necessarily need evidence to show that the moon is real. You need to show that the moon is fake which you have been unable to do. You cannot say that you have won because I have commented on format and spelling. That is just my style of debate. Sometimes readers miss out certain parts of the argument I find it important to highlight mistakes made by my opponent so that they are not overlooked. You will notice that I often do this in my debates whether the debate is an easy one or a more challenging one.
The Moon isn't real

Everything in bold in my opponents argument is my argument - they just copy and pasted it in without quoting it so that it would look like it was bigger, so this is what my opponent actually said themselves: The reason nobody has found it is because anyone who has has been shot or brainwashed into an oven by the government. You say that you have been on the moon but you haven't, so how could you know for sure it is real? Everything you have stated has been told to you by random people, and brainwashed government officials.I will tackle this argument individually. " so how could you know for sure it is real? " I have provided scientific evidence that suggests that the moon is in fact real whereas you have only claimed that my argument is false and that I have been told this by the Government and that the moon is actually a projection. My opponent has failed to give me a reason why his theory is more likely than mine. He has offered no scientific explanation or evidence to suggest his claim is valid. So, I am going to change the question from how do you know that it is real to how do you know that it isn't real? " Everything you have stated has been told to you by random people, and brainwashed government officials. " Whislt it is true that I have been told that information by people (not random though) it is equally likely that you are false since if I was told that the moon is real by random people then I have also been told the moon is fake by a random person (ie. you). This argument makes your claim no more likely since you are just as random as the people that told me the moon is real - and at least they gave me scientific evidence to back up their claim. Your argument isn't even an argument, it is just a claim.
The Moon isn't real

) Shown poor conduct : "dumb idiot"b) Shown poor spelling: "yea right"c) Shown that he is too self confident: "argue against my wit and intelligence."This is how you know you have won an arguement, when you use points irrelevant to the arguement My opponent claims that the key word is thought and therefore my theory is wrong however my opponent's theory is not even thought to be true. My theory is more plausible as well as likely since the most commonly used theory is the one presented by me. My opponent has not provided a source of anyone else genuinely believing his theory and he has not told me why his theory is right with any evidence unlike my arguments that were backed up with sources and evidence.My opponent states that this theory is come up by scientists to make them look smart. I'm almost certain that if there was a giant projector projecting a hologram of the moon then tell me why nobody has discovered this projector. It would be clear which direction the projection would coming from.You are asking me how the hell that I know that it isn't made up but really since the BoP is completely on my opponent I should be asking my opponent the same question. My opponent further claims that I can only win this if I can say that I have been to the moon and physically been on it yourself. Okay, so all I need to do is say that ... okay then is everyone reading this:The reason nobody has found it is because anyone who has has been shot or brainwashed into an oven by the government. You say that you have been on the moon but you haven't, so how could you know for sure it is real? Everything you have stated has been told to you by random people, and brainwashed government officials.