BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The main problem with this scholar on DDO is he destroys your "Idols of the mind"

presenting a problem on Debate. org and that problem being that he destroys the idols of my (or our) mind. Given the nature of the discussion, the avoidance of ad hominem attacks will be tricky, but I think that a logical argument can be presented that will step around such and still get the point across. I am willing to share the burden of proof because I would like to make this debate something of a challenge and as such, I intend to provide reasonable evidence that the problem is not the destruction of my idols, but Pro's poor grammar, poor conduct in debates, and demonstrated narcissistic tendencies that present the main problem to DDO members. I look forward to an interesting debate. " quote Given the nature of the discussion, the avoidance of ad hominem attacks will be tricky,but I think that a logical argument can be presented that will step around such and still get the point across. " then you just then give a barrage of ad hominem attacks quote "but Pro's poor grammar, poor conduct in debates, and demonstrated narcissistic tendencies " thus proving my point quote "I have seen time and time again no matter how much evidence the scholar presents to back up his points of view you all seem to ignore the evidence and in some cases just resort to ad hominems
The main problem with this scholar on DDO is he destroys your "Idols of the mind"

presenting a problem on Debate. org and that problem being that he destroys the idols of my (or our) mind. Given the nature of the discussion, the avoidance of ad hominem attacks will be tricky, but I think that a logical argument can be presented that will step around such and still get the point across. I am willing to share the burden of proof because I would like to make this debate something of a challenge and as such, I intend to provide reasonable evidence that the problem is not the destruction of my idols, but Pro's poor grammar, poor conduct in debates, and demonstrated narcissistic tendencies that present the main problem to DDO members.
The main problem with this scholar on DDO is he destroys your "Idols of the mind"

The main problem with this scholar on DDO is he destroys your "Idols of the mind" https://en.wikipedia.org... 1 Idols of the Theatre (Idola theatri): This is the following of academic dogma and not asking questions about the world 2 Idols of the Cave (Idola specus): This is due to individuals' personal weaknesses in reasoning due to particular personalities, likes and dislikes. 3Idols of the Tribe (Idola tribus): This is humans' tendency to perceive more order and regularity in systems than truly exists, and is due to people following their preconceived ideas about things I have seen time and time again no matter how much evidence the scholar presents to back up his points of view you all seem to ignore the evidence and in some cases just resort to ad hominems this can be explained that when someone attacks a peoples or persons "idols of the mind" - like say Galileo- they go into melt down for it throws their ordered world into chaos -and chaos creates anxiety in people this scholar upsets your academic dogma upsets your preconceived ideas about things and comes up against your ' personal weaknesses in reasoning due to particular personalities, likes and dislikes. this scholars ideas are to original you probably have never conceived of such ideas In your education you have just been taught orthodoxy so when someone comes along to shatter your orthodox ideas you just go into melt down this scholars only problem is he is to original you dont know what to do with these ideas as you have never been taught to think that way they are just to knew you have no guides from your education so you go into melt down also you have been taught to accept authority from acknowledge experts this scholar by not being an accepted authority all allows you to dismiss him I guarantee if Dawkins or Hawkins or Einstein said these view you would just unquestioningly go along with them ie you would just go along with Idols of the Theatre (Idola theatri): This is the following of academic dogma and not asking questions about the world his ideas Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have http://www.debate.org... Irrationality is no hindrance for something being true http://www.debate.org... Are mystical theology and science similar http://www.debate.org... Every view ends in meaninglessness http://www.debate.org... Godels theorem ends in meaninglessness http://www.debate.org... Free verse is not poetry http://www.debate.org...
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

Yes, i may have said that i loved the book in the comments section, but i in no way believe that one should tie the outcome of a debate to a COMMENT. Plus, like i said in round 4, the fact that i like the book has nothing to do with what i think the schools should do with the book. Thus, all your points about me simply stating that i like the book, seem very vague. Now, i shall take this time to point out that my opponent actually agreed with me in Round 5. My opponent also stated that the games are in fact "Sick". What he said seems like he is actually supporting the endorsement of sick games, since he himself wants young Middle Schoolers to read this by obligation. My opponent stated that "In all rounds, except for round 1, [my] biggest debate was death."But i say to the voter, that i in fact spoke about educative values in Round 2, so his argument is void. He also attacked me for not coming up with any other points , but i counter by asking this to my voters: What BIG arguments did my opponent really propose other than the fact that the book is entertaining? i shall let the voter answer that. In summation, I believe that i made more valid points than my opponent My opponent has agreed with me My opponent appears to condone the brutal acts of violence in the book My opponent has made few points, those are:Death is no big deal, Interesting book, and Fun to read. Thus, i rest my case. The Hunger Games may be a wonderful book, but i belive that Middle School Children should not be exposed to brutal death games at such an early age. Plus, the book teaches no moral values that one could tie to life. Thank you for taking the time to read my case, have a great day! To my opponent: I thank you as well for a great constructive debate!
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

You clearly said that you loved the book in the COMMENTS SECTION. I do agree that the games are (as you say) "SICK". But in the end it is just a very entertaining story.To sum things up:In all rounds, except for round 1, your biggest debate was death. You couldn't come up with any other things. I am sorry, but that is very sad. Overall, without any votes, I'd say that I was right in the beginning and the end. This was a great debate truly. Thank you for debating with me.
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

How exactly did my argument come to no existence? As for me being a student, yes i am a sophomore in High school as of right now. As for quoting me, i did not state that i loved the book anywhere in the debate, i stated that it was one of the best books i had ever read, not that i loved it. And may i remind you (without being rude) that you yourself stated that the first round was just to talk about the debate, and not actually DEBATE. Yes i made a comment, but only to reassure the people watching this debate that i have no hate aimed towards the book itself and i am just debating against it. Plus, i may like the book, but that in no way says that i cannot think that the brutal game that goes on through most of the book is not SICK. And you still have not picked on any of my attacks about the book being SICK. Do you agree or disagree about the games being SICK? Do you think that Children pitted against children in a televised "game" is not SICK? I wouldn't want our voters to think that you condone SICK games where children murder each other with rocks.
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

If I may point out you said in the comments section "I love the book" and you are a student correct? (that blows everything you said about the book being "SICK") This book I would say should be read in seventh or eighth grade. Middle School.As you can see (I am not trying to be mean) everything you said in your last argument comes to no existence. With just the few sentences I said, I made an excellent backfire. (If I may say so myself)
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

Death may be a part of our world today, but it does not mean that children should be exposed to it so early? For another thing, i would like to know what audience the reading of the book would be aimed at. Would it be Middle schools, high school ? As for the death implemented in the book, i personally believe that the death in the said book goes further than JUST DEATH. The death in the book is extremely brutal! The fact that the people being BRUTALLY killed in the book are KIDS just makes matters worse. As for the "bigger reason", i believe that it is in fact true that kids should learn about life and death, but the game in the book is beyond death, it is SICK. Twelve year old fighting Sixteen year old fighting 14 year old with whatever they can get their hands on is just SICK. The fact that the SICK game is being watched live around what used to be the USA, is just SICK. Death may be a part of life, but a brutal game where children murder other children with crude weapons is just SICK.
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

Death is no big deal truly:By saying more death I mean that there is sadness in the book. If no person dies or leaves I feel there is no reason to read the book. It is basically just a straight line through the whole story. The book wouldn't change your emotions if it did not have death. For the people who have strong feelings about death...well...lets just say this, you read a book in school that is mandatory that involves death already!! This is just like that but a much better book.On a bigger reason:Schools should teach many things that are in life (and they do) one of those things is death. Death is a part of life. There is nothing you can do to prevent it for ever.
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

Well, i shall begin by pointing out one of your main points. You stated that the book includes "More death", correct? Well the way i see it, us chilldren of the 21st century do not need any more death. Also, making the book mandatory could hurt some sensative people that are not realy into "death". The schools are not looking to ecourage death, they seek only to educate. For example, the book i am currently reading for my highschool english course, To Kill A Mocking Bird, teaches great moral values. Books need to be tied to a lesson,and should not be made mandatory because they are great reads.
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

Good evening to you too! I think it is a great book, I told my grandsons about it, they read, they loved it. They actually said that they should make you read it in school. I thought that was a great idea. Therefore i started this debate.There are many other books that they make you read in school (and I must say a lot of them are quite boring) The Hunger Games includes everything: Romance Death Betrail More Death Exquisite Descriptions I mean, what more could you want? The Hunger Games would be a great book to read in school.
The Hunger Games book should be mandatory in schools to read

This is not a very serious topic, I love the book and think that it should be mandatory. I think children would very much enjoy reading it and it wouldn't be a super boring test (if they took a test) This shall be a friendly debate. No need to get out of line. First round is just notifying what this debate shall be like. There is a limit of 3,000 characters. This should be fun! :)
Call of duty Modern Warfare 3 is better than Battle field 3 as far as sales, campign, etc

I accept the resolution given by my opponent and I will prove that Battlefield 3 is the superior video game when compared to Battlefield 3. I hope my opponent chooses to expand on what qualifies as being "better" in terms of a video game then just sales, campaign and the multiplayer. I will be abbreviating Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 as COD:MW3, and Battlefield 3 as BF3 for clarification. Please avoid personal opinions when it comes to arguing that the campaign is better, or the multiplayer, etc. I will begin my begin the debate by first addressing the issue realism within both games. Battlefield 3 developed the Frostbite Engine 2.0 specifically for BF3, which was a complete remake of the first engine. However, COD:MW3 lacked the urge to develop anything new. They continued to use Infinity Ward's old engine which has been known to cause problems before. However, Frostbite Engine 2.0 has sustained the heavy beatings and after the beta, almost ALL known bugs / glitches were fixed. Because of this, Battlefield 3 is considered one of the most realistic FPS games of its time. Unlike COD:MW3 where you regenerate health after every time you get shot, BF3 strays from this and deploys a sense of realism into the game. On top of that, it allows the person to operate all kinds of vehicles including ATV's, Jeeps, Tanks, Air planes, etc. when COD:MW3 lacks that major content. On a side note, every platform where BF3 was released maintained a 4/5 (8/10) rating or higher by major companies, but COD:MW3 put barely any effort into the WII version of their game, giving it a rating of 4.5/10. Moving on to address the multiplayer. As I stated before, BF3 is clearly more real then COD:MW3, and on top of this, BF3 has expanded its multiplayer game play more then COD:MW3. BF3 extended the max player capacity by 40 players, where as MW3 maintained the same amount. BF3 also has the same capabilities as MW3 when being compared to making clans, matches, teams, unlocking system, etc. , it is just created differently due to the platform difference. While COD:MW3 may be more liked and more sold, it doesn't prove Battlefield 3 is any worse. The Call of Duty series has always been more mainstream, due to the amount of Xbox 360 players compared to PC gamers because BF3's main platform is based on the PC. I'm not saying we should ignore completely ignore it in the debate, but fairly compare it its predecessors before it and show the difference in sales.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Hello. I'd like to thank my opponent, the judges, and any spectators for their participation or interest held in this debate. Without further ado, I will begin my case. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said "It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life, that no man can sincerely try to help another without also helping himself." Good evening, and I affirm. Resolved: individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. Oxford Dictionaries defines assist as (To) Help (Someone), typically by doing a share of the work. The value is altruism. The criteria is utilitarianism. Thesis: With consideration of the greatest good to the greatest number of people, putting the needs of others before ourselves must be considered a value. The resolution that we have an obligation to assist people in need is valued as we ought to do things with other people's needs in minds. Contentions: Helping others is a necessary act if we wish to maximize positive value. This is because a lack of mutual assistance in a society cripples the ability to have goodness, and because utopia is a subset of generosity. A society that refuses to help those in need is a powerless society, in the terms of morally sufficient qualities. A great example of this is the Ik, an African tribe who were forced into egoism after being removed from their location to make way for a national park. They began sending of children to fend for themselves and stealing from weak elders in order to survive. The key aspect of this tribe is their inaction towards needing people, and it leads solely to a dying and morally plagued area. Children die regularly, and that cannot stand within utilitarianism without any justification. Utopia is a subset of generosity, because an ideal society is one where everyone is given purpose by helping others, and supported in doing so by others as well. The chemicals involved with the assistance of others is the epitome of satisfaction. If everyone did that, everyone would be happy, and therefore utilitarianistic criteria would be met. Unto my opponent.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Ok, so this is an LD topic from a while ago that sounded pretty interesting to me. The debate will be in LD format (which means you must state a value and value criterion, etc. Please make sure you know how to debate LD before acccepting!) I will be negating the resolution (I want to play devil's advocate for this debate. [please do not vote for pro based on personal beliefs, because I know that it is very instinctive to vote pro. I do wish the voters read all of the arguments and vote for who debated better]). 10,000 characters. Rounds will go as follows:Round 1 con: Presents rulesRound 1 pro: Presents his case Round 2 con: Presents his case and rebuts to pro's caseRound 2 pro: rebuts to con's caseRound 3: Con rebuts to pro's caseRound 3: Pro rebuts to con's case again
yo mama smack down

Yo mama is so FAT, her weight is growing at the same rate of our population. (Each person= One pound.)Yo mama is so STUPID, when someone told her to: "cry me a river build me a bridge and get over it" , she actually devoted her life to doing that.Yo mama is so UGLY, when she went to the zoo the new zookeeper got fired for "Letting the disfigured monkey out of *his* cage" Yo mama is so ugly, she gave birth to you! (Joke man, I've never send you) yo mama is so stupid, she saw a CarFax commercial and tried to sue the company when a fox didn't come out of her mobile phone.Yo mama is so fat, when she stepped on the scale she yelled: "Hey! I found the last number to pi"Yo mama is so ugly, when she entered herself into the amateurs beauty pageant they had the audience sign a lease basically saying that they understood the consequences.Yo mama is so dum, when she saw "What Does The Fox Say?!" She actually thought that everything the fox said in the video was the sound of an actual fox.Checkmate, lol.
yo mama smack down

Yo mama so fat that when she played musical chairs everyone was out because she took up all the chairs Yo mama so fat that when she put the elevator out of order Yo mama so weak that she had to call the gym teacher to open then door Yo mama so stupid she went to the dentist to go get a Bluetooth Yo mama so fat that when she stepped on the Earth she caused the aftershock Yo mama so ugly she made the ladies sing the blues Yo mama so ugly she made blind children cry Yo mama head is so big that Michael Jordan mistaken it as a basketball
Country landowners should have the right to enjoy their own private property as they see fit.

" I say, it would appear my debate has been taken up by some snivelling leftie from a place in America called Seattle, which I believe is some sort of settlement beyond the old Western Frontier." Gosh golly Marx! I thought you bourgeious were supopsed to pride yourself on your "logic," but any fool can see that if there is a settlement beyond a place, that place ain't a frontier anymore... Unless... Wait, you're trying to deceive the poor working man so he'll buy into your "frontier tours" business. As we all know it's perfectly profitable to commit, since you keep all your customers so brainwashed they never realize what's going on, and never learn not to pay you pigs for such things. As we all know dictionaries are written by the collective consciousness, and thus must be obeyed, clearly this definition of frontier applies: " 2. # A region just beyond or at the edge of a settled area." http://www.answers.com... Unless your imperialist lies run deeper, and you are trying to argue you are "just beyond" the national border. Even proletarian logic recognizes, however, that the third definition does not apply. " As you may be aware, the United States is known as "the land of opportunity" because the early colonists simply stepped of the ship and "claimed their stake" to a plot of land." Thus depriving everyone else of that land, and depriving them of the oppurtunity to get money when they failed to turn over the profits from farming it! No doubt you hard-line righties always see starving citizens as a virtue! "Thus, ordinary people that had been in the employ of a country landowner in the Old World became landowners in their own right in the New World – a frighteningly socialist concept" Nonsense, you sound like the people trying to tell me the Soviet Union was a socialist country! Everyone knows all these programs that throw scraps to the common man are just imperialist tricks unless every single capitalist gets slaughtered in the process, and no new ones arise! And since your mind is collective property of the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat in exile, you are obliged to agree or you are guilty of stealing! "presumably, why my opponent thinks it is acceptable for commoners to gallivant around the countryside expecting noblesse oblige from rural toffs such as myself." Noblesse oblige! We are to treat the money from you as a gift? No! That would be surrendering. It is ours by right, and we will take it as someone takes anything by right! By slaughtering you if you disagree! You, of course, have no rights, after all, you are rich!
Country landowners should have the right to enjoy their own private property as they see fit.

I say, it would appear my debate has been taken up by some snivelling leftie from a place in America called Seattle, which I believe is some sort of settlement beyond the old Western Frontier. As you may be aware, the United States is known as "the land of opportunity" because the early colonists simply stepped of the ship and "claimed their stake" to a plot of land. Thus, ordinary people that had been in the employ of a country landowner in the Old World became landowners in their own right in the New World – a frighteningly socialist concept and, presumably, why my opponent thinks it is acceptable for commoners to gallivant around the countryside expecting noblesse oblige from rural toffs such as myself.
Country landowners should have the right to enjoy their own private property as they see fit.

Filthy bourgeious exploiter! How dare you defend the imperialist pigs who work hard building themselves a home when other's haven't enough brains to do so! How dare you claim they have a "right" to stop the perfectly good common man from taking what they need from the estate? All they need is everything the capitalist has, it's not their fault they didn't acquire as much, their minds are conditioned by the machines after all, and the capitalist was off gallivanting in the country instead of being in the city helping build machines to help us in the process of marxist social conditioning! What right does the rich man have to a moment's rest, what right to fear for his safety when a needy proletarian wants food and feels a mite tired to be working for it!