BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gift Returning

Wonderful sentiment.Anyways, to begin my argument, I'd like to immediately use a Reductio ad absurdum[1] for demonstration purposes. It shouldn't be difficult to form or understand.Say, hypothetically, you're gifted a RDD, which is an explosive device that combines both conventional explosive and radioactive material traits. A dispersing agent.[2] Most humans, evidently, are rather reactive to radioactive materials and explosions in that there are often cases in which this kills people.It doesn't have to be an RDD. Just something very hazardous.I think that at this point, it's reasonable to say that that gift should be returned, as the recipient wants nothing to do with it.Now, the reason I'm using this technique is to prove that there is definitely, even in today's present non-hypothetical society with its rules and regimes given the hypothetical addition of something such as a hazard, a line somewhere between being supposedly obligated to keep a present and not so.So there draws the line of our debate. Whether it leans in favor of either of us will be dependent on how well we debate. Of course, I believe it leans in my favor, for several reasons.Existent Observed Rules of SocietyHere are a select few of the rules we seem to currently speculate, given that we know there's a line, which I will assume we do as I'm sure most people who have gotten to this section of the argument would have read everything hitherto. Returning is excusable in extreme cases. How extreme the case is is judged by the recipient. The judgement of the recipient is judged by the recipient's Significant Others.[3] Being that the basis of whether or not a present should be returned is a judgement already placed on the recipient, it seems like it's intuitively acceptable to return gifts, then. Argument of Converse and Obverse Law Now, a couple of other presently speculated laws: If it is judged by the Significant Others that returning is not acceptable, then internal, negative social sanctions are appropriate. Therefore, if internal, negative social sanctions appropriate to a gift return occur, it is ruled by the gift returning being unacceptable. It must be ruled acceptable to begin with in order to be ruled unacceptable. Since all three of these cannot exist harmoniously, one can presume, then, that gift returning should simply be considered acceptable. [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[2] www.bioterrorism.slu.edu/bt/products/ahec_rad/ppt/Dirty%20Bomb.ppt [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gift Returning

This debate will be arguing about whether or not it should be widely socially acceptable to return materials gifted to someone through a present back to where the materials were bought from.I, as Pro, will be arguing that we SHOULD be able to, whether with or without external consent, be able to return a gift without resulting negative sanctions being generally appropriate.My opponent, as Con, will be arguing that we should NOT be able to, whether with or without external consent, be able to return a gift while expecting to be free of negative consequences that SHOULD be viewed as appropriate.Very standard format: First round is acceptance Second round introduces arguments Third round is to produce arguments as well as propose rebuttals the previous round Final round is rebuttal. Finally, settling a semantic very quickly. Gift n. Material objects given without an expectancy of reciprocity, often representing sentimental, non-material symbols. Hopefully, I kept this minimalistic and simple without diminishing the potential debate. I hope my opponent will make enticing claims in what I have faith will be a stimulating discussion.
All religions need to unite, and understand what religion actually is

I will argue that all of the religions should not unite as one single- One World Religion. First of all, many of the religions existing in the world today are not compatable with many of the otherss. For example; Islam, the religion that promotes wife beating, FGM, suicide bombings, terrorism, and totalitarian states is not compatale with civilised religions such as Buddhism, or Sikhism, or Confucianism, or Judaism. By merging this religion with all of the other ones, you would infect western and asian society with such a savage cult. Or what about Christianity- how is the religion that says you don't have to be held accoutable for your sins and that you will be forgiven by G-d for your sins against someone else on account of your religion supposed to be compatable with religions such as Confucianism or Judaism which put the responsibility on you as an individuel to get your act together? Not some 2,000 year old dead man who supposedly died for your sins. I will add more arguments later, but this should be enough to start the debate.
All religions need to unite, and understand what religion actually is

I believe that all religions should unite, and truly understand what religion is, as if believers are capable to hold wars due to their different religions, they are completely looking at the wrong end of what religion is. First of all I would like to clarify what I consider as a religion: A religion is a group of people that worship to do good, appreciate what they have, seek to help others, and acknowledge that there must be a creator of the universe.
Many debate.org users like to vote based on how upset they can make other users.

Fine. I shall agree 'some' was not the best word to use. I shall instead say 'few'. http://dictionary.reference.com... –adjective 1.not many but more than one: Few artists live luxuriously. <> How can you prove that it is unfair? What if the voter really agreed with the argument, or had a just reason to vote for who they chose? < > Do you think many people join the site thinking 'I'm going to be mischevious and vote unfairly.'? Some begin to do it, but I doubt many would call it fun. <> You imply that 'bullying' is the incorrect word to use; that's just a matter of opinion. <> How can you say that? Isn't the key to a good debate proof? And the voting statistics don't really speak for themselves; your argument is about how YOU interpret them. < > I highly disagree! Everywhere you go people vary. Are you saying a 12 year girl from a good family behaves the same way as a 16 year old from a council estate? <> Do you have any proof? Have you done a survey? You can't just assume how people think. It may seem obvious, but people vary a lot. Thanks for the debate
Many debate.org users like to vote based on how upset they can make other users.

< > http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day. 2. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends. Since you admit that you believe "some" do it, which is essentially the same thing as "many", as far as I'm concerned, we are in agreement. I did not argue that the majority of users do it. I feel more than several do it, which constitutes as "many", for me. http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. being an indefinite or unspecified one: Some person may object. 2. (used with plural nouns) certain: Some days I stay home. 3. of a certain unspecified number, amount, degree, etc.: to some extent. 4. unspecified but considerable in number, amount, degree, etc.: We talked for some time. He was here some weeks. < > I agree, but that has no bearing on how one votes for others. You're also assuming that everyone's definition of "fun" is the same as yours, but you've already made that mistake with our respective definitions of "many". Fun to one of the aforementioned voters, may be to irritate another debater by voting for his/her opponent. < > I don't see what bullying has to do with the topic. I don't think this is a matter of bullying at all, but rather, mischief. Perhaps we have different definitions of "bullying" too. <> I don't need proof. The voting statistics speak for themselves. I notice that some debaters continue their arguments in the comments, even though they clearly have a superior argument, and then I notice an unreasonable amount of votes for the opposition, which leads to unfair victories at times. People are the same where ever you go, and most folks don't like to reward whining with victory. That's the point I am making here. It is what it is. Thanks for the debate and have a great weekend!
Many debate.org users like to vote based on how upset they can make other users.

You make a good point. i will agree with you that it is some users who vote to upset others, but I would not say many. People join this site to work on their debating skills and to have fun. Therefore I doubt many would resort to cyber 'bullying'. Also, you don't have any proof or evidence that many vote just to upset someone, so how can you say they do?
The USA should abolish all firearms

Okay, let us start with why the 2nd amendment exists. It was made to make sure that the Citizenry will be able to keep control in the event that a Tyrannical Government came into power either through a coup d'etat of the "state" or foreign invasion. In an expanded interpretation this can include defence of private property such as fending off a robbery. Here's the problem and this will serve as my argument for this round. According to FBI, more people are called with blunt objects and human hands than by Guns. Should we abolish blunt objections, how about hand to hand combat? If there are things that contribute to mass scale deaths such as smoking, drunk driving and let smoking isn't illegal, cars aren't illegal and why because as with everything that is illegal, the black market will take over and going forward you'll end up with an internal war with gangs and other black market members. Also what about Police officers and Law abiding citizens? Should we disarm police? How will we keep order? Also, why should I a law abiding citizen lose my gun rights? You see basically the argument is this. P1. The issue of shooting crime is not enrooted in Guns P2. Gun Control will make the situation worse Com. Therefore Guns should not be abolished.
The USA should abolish all firearms

I hope that my opponent and I adopt a civilised and reasoned debate. Rules: 1) A forfeit is an automatic loss 2) No ad hominem attacks or slander 3) Use civil and formal language I would advise my opponent to start by just accepting the debate and then I will provide my arguments for the motion. After this, my opponent can respond and put forward their arguments. Criteria for winning: Burden of proof that not banning guns is bad. Use of logical arguments is the absolute priority and further evidence followed by analysis adds more weight to the argument. Good luck to my opponent. I really hope that the audience enjoys this debate.
The PlayStation 3 is a better system for gaming than the Xbox 360

A very long time ago I accepted the challenge to refute the opponents claim that the Xbox 360 is the superior system for gaming, however I had to forfeit due to some personal issues in real life. Today I want to redo this debate in hope to make up for my forfeit but need a new opponent to do so. The rules are simple: I will try to convince why the PlayStation 3 is a better game experience over the Xbox 360 and my opponent will try to do the opposite with the Xbox 360.
Debate.org categories should be revamped.

Having a miscellaneous section does negate the need for new ones as any debate that can't be categorised in other sections can simply go to the miscellaneous one. It's a very simple line of logic to follow. If anything what you did was a straw man fallacy as you thought I said because one category works, no more are needed, which wasn't my argument[1].The current system is indeed perfect, there is no single debate that can't be categorised in either a specific category or the miscellaneous one.My opponent then seems to think that because some categories involve minority interests than others, this means that they should be infinitely divided into every minority interest possible to be debated on. This is a huge leap of faith and is a completely irrational proposition. The categories are fine as they are and, as my opponent pointed out, already cover a vast array of minority interests. Nevertheless, this doesn't prove that dividing them further is required as the miscellaneous section takes care of any extreme minority interest debates or debates that cover more than one category, such as abortion (which most of the time is merely thought to cover more than one but 9 times out of 10 is just the debate creator not realising that they are either specifically discussing the politics of it, religious attitude towards it or philosophy of it).The excessive mis-categorisation of debates (which my opponent never gave one linked example of) shall be negated as either a bogus theory or one that occurs due to an error in the debate creator's ability to categorise, not in the categorising system available.In conclusion, the debate categorising system is perfect as it is. My opponent resorted to straw man attacks that have ultimately dug his own grave.Thank you for reading. Sources:[1] The YouTube video at top right. http://www.debate.org...
Debate.org categories should be revamped.

Having a miscellaneous section does not negate the need for other categories. Neither does having other categories negate the need for a miscellaneous section. Just because one category is efficient, does not mean the whole categorization system is efficient. This argument is the fallacy of composition[1]. Between your arguments in round 1&2, you claim that neither a bias toward one category, nor having an obsession with one topic create the need for further division. However, in round 2 you concede that having an efficient organizational system is beneficial and necessary to maintaining a high member count. You also claim that the current system is perfect, even though it is not perfect and has the capacity for both scrutiny in its current form and the ability to be improved. I think it will be hard for you to prove inefficient cost effectiveness for minority interest debates based on the current division of categories. Many categories have seemingly little interest, yet they have a categorical division, such as movies, tv, fashion, and cars. There are many ways to revamp the category system that would improve the site’s effectiveness and navigation that would increase the number of active members. The excessive miscategorization of debates does disprove your claim of having enough categories to suffice the majority of debates. Attacking my personal interest in the matter does not diminish its validity. In final conclusion, I believe that we both agree on the importance of a categorization system. I think there are many drawbacks to the current system and it should be revamped, whereas my opponent claims that it is perfect the way it is. From the previous two rounds, I gather that he believes all categorization systems are perfect so long as they have a miscellaneous category. Now I ask you the voters, Should there be modifications to DDO's debate categorizing system, or should it remain how it is forever? 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate.org categories should be revamped.

"Thank you [for] challenging me on this topic." You're welcome!'Categorizing' versus 'categorising' is a difference between U.S. English and the rest of the World's English. Both work.Rebuttal: If this were the case, no website would have a topic system.My Retaliation: Debate.org (DDO) has devised its own system of categorising debates. Originally, when it was first being set up, the benefits of setting up such a system outweighed the costs since without it, far less members would ever use the site. It has now reached a point of perfection whereby it no longer needs 'revamping' as the resolution says. The costs now outweigh the benefits that would come to the site today.Rebuttal: A site with poor and irrational mapping greatly reduces the effectiveness and ability to access the information contained on the site.My Retaliation: I agree with this, nevertheless DDO's categorisation system is already perfect enough to maintain a constantly high member count without updating it any further.Rebuttal: Let’s face it, all debates could fit into that category if the current categories that are available weren’t available.My Retaliation: The types of debates there are usually either troll debates, minority-interest debates requiring obsession with the matter at hand or debates like these where we debate the means by which we're debating itself. There'd be no actual reason to make categories for these debates since any foreseeable obsession would demand an entire creation of a new category and that's just impractical.Rebuttal: The excessive miscategorization of debates, that led me to start this debate, disproves this claim.My Retaliation: Your personal motive for creating this debate isn't justification for your side at all. Rebuttal: Your inability to categorize this debate beyond miscellaneous categories proves that they must be revamped.My Retaliation: No, it just explains how the miscellaneous category disproves the resolution. It is the loophole in your argument.
Debate.org categories should be revamped.

Thank you challenging me on this topic. First of all, I would like to commend you for your skill in presentation. Your counter argument is very visually appealing and I would vote in your favor concerning spelling and grammar because of it, if I were able to vote. However, the content disproves itself. (1)The benefits the site would gain from creating such an intensely diversified topic system do not outweigh the costs or time, effort and money that are required to implement it. If this were the case, no website would have a topic system and there would not already be one on this site. The benefits of a topic system have already been proven and most user generated content websites already have them. The benefit lies in the implementation of SEO. The easier a site is to navigate, the longer a user will remain on the site. A site with poor and irrational mapping greatly reduces the effectiveness and ability to access the information contained on the site. (2&4a) The miscellaneous section… It will always be necessary, and I do not question its usefulness as a category. But at a certain point, there become topics that despite being debated over and over, continue to have no category. If there is no category the debate fits in, sure put in the miscellaneous section. The miscellaneous section should however be the exception the rule, not the norm. Let’s face it, all debates could fit into that category if the current categories that are available weren’t available. (3a) There are already enough sections to suffice the majority of debates. The excessive miscategorization of debates, that led me to start this debate, disproves this claim. (3b&4b)...to not truly understand how to categorise(your spelling error, not mine) the debate,… Your inability to definitively categorize this debate in your rebuttal beyond miscellaneous proves that that the categories should be revamped, or disproves the inability of the user to understand the categorizing process.
Debate.org categories should be revamped.

Constructive arguments1) The benefits the site would gain from creating such an intensely diversified topic system do not outweigh the costs or time, effort and money that are required to implement it.2) The miscellaneous section exists as an alternative section for any topic that is felt to be incapable of being categorised correctly into one of the others.3) There are already enough sections to suffice the majority of debates. To suggest otherwise is to not truly understand how to categorise the debate, rather than a problem with the categories themselves.4) There is no single debate resolution that one could come up with that couldn't be categorised into a non-miscellaneous debate category, it is simply difficult to see which sometimes, the error is with the user, or perhaps with the site not having a guide as to how to categorise the resolution (not with the categories themselves).Rebuttals to opponent's argumentsMy first argument to this end is this debate. What category does that go in?This would either go to the miscellaneous section for its ambiguity or to the technology section since its relating to a technology-run website but most probably miscellaneous as it maintains a grey area in categories.There are over 4,000 posts in Religious category and many of them are the same debate over and over.I am confused why my opponent feels that the fact that many debates can end up in the same category proves that it needs to be split further, all it proves is that this site has a bias towards that category and prefers to debate it over others.Politics almost needs a new category every time there's a new media story.There's a category called News (http://www.debate.org...) and to keep creating categories with the pace of news reports is entirely impractical.ConclusionThe effort and cost of creating a system where there are categories created at the pace of news articles is ridiculous and the costs outweigh the benefits.
Debate.org categories should be revamped.

I think the debate. org categories should be revamped. My first argument to this end is this debate. It is concerning policy of the site itself. What category does that go in? Secondly, I understand that Philosophy and Religion are always going to be the most debated, but in the current system there is no categorization of the topics within. There are over 4,000 posts in Religious category and many of them are the same debate over and over. I would actually suggest that an ongoing topic be allowed for the deity of Jesus Christ, but that is another debate topic. Thirdly some topics need their own categoriesPolitics almost needs a new category every time there's a new media story. The big issues as part of the user profiles was a great move forward. But every subject fits into the politics category. They are all jumbled up with no distinction between issues. Abortion debates are in almost every single category. - Well I think this speaks for itself. All debates that aren't pertinent to the category they are placed in should be removed but who is to say concerning abortion. Is it People, Education, entertainment, funny,health, news, philosophy, religion, politics, science, society?