BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Using elo and age ristrictions to spam debate's

Sick in the headz has been using the Elo and age restrictions to spam debates and defame individuals. My opinion is that this is a petty cowards tactic. I was going to call out sickintheheadz directly but I doubt he would accept. He tried to spam a call to action which he has slowly changed until it's just a long generalized complaint about the U. S. If you're having a problem with the site just use the report button like everyone else. I'm sure the webdisners have better things to do than accomidate your every need. It's not like thise site has huge add support or is some kind of multimillion dollar company. We all want to debate and we don't want anyone taking advantage of the system.
Using elo and age ristrictions to spam debate's

I totally agree with, Some of the posts are sick, Vile and bordering on pedophilia, Unfortunately there is not much we can do, Other than to complain to the administrators. But I'm going to stop this debate with you because we don't need to debate something we both agree on. There is a lot of hate and sick debates posted just for trolling purposes. I guess all we can do is ignore them
Using elo and age ristrictions to spam debate's

I undestand why the rules were in place but people are abusing them to spam hate. Now I'm a proponent of free speech but there is also a point of criminal conspirancy. There is a difference between debating the legal age of intercourse and promoting pedophilia. For instance "Like 5 year old children. " being spamed across our shared space. There have also been calls to action in which he calls for the violent overthrow of the U. S. A which is beyond the limits of free speech. He has edited the call to arms in further spams but it is spam none the less. There is also a question of motives. In the instance of sick in the heads he is obviously spaming in hopes of discrediting honest debate not promoting it. My solution has two parts. First we report this person for spam, Harm to minors, And call to action/hate speech. The next is to use the report comments to say we should be limited to say 3 debates open at a time. Kind of like how we aren't allowed to start another debate until we finish the one we're on. This would stop the ability to spam even if someone posts rediculouse age restrictions. It is clear that the tactic is being used to spread a viewpoint without an ability to rebuttle. I'm not saying we need to remove age and rank restrictions altogether but that they should be altered to avoid callous propogandizing.
Should bullied kids defend them self.

True. But its not like being ethical, but, is it a just cause. Now to tell a teacher is...not really an option. Think. Does bullies still bully? Yes. Can a teacher STOP it. Most likely not. These kids don't throw you in lockers. They Harass you. These kids also don't care about they're education. There comes a point where you say "that's it, if these teachers can't protect my rights, I do it."
Should bullied kids defend them self.

Well, teachers can threaten a bully. If they have abusive parents, they might not want to get into trouble. Also, the bullies could also get some counseling if they got reported to a teacher ...You think bullies would stop at a 'warning'. Right. So they get in MORE trouble What would that do? I never heard about counseling bullies. It just doesn't work, hey there's NO reasonable reason why one would bully.
Humanity is NOT 6000 years old

Well for starters we have fossils of early homo-sapiens dating back farther then 100,000 years https://www2.palomar.edu... along with this we have been able to trace back almost all of human ancestry to a women who lived in Africa more then 100,000 years ago, this person is called the mitochondrial eve "she wasent the first human, their were other humans around but hers is the only surviving lineage in witch all humanity alive today is related" https://en.wikipedia.org... Although to find some common interest with your argument while its most likely true that atomically modern homo-sapiens probably were around longer then 100,000 years, the truth of the matter is that are brains have undergone some minute changes during our species existence "mutations, certain thinking processes" so as for a human that is completely identical to to humans we see today in both appearance, genetics, thought, we would probably only be able to go back around 70,000 years until we started to notice some genetic instinct like differences in the way humans acted.
Humanity is NOT 6000 years old

I agree, humanity is not 6000 years old. But I disagree that humanity is at least 150 000 years old. I will defend that it is from 10 000 to 100 000 years old. Humanity brought a huge leap in tool technology-axes, awls, needles, hammers and more. Dates for these cultural big bangs cluster around 40 000 to 45 000 years ago. They were accompanied by the first appearance of art and music and religious pracitices. And hominids.
Every cock is master of his own dunghill.

Con does argue some cocks are not master of their own dunghill. It should be noted that the dunghill presented does not hold the quality of being the rooster anymore. It is an external excrement. Anticipating this as given in my opponent's thesis I also anticipated what the term 'cock' is to mean. A cock is one who excretes a dunghill and claims it as his own. My dunghill was the first round, I, a Hippalectryon, presented being a cock, but I am not full blown a cock. Wikipedia Article On Hippalectryon: http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent's dunghill was the first round, as well. He is the full blown cock who presented the dunghill and now proceeds to become master over his own dunghill. Since my opponent is the only full blown cock, my opponent is the only one master over my opponent's dunghill. My opponent must prove my opponent's presented argument is not a dunghill. If valid, my opponent was never a full blown cock. This Greek passes it to the Roman.
Every cock is master of his own dunghill.

For the voting audience, I have provided the argument in context: "Claudius ut vidit virum valentem, oblitus ugarum intellexit neminem Romae sibi parem fuisse, illic non habere se idem gratiae: gallum in suo sterquilino plurimum posse.When Claudius saw the mighty hero, he forgot the silly words [he had just spoken] and realized that while no man had been a match for him at Rome, here in this place, he did not have the same influence: the rooster can do plenty in his own dungheap." [1] The premise is quite simple. It seeks to explain the advantage of familiarity. We can review this with several examples.In Politics, a candidate campaigning for office will generally secure the majority vote in his or her home state.In Football, the hosting team is attributed "home team advantage".It is my burden to prove that this premise is not a constant.Consider:Politics - James Knox Polk lost the vote from his birth and residency state in 1844. Abraham Lincoln lost the Kentucky vote, the state of his birth, in 1860. Theodore Roosevelt lost the vote from his birth and residency state in in 1912. Herbert Hoover lost the vote from his birth and residency state in 1932. Sports -As quoted by the source: "Last season Penn State visited Ohio State, Alabama traveled to Georgia, and Boise State went to Oregon. All three games featured comparatively equal squads, but followers of the home teams felt they had a definite advantage. The hometown supporters roared before and during the games. There would be no turning back; this was their time to win." [2] All three home teams lost. Over to you Pro. http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com... [1] http://bleacherreport.com... [2]
What or who we call "God", if exists, is actually not a god at all.

Thanks for that Pro.I'm glad Pro agrees with the definitions.I'm glad Pro has no problem with voters using Opt-In standards.Let's get STARted.*Superhuman Being*Being that god played a crucial role in the origin of life on earth, controls our days and nights, maintains our habitable position in the universe, and indirectly or directly provides all metabolizable energy to every organism on earth (we could argue chemosynthetic-based food chains), god is certainly superhuman; these capabilities are simply far beyond any human and necessitate that humans are utterly dependent on god. -Origin of Life on Earth-Abiogenesis explains that with an atmosphere, water salinity, inorganic compounds, electricity, and UV rays from god, likely of a prebiotic earth, inorganic compounds can naturally become organic compounds in the form of amino acids.Researchers have used CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and *UV rays,* and yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine which are the building blocks of life.Therefore, god played a crucial role in such.http://www.pnas.org...-Days and Nights on Earth-Our day-night cycle is completely based around god, to the extent that we schedule our events around god and even realize time using god.https://en.wikipedia.org...-Habitable Position-God's massive gravity actually holds earth in a position in the universe that is habitable for life.https://en.wikipedia.org...-Food Chains-God radiates and provides metabolizable energy to photosynthetic organisms which then pass that energy to virtually all food chains for life on earth; this feeds us as well.https://en.wikipedia.org...*Power Over Nature*nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...God controls the water cycle, virtually all existing food chains (not chemosynthetic bacteria), earth's day-night cycle, the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the seasons, the weather, and the climate.In fact, without god, none of these staples of nature could even exist on earth.*Power Over Human Fortunes*Farmers utterly rely on god to provide them with enough energy to grow crops, feed their families, and make money from their harvests.How are we going to have great fortune if we don't have anything to eat?Humans' fortunes are contingent on god directly/indirectly providing light and energy to our companies, farms, and homes.Without god, there is no fortune for humans.*God*Being that I'm a heliolater, I worship god for everything it has done, is doing, and will do for me.In heliolatry, our god is the sun and we worship it for its superhuman capabilities and its power over human fortunes.You know, you can probably go outside right now and see god, if it is a godly day where you live, and basque in its radiant energy.If not, give god like 12 hours or so; it should return. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...
What or who we call "God", if exists, is actually not a god at all.

I'll go with your definition for god since that is also the definition I had in mind. Sorry for not having defined it. god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes. You stated that god has power over nature. I argued that the that this being, if exists, isn't a god because he has a desire which drove him to create the universe. If his mind changed from the state of having no desire to the state of having a desire, then this being exhibits change and something must trigger the change, something that makes this being think the act of creation will benefit him. And if there is a change, the change must be such that how it occurs is in accordance with a natural law governing it. For example, temperature of an object doesn't randomly change without a cause, it changes because there is a cause and the change in temperature is the effect of that cause. The followings are points I'll use to demonstrate that the being we're talking about isn't a god as you've defined. 1. His mind exhibits change. 2. Changes are not random, but governed by natural laws. Combine 1. and 2., and we get 3. This being is under a natural law. Since a god, as we've defined, must have power over nature AND human fortunes, point number 3 indicates that this being isn't a god. As for power over human fortunes, any humans who possess physical or political power can have power over other humans' fortunes, but humans clearly lack innate power over nature, so humans too are not gods. Humans, no matter how much power they have over other humans' fortunes through brute force or superior knowledge, are still under natural laws. This is also the case for this superhuman being who has more knowledge than humans and can mess around with human lives, but is still under nature.
What or who we call "God", if exists, is actually not a god at all.

Thanks Pro, I accept.I noticed there were no definitions.That's OK; I'll supply them and I request that voters use the Opt-In standards.Talking about god surely brightens my day.Definitionswhat - the thing or things that (used in specifying something).https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...we - used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...call - refer to or consider something as being.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...superhuman - exceeding normal human power, size, or capability.https://www.merriam-webster.com...existence - something that exists or a being.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...exists - has objective reality or being.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...not at all - definitely not.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... *Resolution*I REJECT the resolution that what we call a superhuman existence with power over nature and human fortunes IS NOT A GOD and rather AFFIRM that what we call god is actually a god.I'll let Pro start their actual case.
What or who we call "God", if exists, is actually not a god at all.

Everything in the universe exhibits change. From rocks to stars, from stars to our bodies, from our bodies to our minds, they all exhibit change. We can have so many thoughts and emotions in one day. Our personality can change, thus, making our desires susceptible to change. Despite our apparent differences, we are all, at the fundamental level, the same. We all seek happiness and avoid suffering. It is the desires for happiness and for the betterment our life condition that drive us to try to accomplish goals, however big or small. Our minds can change from the state of having no desires to having a desire. Once the mentioned change of state occurs, we get driven by our desire to set out to try to fulfill it to gain happiness that we seek. If at first there was only the being we call god, then somehow he started the universe, there must have been something that caused him to do it, otherwise what/who we call god would just be randomness, a being whose state of mind is random. Now, all changes don't occur randomly. There are natural laws that govern how changes occur. Even our minds has natural laws they strictly follow. They can't change from feeling nothing to feeling happiness if they haven't encountered something they consider to be desirable or change from feeling nothing to feeling unhappiness if they haven't encounter something they consider to be undesirable. This is the law that every single person in existence experiences. If God is not random and has a mind, then when his mind changed from the state of not having the desire to create the universe to the state of having the desire to create the universe, it must have followed a natural law governing its changes, the law that controls the condition of even the being we call god. The mind of the god person encountered something that, according to the law governing it, caused the state of his mind to have a desire to create the universe. And it is this desire that drove him to create the universe. If the mind of this being, even though powerful and wise, exhibits change, if changes are controlled by natural laws, and if the mind of this being is under one of those laws like us, then the being isn't all-powerful, so why call him god? He might just be another being who has the knowledge to do things more than we have, like in this case, to create the universe. To me, if such a being exists, the act of creation of the universe doesn't make him special or a god at all. It is actually a proof that he's not more special than us, but just has more knowledge.
Broccoli is the best vegetable

My arguments:1) Broccoli is bad for you.2) Other vegetables are better for you ________________________________________________1) Broccoli is bad for your health. There is 141μg (176% DV) of vitamin K per 100g serving of broccoli, which is 52μg (65% DV) in an average spear. [1] This is enough vitamin K to cause deep vain thrombosis if the vegetable is eaten once everyday. So how can a vegetable be good at all if it has the potential to cause physical harm?2) vegetables such as Kale are much better for one's health. Unlike broccoli, Kale has antioxidant-related health benefits, anti-inflammatory health benefits, glucosinolates and cancer-preventive benefits, cardiovascular support benefits and other health-related benefits[2]________________________________________________Concluding, I have shown why broccoli is not the best vegetable, Pro must support his case as to why this is not true and support his BoP. Have a good day. ________________________________________________[1]. http://www.healthaliciousness.com...[2]http://www.whfoods.com...
Broccoli is the best vegetable

Resolved: Broccoli is the best vegetable In this debate, I challenge Pro to defend his claim that broccoli is even worth eating in the light of that fact that the follow vegetable exists: Cauliflower. BoP is on Pro, but I'll be asserting my own arguments anyways, so consider it shared. Good luck. Definitions: ___________________________ Broccoli: the stems and immature florets of broccoli used as food.[1] vegetable: made from, obtained from, or containing plants or plant products.[2] Rules: ___________________________ 1) No trolling 2) No semantics 3) No profanity or swearing 4) 3 rounds 5) 72 hours to post arguments 6) 8000 character limit 7) 1 week vote period Sources: ____________________________ [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Cats are the best secret-keeping agents

PRO'S CASE They are very secretive REBUTTAL Sleeping off parties: My parties I end up more awake afterwards. Evidence: There is no evidence so we technically can't have this debate. (therefor they can't have parties. Cats can't reach the vacuum cleaners) Thank you for this debate :) (It was my first one, hence the quality) So..... Au Revoir Pro. (French for goodbye) PS You CAN get to Gallifrey if you have good enough technology.
Cats are the best secret-keeping agents

My Opponent's Previous CaseThat my opponent has a friend whose cat failed in its duties is not evidence that all cats have horrible timing, every group has a few individuals who get weeded out. I'm sure headquarters will punish your friend's cat.My Opponent's Rebuttal of My CaseYes, some dogs are more mellow than others, but when a dog has a party, you know it! Cats on the other hand, would love for you to think that they're too busy sleeping to party, but what they're really doing is sleeping off their last party. There's a simple test: when you have a party, you could sleep for days, couldn't you? Well, since cats actually have the opportunity, they really do sleep for days, thus they obviously have been having a party.My Opponent's CaseThat cats don't have the mental capacity to keep secrets is just what they'd have you think, but the evidence that they hold secret parties plainly shows that the results of these studies are erroneous, probably resultant of an elaborate scheme by cats to throw us off the scent.Photobombing president Putin is still a better accomplishment than exterminating Cyberia or Gallifrey (get with the times, nobody can go to Gallifrey anyway).Now, in standing with the resolution, I have not forgotten to say 'goodbye.' Goodbye!
Cats are the best secret-keeping agents

OK, that would be an epic photobomb! My case actually was that cats have AWFUL timing, hence George (my friends cat) snacking out of the Whiskas. (My friend now only supplies wet food due to cats being unable to open ring pulls (whole new debate right there) REBUTTAL: My parents' old dog was NOT a spastic psycho-sematic monstrostic party animal as my opponent would like to point out. His idea of a wild night out was if someone put some dog biscuits in the wet food. (sad - like my social life right now). Not all dogs are the stereotypical lunatics we as society have typecast them as. Oh, and all cats I know spend too long sleeping to partay! MY CASE (MK 2): We cannot speak cat, and studies show that only humans have such a deep emotional mind. So if you talked to Tibbles (which is a major IF, as we can't speak cat) Tibbles would say that Tigger has no secrets, purely because cats do not have the mental capacity required to keep secrets. (Please no offense cats. After sea turtles you are the best animals in the entire world, but for debating purposes...) So while you photobomb the Russian president I am off to ss exterminate an entire life form in some obscure galaxy, preferably one of my mortal enemies, Cyberia or Gallifrey.
Cats are the best secret-keeping agents

I apologize for the delay, I totally forgot I had a debate going on.My Opponent's CaseIt seems to me that the Dalek Con is arguing my own case, suggesting that cats learn timing (their timing is excellent) and also suggesting that evidence is erasable and secure. These both seem to lead to the conclusion that cats are good at keeping secrets, indeed, the best.My Opponent's Rebuttal of my CaseI will clarify: I am arguing that cats keep their own secrets, not that they can be trusted with secrets. Cats are probably not very trustworthy, especially cats with psychic owners. Supposing that the psychic owners could surpass the supreme mental capacities that all cats obviously possess.I wouldn't be giving my cat licorice, my cat would be inviting all of his cat friends over to eat my licorice, no matter where I hide it. Their parties get very wild, and they often hire an exotic bird, sometimes two exotic birds. I only think my cat's friend Frank is diabetic, but I can't be sure, because they're so good at keeping secrets that none of them will tell me. I only know about the exotic birds because I keep getting billed for it.My New CaseI will now demonstrate why cats are not simply good secret keeping agents, but the best. Consider the animal often regarded as the polar opposite in the house pet spectrum to a cat: the dog. Any time dogs get freaky, you can tell because the trash can and half of your CD rack are knocked over, and there's drool everywhere. In fact, essentially the only animal that does not trash the house when it tries to have a secret party is the turtle and the goldfish. The goldfish is explained because goldfish end up dead. Regarding turtles, they're too afraid to come out of their shells to have parties, so they aren't an issue.I am off to a political rally: I will see if I can photobomb president Putin whilst juggling, thus deserving an instant win in this debate simply for photobomb level.
Cats are the best secret-keeping agents

Hello. I attempted to juggle. Several balls on roof. OK. My case. Point one : Bad timing. I have found my cat with her head in the food bowl. oops. Honestly cats, learn to time. Point two: Journals. You can write it down, rip it up cook it. Once it's there it is easily erasable AND secure. In the next two round I will expand on these points. I would like to rebut now. We cannot tell if there is no evidence. We might tell our cat that we ate the last cookie and think it is safe. But Kitty might tell all her cat friends, who might have a psycic owner, who might tell whoever you stole that cookie from. Hey - it's possible. Also, it is not ok to give your cat licorice. It can get cat diabetes (yes, that IS a real ailment). Or really sick. So I leave the case in the hands of the Pro. Until next time. I'm going to get those tennis balls off the roof