BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Elo System Should be Changed

We'll suppose he accepted the debate. I'm not sure. Deduct conduct point because I haven't ever seen an acceptance like that, I suppose? Anyhow, onto the argumentsIt doesn't stop noob-snipers. Noob-snipers still gain a ton of elo. Two good examples are Teemo and jh1234l. Teemo has a massive over-4,000 elo, [1] while jh1234l has more than 3,000 elo. [2] However, they both lost to me, a mere ~2100 elo debater. [3] This just shows how much of a noob-sniper both of them are, and the fact is that noob-snipers can't be stopped, they still gain a load of elo regardless of the point reduction of the contender. It does not accurately display your debating skills. One good example is the under-rated debater Envisage. He's amazing! ! He doesn't even have 2,500 elo [4], but he defeated a guy with over 4,500 elo [5], is winning against some person with almost 3,200 elo [6], and defeated some guy with over 3,400 elo [7]. This just shows how unfair the elo system is. As pointed out above when a good experienced guy defeats a noob they gain loads of elo, while Envisage, even with the instigator advantage, cannot gain a lot of elo from defeating all these uber-impressive dudes. Thus I have provided 2 excellent reasons to why the elo system is rigged and needs to change up somehow. Onto you, con. [1] debate. org/teemo[2] debate. org/jh1234l[3] debate. org/9spaceking[4] debate. org/envisage[5] . http://www.debate.org...[6] . http://www.debate.org...[7] . http://www.debate.org...
The Elo System Should be Changed

If the elo system is a politically correct system of fair judgement, then it should not be changed, as continuance of it's usage will reveal political correctness as the tyranny it is. Please continue the elo system of judgement you PC tyrants, as that is the best way to reveal your ineptitude. Are we trying to be elo 1, or elo highest number? There is no first place according to the elo designers, only the most submissive to the system are the winners. Why is it that there is no elo rank between 0 and 1000? What is the rank? the higher your rank, the more PC is your stank.
picking your childrens features,talents,looks

Designer Children Are Not WrongI would propose that instead of using an appeal to emotion the rights of the parents to choose for their children their traits, internally and externally, is not only a right course of action but also a right in and of itself. The entire purpose for mating is to get the best genes together to create the best offspring (http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org...) suggested by things like the Sexy Son Hypothesis related specifically to the lack of control in genetics. Human technology can take the guesswork out of this process and in turn give rise to parents that love their children and their dream children probably love them as well as they were made to. Having a child with a deformity would be impossible for instance, curing many human diseases in the process of this technology being applied; the idea of jealousy from other children is at best possibly not even realistic depending on the lottery that was rolled as it is possible and clearly realistic that one can model and be beautiful even without genetic design.
picking your childrens features,talents,looks

how can people decide to choose the way that their child looks and what they can do. Say a family has two kids already and they decide that they want a kid that looks a specific way so they spend thousands of dollars to make this child the perfect child in their image how do you think that the other children of that family will feel if their parents slip and say why cant you be more like johnny. and how will those kids feel when the parents like the perfect child more then them how is this fair. children that have their traits picked out by mom and dad will probably feel that they are better then their siblings that have their traits naturally. this is the worst idea ever it will create hate and resentment in the home this should never happen.
The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

Most people on this site are familiar with the more popular arguments for God's existence, the cosmological arguments, teleological argument, moral argument, and ontological argument. However, I would like to try out another argument which may not be as familiar to the debaters here, the Argument from Desire. I will give the argument in this round, even though this round will be strictly for acceptance. I will defend the argument in the next round. The Argument from Desire I will be defending will be the argument as formulated by Peter Kreeft: Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. [1] Round 1 -- acceptance only. Round 2 -- opening arguments/rebuttals. Round 3 -- rebuttals. Round 4 -- rebuttals/closing statements. I look forward to an interesting debate. [1] http://www.peterkreeft.com...
The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I would like to use this conclusion to ask that Pro's forfeiture in this round is held against him. I believe that anyone can read the arguments as they were put forth in rounds 2 and 3 and come to a decision on which argument was better. I think it's fair to assume that Pro had more important matters to attend and therefore, could not make his final argument. Life, it seems, frequently treats us like this... In closing, I will not be adding any conclusion. Pro and I each had two rounds to make our arguments/rebuttals. I will take this time to say thank you for reading and I hope you found this debate to be at least mildly interesting. Also, a thank you to Keytar Hero for prompting this debate.
The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I will be taking the position that the argument from desire is not a sound argument. I will argue that the premises of the argument for desire are faulty and, therefore; the conclusion of the argument from desire is faulty. Furthermore, I will attempt to show that even if the premises are restricted to sound operational definitions, the argument from desire is not the best 'argument' that can be made in the support or rejection of a hypothesis. I will use round two to make an opening argument. Thank you, KeytarHero, for 'instigating' this debate topic.
Musical debate: Indie music is better than commercial chart toppers.

Thank you for accepting my challenge. It is my opinion that indie music is better than hits which the populace flock to liking. To think that artists such as Calvin Harris and the like, are producing samples of good music is a falsehood. The music which he and other chart-topping artists are proficient at making is that which appeals to those who are inebriated. For this debate to be settled, let us define the terms of what 'good music' is, I leave this in the hands of my opponent.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

I understand that " Jesus in Islam" is irrelevant to the topic, but you continuously use it falsely as an example. Allow me to make this clearer to you through using a recent example. Pastor Terry Jones, which I've mentioned in an aforementioned argument, promoted a satirical film aimed at Muslims not too long ago. It was an islam mocking mini film that initiated the act of large numbers of muslims (mobs) taking to the streets in Arab countries. After seeing the film, it would be difficult for any rational human being on this mother earth to still carry the notion that this is a satirical film. Actions in the film are inexplicably juvenile, to a point where it is difficult to point out what the film is trying to satirize in certain scenes. Furthermore, Prophet Mohamed is coherently portrayed as a a pervert and a buffoon, which is also inexplicably heavy satirical material that is too heavy-handed to be considered clever, or even funny at times. But, for the Western population, whose red lines in media have disappeared decades ago, it is a shock that someone actually went through the tedious process and funding of this film just to depict a revered leader of the Islamic religion in a so called satirical way. In the Muslim World, red lines do in fact exist to a large extent. Prophet Mohammed is indubitably one of these red lines. You may not be able to understand this constant obsession with protecting the reputation of a human being who passed away long ago to a point where Muslims will kill other living human beings for satirical depictions of him. This is mainly attributed to the fact that whole areas of thought and history should sometimes be beyond examination and mockery within the context of Islam. This is a notion that has been eradicated by Western universities and Media in the Western world many years ago. It is undoubtedly preferable to think that human beings are the same wherever you go, but this is unfortunately a lax view of the world. Until members of the Muslim World become intellectually free (they may never reach that point), all other religious civilizations must continue to respect their religious, cultural, communal, and familial values. You say that there must be a strong reason behind rash muslim reactions to satire directed towards their religion, well this is a considerably strong reason.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

A holy book provides individuals with knowledge that pertains to a set of values of which the follower of the book's religion must undertake. No holy book will tell you whether you should riot over abuse of your religion, god and prophet. This is up to the perpetrator, he/she can choose how they react based on their faith. If they have great faith in their religion, then the natural reaction to any bad or falsified depiction of their god and prophet is obviously going to be unpleasant. If the holy book states that followers of the religion must not depict the relative god in any way shape or form, then it is very natural that someone believes in such values to feel offended and react in whatever way pleases him/her. You initially state that you "have minimal knowledge of the Qur'an" but then make claims that Jesus is not a prophet in Islam. If you had at least a basic understanding of Islam you would know that Jesus is one of the most revered prophets in Islam. The only difference between Christianity and Islam is that in Christianity Jesus is allocated divine characteristics. Definitely do some research on "Jesus in Islam". Furthermore, it is important for you to realize that different individuals react in distinct ways relative to specific phenomena. This does not only exist within the context of Islam, it exists within the context of every religion and phenomena. The arresting of Pastor Terry Jones as a result of him planning to burn the Qura'an in an event that he set up is one example of this. If he went through with the burning of the Quran he would have put other people's lives in danger (as this will be the cause of retaliation by Islamic parties). You have got to realize that depictions of divine members of the Islamic religion do not exist and that this makes it more offending to them if someone where to depict their god and prophet in a falsified way let alone depict their god and prophet at all.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

I have minimal knowledge of the Qur'an however I'll take your word that the it forbids Muslims to depict Muhammad and God but this does not justify anything. I don't think the Qur'an says that if people do in fact draw pictures of Muhammad or God then you have the right to riot over it. The strong outrage is all down to Muslims themselves. It is nothing to do with their religious teachings or scriptures. Therefore the Qur'an has nothing to do with how Muslims react to such pictures so it can not be a means of justification. The strong outrage is all man-made. Likewise with Christians, the Bible has nothing to do with how they react to satire yet they can remarkably take it well. Therefore religious scripts have nothing to do with a religion's REACTIONS over satire. Christianity and Islam can almost be identically compared in this sense as they both believe in a God and a prophet. Muslims DO NOT believe in Jesus as a prophet, where are you getting that from? He IS NOT an idol to Muslims as he is not a part of the Islam religion. How do you know that Muslims would be offended if they saw a satirical depiction of Jesus? Jesus has nothing to do with them. Islam can indeed be compared to other religions here. In comparison to Christianity for example. How can a depiction of Jesus be somehow less harmful than a depiction of Muhammad? Both religions have similar principles and faith so why should one feel the need to cause such strong outrage over the other. Why can't Muslims, like Christians or Jews just know themselves that satire is satire and just shrug it off. After all you would think that because their faith is strong, they wouldn't care what anyone else thought. I get offended by all sorts of things but I don't feel the need to riot on the streets over it. Such reckless behaviour puts other people's lives in harm's way and how can you say that such strong outrage over petty, insignificant jokes which we all receive can be justified, especially when people are at risk.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

First of all, it is of unequivocal importance that you realize that Muslims are indeed forbidden by there religion to depict god and prophet Muhammad or even think about how they might look. Whilst on the other hand, Christians have countless depictions and portrayals of how Jesus and other religious figures within the context of Christianity look. Therefore, it is not fair to juxtapose the reactions of Christians to bad depictions of their god to Muslims' reactions to mere depictions of their prophet (good or bad). Comparing Islam to Christianity might seem like the ideal example for this debate as both religions have many things in common. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the example you've manifested in your previous argument is an utterly futile one. That is mainly attributed to the fact that Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet, he is a religious leader and an idol to them just like he is to Christians (in a different way of course). Therefore, muslims would be offended by satirical depictions of Jesus just as they would be if Prophet Muhammad was depicted falsely. The two aforementioned points set up the context for my first and most important argument, which is that you cannot compare Islam to other religions where depictions of god exist to a large extent.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified.

My main point is the idea of Muslims feeling as if they deserve some kind of special treatment when it comes to satire. Turn on the television on any given day and it will be filled with shows that are poking fun at politicians, celebrities and religions. Is everyone who receives a little insult allowed to riot? How come Christians for example don't feel the need to riot on the streets over a cartoon Jesus? Yet Muslims will outrage over a cartoon Muhammad all the way from protesting to rioting. What I want to know is what gives them the right to cause such outrage over petty satire whereas other religions can just take it on the chin. Why should they deserve special treatment over everyone else? We are all made fun of at some stage and it's something we just have to accept. There is a right to free speech, which therefore includes satire, however there is no special right that allows Muslims not to get their feelings hurt, unlike the rest of us. I look forward to your response.
ASDFMovie is better than the lazer collection

RC1: First I would like to point out that the number of videos for each section of movies is about the same, therefore, in this current debate we will focus on what has been made between when the first video of these two came out and now. Essentially, being that there is about an even number of movies, this point will be thrown out because one who watches these in the status quo doesn't care when they came out, but the fact that they are there. Next, I would like to respond by saying the the quality of the video is subjective and will not be argued in this debate. the voters can chose what quality the videos have, that is not up for debate, and this argument will be thrown out. As well as your point that the ASDF movies are colorless, I recall a rainbow being shown. Clearly, it's not colorless. Also, on that notes, the white you see on your computer screen is just an even mix of red, green, and blue pixels to appear white, therefore, it actually has tons of color. Thirdly, I'd like to point out that The Lazer Collection had a theme, not exactly a story line. In some of them we can see a small story about Doctor Octagonopus, but other than that, there is no story line, and the videos are not too long to uphold that theme and story. RC2:This argument will be thrown out entirely. When pro can prove to me that the use of guns, blood, the profane use of the word "gay," death in general and suicide do not "corrupt America and its youth by portraying that profanity leads to comedy," this point will be thrown out, because if not at equal derogatory scenes, the ASDFmovies have more of this kind of thing. RC3: Extend my arguments to Contention 1 here. I would also like to point out that The Lazer Collection is just as unpredictable as the ASDF movies. Sure, the end of the clip is almost always the same, but the simple fact is, that's just the comedic expression of the videos. Besides, the audience never knows what leads up to the lazer in the end, they just know that it will be there. This builds up suspense, and suspense makes us want more, just as Pro said about the ASDF movies and how we want unexpected things. ===My Case===C1: Story Lines Are Good. Pro states that there is less of a story line to the ASDF movies because they do not attempt to make one, thereby, lessening the initiative for people to look at the previous videos in the series if they stumble upon one. Essentially, if you see a numeral of a video, sure you might look at the others, but the fact that there is a story line heightens this initiative because if you see two videos with Doctor Octagonopus in a row, you will look before those two to figure out where that character started out. C2: Color and more animation are good. The ASDF movies are relatively simple in their making. They use the same body for almost every single person in the videos, and there are only few scenes where color and other effects are used. However, from the start, The Lazer Collection movies have use effects and color to enhance the viewing quality as much as they can.
ASDFMovie is better than the lazer collection

The ASDF Movies and the Lazer Collections have both been very entertaining collections of YouTube for the past few years. In my own opinion, they are both some of the most extremely funny and entertaining videos ever released on YouTube. My vote must, however, go into favor of ASDFMovie. Contention 1: Release Dates Since these videos were first released, the Lazer Collection has released a new video roughly every 2 years, whereas ASDFMovie has released one roughly twice a year. Even if the ASDF Movies were shorter, the overall video content was funnier and the quality was better (for colorless). The Lazer Collection videos were too long for the storyline to take place. ASDFMovie does not have a continuing storyline, but at least they don't fail at an attempt for one. Contention 2: Appropriateness This may seem like it is coming from the point of view of a 5 year old or an overprotective parent, but ASDFMovie, as a whole, is enjoyable and appropriate for those who might go on YouTube and search for "funny" or "popular" videos. When compared, ASDFMovie is extremely funny without excessive profanity, whereas the Lazer Collection has used profanity substantially worse than that of ASDFMovie, all in the name of entertainment. This corrupts America and its youth by portraying that profanity leads to comedy. ASDFMovie is funny on its own without this concept, and is therefore superior. Contention 3: Overall Comedy So far, the ASDF Movies have had absolutely no storyline or excessive repeated themes (minus "I like trains" and "die potato"), whereas the Lazer Collection has had the same basic theme and the same annoying "Doctor Octocganapus Blah" that they somehow turned into a very slow-paced and non sequiter storyline. The overall randomness of the ASDFMovie saga has led to a theme that you can never know what exactly is coming. The laughing does not seem to stop when you can never expect what is to come next, because there is never a way you can find out (other than watching the video). Since the lazer collection has the same blast at the end of every clip, you are always able to expect how they will end, you just dont know when. I give the Lazer Collection credit that it is extremely funny occasionally for this when it decides to postpone the expected blast, but this does not happen all of the time, whereas ASDFMovie is funny for this all of the time. In conclusion, although both of these sagas are extremely funny, ASDFMovie is clearly superior for the reasons presented. I await a rebuttal and I know that "Lazer" is misspelled. It is spelled like that in the actual video series.
Socrates ingesting the hemlock

Though Socrates did not believe he was a bad person, the ancient Greeks, who condemned him, deemed him to be. If Socrates was truly as bad a person as the ancient Greeks believed him to be, why is it today he is remembered for his commitment to truth and philosophical excellence more than anything else? When someone thinks of Hitler, his evil beliefs and execution of his terrible plans protrude the legal boundaries he worked within. By believing in the condemning of Socrates one would be saying everything good he stood for was minimal compared to the "illegal actions" that rose from his great wisdom. If that were the case Adolf Hitler, the direct cause of the death of nearly 6 million Jews, would be ranked a better historical figure than Socrates simply because of the legal bounds he worked within. Once again, by asserting Socrates" actions as not permissible because of his public philosophical commitments to truth, one would be saying any actions, although educational, must be sentenced because they may advance to the learning of higher thinking. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?" Socrates created tension in the minds of people forcing them to question the fallacies of society and therefore Socrates should not have drank the hemlock. Socrates was committed to finding truth for himself and the people of society. The law that condemned him was wrong and unjust. Because his life was taken from him, the world will never truly know the extent of one of the greatest and wisest philosophers of all time. Socrates will forever be remembered for his credit toward laying the ground for Western Philosophy. Socrates was often referred to as a gadfly because he distressed the social norms by having questions of difficulty posed toward people. These questions were posed to have people examine their beliefs. Socrates" goal was transform the way people thought about the "half truths" that society accepted. He was concerned for the people he lived amongst and he only intended for the best possible life for everyone and therefore Socrates should not have drank the hemlock. "To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience." -Martin Luther King Jr.