BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tactics to the best debate

In regards to this topic, whether or not you are con is irrelevant, since no resolution is readily apparent other than that which invites both sides to choose a tactic or a host of tactics to argue for. As a general tip, it is best to not surrender because it eliminates every chance you have at winning debates (in DDO). With that being said, Pro forfeited; if you wish to vote, take that in mind.Good luck in DDO (and increase the character limit).
Tactics to the best debate

In a debate, pro and con take opposite sides surrounding a resolution or propose opposing resolutions and stick to them. However, since this is a matter of opinion, I'm arguing why the tactic I propose is better.Knowing your opponent's arguments makes refutation a breeze, making your side far more telling. If you know or have a good idea of what your opponent will argue, your own arguments will be far more compelling since they effectively clash with your opponent's. Thus, you would gain control of the entire logos of the debate.Merely knowing your side of the issue would result in a debate much like Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham.;
Tactics to the best debate

Freestyle structure, 750 Characters. Welcome to DDO.Pro's apparent claim is that the best tactic to use in debating is to know your topic. I will argue why studying your opponent's side of the issue to infer what your opponent's arguments will be is a better tactic to use in debate. With that being said, explain why you are correct using the severely limited character space allowed.Good luck! This should be mildly fun.
No Smoking laws. GOOD.

"When a person starts a restaurant they have the choice to make it a smoking restaurant… Some will allow it, and some won't…Smoking is a right…" There are three main considerations here. There is the health issue, the annoyance issue, and there is what I will describe as peer acquisition of new, mostly young smokers who begin their smoking careers because it was cool (usually in public, within groups, where these urges feed on themselves)….The health issue is obvious, so is the enormous cost of uninsured smoking related illnesses. As we move toward a single payer system the cost to the tax payer will be even more pronounced….Smoking is not a right, unless you consider people acting of their own free will in free exchange with others have a right to do things not expressly prohibited by law. These types of "rights" are legislative in nature and are easily reversed, unlike a constitutional amendment. "they have just created another place to exercise that right." Places where certain rights are permitted are defined by the legislature. "Whether or not people should destroy their bodies by smoking is not for the government to regulate." If non-smoking tax payers where not required to pick up the medical bill for uninsured smokers with smoking related illnesses, I might tend to agree with you. "People who live in America today are all educated enough to know that smoking is bad for you, so it's not like it is happening by accident or out of ignorance." I disagree. Smokers are much more prevalent among the uneducated and poor, the very people who have little or no private health care--which means the tax payer will pick up the tab (as we move, unfortunately, to a single payer system). "It would be taking away freedom. Do we want the government taking freedoms away?" It would be taking away a nuisance and a health hazard. "For those of you who are allergic to second hand smoke, there is always that other restaurant that does not allow it." In practice, there are few non-smoking bars and restaurants. Besides, why should the non-smoker be the one to move? Smokers are rude. They brought this on themselves
No Smoking laws. GOOD.

Hello Mike! Thanks for the good debate topic! I do think that smoking is bad for you (obviously), but I believe it is a right. Now to my argument. "Ohio has enacted a no-smoking law in all public places, including bars, restaurants, VFW posts, American Legion posts. I am in favor of this law." I don't see this law as all that great. Many people don't like smokers and second hand smoke, and many have deadly reactions to it, but there are always places that do not allow smoking for them. Now I realize that this is what the law is doing, but this law is forcing it. That's what I don't agree with. When a person starts a restaurant they have the choice to make it a smoking restaurant it a non-smoking restaurant. Some will allow it, and some won't. Those who don't allow it, good for them! Smoking is bad for you, and it will be a good place for those people who are allergic to second hand smoke to go. Those who allow it, good for them! Smoking is a right, and they have just created another place to exercise that right. Whether or not people should destroy their bodies by smoking is not for the government to regulate. We have no right to force people to stop doing something they have a right to do, such as smoking. "My wife died of lung cancer at age 50 in 2005. Tobacco has killed more soldiers than agent orange, radiation exposure experiments, LSD experiments, and bullets in all the American wars since the Civil War." This is all very sad, and true. Smoking destroys your body. Once again, however, choosing to smoke is a right. People who live in America today are all educated enough to know that smoking is bad for you, so it's not like it is happening by accident or out of ignorance. Even if they did not know (however unlikely this is) they would be bound to have someone close to them tell them that it is bad. The fact of the matter is this: even though people we know and love are killing themselves by smoking, IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO SMOKE. I personally hate smoking. I would not mind at all if everyone on earth quit smoking. I am not going to make them quit. Why? It would be taking away freedom. Do we want the government taking freedoms away? Of course not. For those of you who are allergic to second hand smoke, there is always that other restaurant that does not allow it. For those of you that do smoke, go ahead. It is not my concern what you do with your body unless you're using it to deliberately harm mine. Thanks, Renzzy
No Smoking laws. GOOD.

Ohio has enacted a no-smoking law in all public places, including bars, restaurants, VFW posts, American Legion posts. I am in favor of this law. My wife died of lung cancer at age 50 in 2005. Tobacco has killed more soldiers than agent orange, radiation exposure experiments, LSD experiments, and bullets in all the American wars since the Civil War. Tobacco is a regressive tax, hurts the poor and uneducated who smoke more. Smoking drives up the cost of health care. Smoking kills, bed fires, Divorce (can't pay bills when you have to divert money to cigarettes). Cigarette smokers are stupid…Have a cig!
there is no such thing as faith

"ok, let me be specific, dictionary. com says faith is belief that is not based on proof. " My definition stands above his for two reasons: 1>>> You cannot define words in the last round of a debate. It would be a shifting advocacy, in which case you reject the argument. 2>>> My definition is the first one. His is the second. Since he gives no other reason as to why his is more important than mine and since our source prioritizes my definition over his, you take my definition, which is "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. " "now, i will admit that you win this debate if you can give me one example of a sane person beliving in something with aboslutely no evidence even if a person cant prove it, they have their reasons for beliveing it, even if its wrong. " 1>>> This is a new position. He never asked me to do it. 2>>> I'm not going to fulfill his request, as if I did I would be a shifting advocacy. 3>>> His "admittance" of this debate to me is irrelevant, as he is not my judge. 4>>>I need not show any examples to prove that my side is right, I only need arguments to show that his side is not right. He gives a few examples, sure, and they could very possibly be used as warrants. .. if only we were under his newly planted definitions. Pity we're not. "if you says something along the lines of: a boy beliving in magical unicorns because his parents told him, that dosent count because the boy thinks that his parents (people he looks up to) belive in unicorns aswell. so that is his evidence" Irrelevant. Based off of the wrong definition. "dictionary. com definiton for evidence: something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign" New definition, therefore you throw it away. "you cannot give me an example because it is impossible. which is exactly my point. good day! " It is quite possible. The definition of "faith", again, is "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability". He already provided us with an example of how faith exists in R2, when he mentions religious people. Religious people have faith in the ability of God, or gods, or Goddess or goddesses, etc. Therefore, faith exists. Therefore, the statement "there is no such thing as faith" is false. Therefore, he loses.
there is no such thing as faith

ok, let me be specific, dictionary.com says faith is belief that is not based on proof i gave an example of how something that is belived to belive without any evidence is actually using evidence. now, i will admit that you win this debate if you can give me one example of a sane person beliving in something with aboslutely no evidence even if a person cant prove it, they have their reasons for beliveing it, even if its wrong. if you says something along the lines of: a boy beliving in magical unicorns because his parents told him, that dosent count because the boy thinks that his parents (people he looks up to) belive in unicorns aswell. so that is his evidence dictionary.com definiton for evidence: something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign you cannot give me an example because it is impossible. which is exactly my point. good day!
there is no such thing as faith

"ok, when i say faith, i mean beliving something, anything without evidence" He did not provide a definition in R1, so I provided one. This refutation here does not fit under the definition of faith for this debate and on top of that, I cite a source and he doesn't. All in all, he loses this argument. The rest of his R2 basically talks about how religious people claim that their faith is without evidence and that they actually do have evidence for their faith. However, his example does not matter as 1) not everybody uses his definitions, and 2) that's not the definition of faith in this debate. The definition of faith in this debate is "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. " His example does not show how there is no such thing as faith.
there is no such thing as faith

ok, when i say faith, i mean beliving something, anything without evidence many religious people say that you have to have faith to belive in god so they claim to belive in god without evidence. this isnt true because they do have what they belive is evidence, wether it be a miracle they thought they saw, a voice they heard or something of the sort. these experiences are evidence for them, its just not regared as evidence because they cant prove that they are telling the truth to others. this is an example your turn
there is no such thing as faith

I negate, that "there is no such thing as faith". My opponent has the burden of proof to show that his side is correct. He is the one that started this debate, therefore he is the one asserting that a certain statement is true. My job as the contender is only to prove that the resolution is false. Think of the resolution as a claim, such as "Noodles taste good". If the person that claims that noodles taste good fails to prove it, then you automatically vote for the other side, as the other side does not have to prove anything at all. He says, "it is impossible for a person to beli[e]ve something without evidence". 1) He doesn't prove why it's true. Why CAN'T we believe something without evidence? 2) Dictionary.com defines "faith" as "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability." It does not say anything about how faith and evidence are mutually exclusive, so his point that faiths have to be without evidence is null. The fact that bizzer10 says "true faith" and the possibility that "true faith" might have a different meaning than "faith" is irrelevant, as the resolution talks about faith and not true faith. My opponent has no further contentions to prove his side as true. Due to burden of proof, you are currently voting CON.
WHY DO WHITE WOMEN DATE BLACK MEN? WHATS WRONG WITH THEIR OWN..

Again, this is frankly hard to understand sometimes: "You most date black men because 4 sum reason u got affended" < Anyways, I'm afraid you're missing the point of my argument. We should not block interracial dating. It IS racist to try and keep different skin tones seperate. People should love based on emotional connection as I said before. As for why black men and white women are dating, this is just a stupid reason to complain about interacial dating. Nothing is wrong with white men, could it be that these white women and black men are more open-minded than you, and are willing to attract themselves emotionally to other "races". Why do you seperate white men and black men: white women date black men? what is wrong with THEIR OWN MEN? Why can't we say the human race is meant to interbreed. We are all humans. Now answer my question: Would you rather date someone of a different skin tone and be happy, or date a same skin color person and be unhappy?
WHY DO WHITE WOMEN DATE BLACK MEN? WHATS WRONG WITH THEIR OWN..

Im sorry u could"t understand what i wrote..Im not a racist if u look at my picture closely u can c i have curly hair. my grandpa is white. You most date black men because 4 sum reason u got affended..my bad, I no alot of white women who want big buts and boobs and dark skin i dont no what planet u r on but its all over tv,news, and internet. it was jus a debate. and u still never got to the point why do white women date black men? what is wrong with thier own men.
WHY DO WHITE WOMEN DATE BLACK MEN? WHATS WRONG WITH THEIR OWN..

I'm sorry your last post was very incoherent. I have never even thought about white women wanting bigger butts or boobs to somehow compete with black women. This is just racist. You are a racist. This is hard for me to respond to, since you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the english language. I can't understand what you said... I do know that the only reason why I have challenged you is to proove how racist and hateful this question is.
WHY DO WHITE WOMEN DATE BLACK MEN? WHATS WRONG WITH THEIR OWN..

I have a question for you. What is wrong with interracial dating and what proof/evidence do you have that shows that interracial dating is wrong? If a black man truly falls in love with a white woman than whats wrong their? Their skin color? This sort of thinking is what inspires race hatred. Racism. We should date others and marry based on the emotional connection they share. Would you rather date someone of a different skin tone and be happy, or date a same skin color person and be unhappy?
WHY DO WHITE WOMEN DATE BLACK MEN? WHATS WRONG WITH THEIR OWN..

The question is always being raised why black men date white women. Its always reflect on what the black women is are is not doing to keep the black man so now i want to no whats wrong with the white man for white women to want our black men that only 9 times out of 10 uses the white women and than they come back to us to talk about the white women about how stupid they are. Ive never dated out of my race and never dated anyone who has..
Religion is a problem for socety

1. Your first point was a big issue in history, but it just extends my example. The nobles and the clergy worked together. The clergy let the uneducated peasants believe that the king has the divine law. Today it is not really an issue, as the church doesn't have control over the people nor the state. 2. To clarify the part with the enlightenment. I was trying to express that the philosophers, scientists, artists etc. which caused the enlightenment were the children of the richer people eg merchants or lawyers and by that they were higher educated. I think we are trying to express the same thing. 3. The delay in technology before the enlightenment happened because the rulers were to ignorant to consider other views. Also these numbers don't prove anything as you don't provide anything to compare them to, eg the amount of ignorant people. 4. To adjust my point, for your last argument. Religion doesn't cause ignorance, but the church did in the Middle Ages. Still, people are the problem.
Religion is a problem for socety

the problem within religious ignorance is that people who are religious quite often aren't able or haven't read the bible. the priest is the one who reads it for them. this allows them to have a lot of power over them. and as a rebuttal to your point, it wasn't so much the rich that caused the age of enlightenment as it was the philosophers. the peasants then READ those books and started questioning their rulers and the religion. so as this shows, it would greatly speed up the development of new technology, art, philosophy and many other things. Religion quite often is the cause of the ignorance of mankind. this is shown in that now, we have these amount of religion Christianity (2.1 billion) Islam (1.3 billion) Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion) Hinduism (900 million) Chinese traditional religion (394 million) Buddhism 376 million. Primal-indigenous (300 million) and back then more and more people were becoming humanist showing that religion tends to cause ignorance
Religion is a problem for socety

These verses you quoted support my view more than yours. Ignorant or lazy people will read both quotes and think "Well, Jesus supported violence and god wants that slaves obey their masters.". People who question this will try to find a deeper meaning. The "fire" Jesus wanted to bring to earth can be a metaphor for e.g. "the word of god" or "holy spirit". The "slaves" who should obey their masters could actually be bearer instead. Intelligent people will try to interpret the Bible while ignorant people won't. Also you shouldn't summarize the meaning of a whole book by quoting one single verse. I will provide an example from history to support, that people and not religion are the problem, even further Absolutist monarchs told their peasants that it is divine law that they are monarchs. The peasants didn't question it because they were to ignorant/lacked the education. The richer educated citizens questioned this divine law and other things, which led to the age of enlightenment.
Religion is a problem for socety

While I do agree that it won't instantly make people smarter, religion tends to make people ignorant. To support this I will quote a few bible verses that would show religious ignorance. Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. This is from Luke 12:49-53. this would show Ignorance in the fact that religion itself says that Jesus was peaceful and came in peace. The bible also supports slavery Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily... Here God shows that he is in complete acceptance of a slave's position, and encourages slaves to work hard. This sentiment is repeated in Titus, chapter 2 verse 9: overall these verses show that religion tends to cause ignorance.
Religion is a problem for socety

Although I consider myself an atheist I disagree with your point of view. "Everything from the denial of evolution to the acceptation of creationism and some people believing in a flat earth even though all of the evidence is stacked against them" The evolution wasn't denied by religion but by the close minded people. Something like that applies to the flat earth theory. People who support it ignore the arguments because they are bigots. They use religion as an argument, although it can be used as an argument for anything (round earth, flat earth, cubic earth (?)) if you interpret it right. "If we were to completely do away with religion most things would progress faster" I agree that progress gets and got delayed by this kind of people, but I don't think that without religion people would suddenly become intelligent. If there is no religion, these people will just use other arguments for their believes. Religion isn't the problem, but (stupid) people are.
Religion is a problem for socety

I'll keep this short and concise. Everything from the denial of evolution to the acceptation of creationism and some people believing in a flat earth even though all of the evidence is stacked against them. This causes society, technology, and the human race to progress slower. If we were to completely do away with religion most things would progress faster. And for those who think that Darwinian evolution is just a theory, a theory is tested time and time again. Overall this shows that religion causes society to progress slower
Soccer is a more difficult sport than baseball

For soccer tha purpose is to kick the ball in a large goal and for baseball the balli is coming at 90-105 MPH and you need to hit a ball with a bat that is 2.61 inches in diameter. Even if you manage to make contact with the ball, you still have to get to the base without getting out, which is unlikely. For soccer, you can have one person score all the goals and lead the team to victory but baseball is much more team reliant since you must get on the base with the hope that your teammate can be good enough to hit the ball in. I'm not saying soccer is easy. I am saying that soccer is easier that baseball.Soccer=hardBaseball=very hard
DDO Users Should have the option to select "Casual" or "Competitive" Styles

I don't expect voters to have free license to run amok. You've altered my proposal and argued against a point that I did not make. "Any vote counts without strict RFD standards. " The mods still have a job to do to ensure voting integrity and prevent vote bombing, harassment, and cheating. Standards are reduced, not eliminated. They still may respond to reported posts, but with more relaxed acceptance standards. Good: "voting right because pro didn't cite sources and forfeited the last round." Good: "it was close on arguments but con didn't convince me to change my mind. Pro had better spelling and formatting." Really does anything more need to be said on a casual debate? Yet those votes gets removed now. Bad: "Bring the pain!" Mods should delete that everywhere.
DDO Users Should have the option to select "Casual" or "Competitive" Styles

Of course you have to have structure to any debating forum. Without structure it will devolve into either a shouting match with much cursing and name-calling and everyone gets their feelings hurt. Much like some other forums with no rules. Without rules we are just a land of anarchists. HOWEVER...too many rules stifle thought and spontaneity... make us too busy wondering if we are within the rules or not..are we being 'fair' to all. Person A must be like Person B who must be like Person C. And as for voting, of course you should state you reason for voting and the reason MUST be coherent and with forethought. Otherwise we would get gangs just going around voting for their friends so they win and take over the leader-boards....or some will start sending out links to the argument to others preying for their votes. The would be no order and, again, anarchy would reign.