BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO Users Should have the option to select "Casual" or "Competitive" Styles

All your votes suck. We've removed them because they are not up to our standards even though the debate itself was a train wreck.Sincerely, The Moderators.The voting gods want high standards. Many words were written to teach all the new users how to write in-depth reasons. It's all about the quality! Without our high standards, the forum will crumble!Here is the problem:95% of the site's users are trying things out. New users are appearing every day. Arguments lack structure. Half the time there are forfeits. Even people with the capacity for quality writing and coherent thoughts, may have never debated anywhere, formally. I don't know your debate-club lingo. I haven't quite grasped the nuances of all your terms and strategies. I may pick it up over time, but I'm never joining a debate team.Here's what I want, as a casual debator: make my case, match wits, tell a good story, hopefully entertain. I don't care if I win or lose, although one is generally more pleasant than the other. This is a time-waster and intellect-builder.To go through a debate, and watch well-intended but incompletely documented votes get removed pisses me off. Especially since I'm just trying to get the hang of things around here.I don't know who got the bright idea to moderate a casual debate with competitive standands in voting. Conversely, I perfectly understand the need to moderate competitive debates and remove casual voting.But the key to successful moderation of votes is to make the styles align. When I want to start a debate, I should have the following choices:Competition Level:[__] Casual[__] CompetitiveOr at the beginning of the debate, the initiator can choose "Casual or Competitive" in Text.Casual: It's informal. The style of debating is more conversational, less structured. It is geared towards new members or quicker discussions. It's like buddies bonding at the bar. Voting moderation is more liberal. Any vote counts without strict RFD standards. By entering into a casual debate, both participants are agreeing that they simply want to enjoy the process and are willing to show good-faith to the voters on their rationale. Voters can simply decide who is more convincing.Competitive: This is formal. It's like the debate club or tounaments. Standards in documenting sources, formatting, supporting data, etc. are higher. It satisfies the needs of the experienced members. Likewise, voting moderation requires equally high standards in line with the current policy.The voting policy is a huge detractor because the voting standards do not align with the debating styles. Experienced debators are not voting in the casual debates and hundreds are ending in zero-zero ties. If the experts don't care enough to vote, why are you holding voters on amatuer debates to competitive standards?A "casual" and "competitive" debate in arguments/vote moderation will satisfy both types of users. Align the expectations with the skill development. Argue Con if you want votes tossed out.
DDO Users Should have the option to select "Casual" or "Competitive" Styles

OK, so you post a couple of statistics to meet requirements for an argument, but I notice that there was NO reference to Terrell Owens or John David Crow, so your statistics are meaningless. But, to get back to the debate. If one wants to debate in a casual atmosphere, then they should just go to www.casualdebatesrus.org and leave the competitive stuff to the professionals. There...case solved. No harm, no foul. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these fine options. May the Force be Forever you Your Favor
DDO Users Should have the option to select "Casual" or "Competitive" Styles

---------------------------------------------------------Do you think the following reason is too strict?'(1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) The voter needs to directly examine specific arguments made by both sides in the RFD for arguments.'The rules clearly state a vote can be denied for one of the following reasons:Criteria #1: Failure to explain every point awardedCriteria #2: Failure to explain why you awarded a pointCriteria #3: Failing to be specific enough---------------------------------------------------------You are right that we need evaluation criteria. And I absolutely think that the criteria is too strict for a casual debate. Every single point needs to be explained when some laid-off Shakespearean monkey jibbers incoherently into Siri, who speech-types the argument then google translates it from Chinese to Sanskrit and then to English?New Criteria for Casual Debates (Competitive Debates stay the same as above): On a casual TD, a vote can be denied for one of the followng reasons:Criteria #1: Failure to explain why one debator was more convincingCriteria #2: Failure to not be a doosh.That's it. That's all that should be. ---------------------------------------------------------The daily tally board will become a laughing stock. If this is the consensus of the majority of the population on Debate.org, then perhaps the moderators can look into it, but it would, IMO, set a very bad precedent and lead to the board going too far downhill to recover.---------------------------------------------------------Look at Kobe Bryant over the last two years. [1] 2014-15 a33; 36 LAL NBA SG 35 35 1207 266 713 .373 54 184 .293 212 529 .401 .411 196 241 .813 26 173 199 197 47 7 128 65 782 2015-16 37 LAL NBA SF 39 39 1132 214 619 .346 64 256 .250 150 363 .413 .397 120 153 .784 25 128 153 135 36 Jerry Rice had a super soaker mounted on his rascal and once played in the CFL for two years. Here are his stats:Career303284164015492289514.8197965.175.68764510437.42.10.3235402072725016 yrsSFO238224117712811924715.0176965.480.98462510437.42.60.419872186232154 yrsOAK5451414243328613.518754.560.93200126.70.40.13306184321 yrSEA119492536214.53562.332.9362303 So California is better than Wisconsin. Since I'm an aspiring novelist and a member of the media I know. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0BlXy3Roj4
DDO Users Should have the option to select "Casual" or "Competitive" Styles

I guess the definition of 'strict RFD standards' should be explained. Are you saying that the standards should be lowered in the casual debates so that the possibility of dupe voting is allowed? Do you think the following reason is too strict? '(1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) The voter needs to directly examine specific arguments made by both sides in the RFD for arguments.' The rules clearly state a vote can be denied for one of the following reasons: Criteria #1: Failure to explain every point awarded Criteria #2: Failure to explain why you awarded a point Criteria #3: Failing to be specific enough If you are required to follow these simple rules, then anyone can tell that the voter actually read the debate and has a clear understanding of the point made by both sides. If you have casual debating in which anyone can vote willy-nilly you will run afoul of fair gamesmanship. Again, gangs will team up on unliked posters basically shunning them...dupes will be created to garner more votes and wins...posters will fall to the level of begging for votes by posting links for other posters. The daily tally board will become a laughing stock. If this is the consensus of the majority of the population on Debate.org, then perhaps the moderators can look into it, but it would, IMO, set a very bad precedent and lead to the board going too far downhill to recover.
Voting for Nationalist Parties from a white POV

1) Employment, not welfare. Additionally, you never defended your claim other ethnicities vote for higher taxes, or that these votes have any sort of appreciable impact. 2) Why were the taxes increased by a clearly white majority? You haven't shown why this would be the fault of the other ethnic groups. 3) Yet you have not shown why it is the fault of the immigrants. 4) Implying (for some reason) that white people don't oppress, but that every other minority oppresses. That doesn't strike me as particularly sound reasoning. Arguments: a) Nationalist parties are civilly backwards BNP advocates repeal of anti-discrimination legislation [1]. Closest thing to a nationalist party the USA has is the KKK. 1. http://goo.gl...
Voting for Nationalist Parties from a white POV

1) www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ www.americanprogress.org/issues/ideas/2011/08/080811.html "According to the University of Michigan's National Poverty Center, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were living in poverty in 2010, compared to 9.9 percent of whites. Unemployment statistics between the racial demographics are similarly skewed." 2) As California became more mexican, and Detroit became blacker, taxes increased quickly. Someone has to pay for that 27.4 of blacks and 26.6 of hispanics in welfare. 3) Violence by gangs have increased in London, South California, Malmo, Paris as more immigrants have imported. 5) whites are not minority in europe or america YET. The situation is bound to change
Voting for Nationalist Parties from a white POV

1) That's only true if the other ethnicities are more dependent on welfare than the whites, and even then not necessarily. 2) Conceded. 3) More than what? It is a non-sequitor that whites can expect more taxation under non-white majority rule. Elaborate. 4) Please show what this has to do with other ethnicities. I can barely understand what you are saying. 5) Not always. This depends on the new ethnic group. Look at North America and Europe. Very little, if any oppression. The majority of your argument consists of unsubstantiated assertions. Therefore, you cannot conclude becoming a minority is undesirable. If you want to have a battle of assertions, just say so next round and I will be more than happy to oblige you. 750 characters :D
Voting for Nationalist Parties from a white POV

1) Under democratic rules, the majority decides and the minority obeys... Given that... - Most nations with white majorities are expected to become white minorities within the next decades (the date for USA is between 2042 and 2050) and given that... - Other ethnicities tend to vote for parties that support taxation to fund welfare for their own benefit... we can conclude that... 3) under non-white majority rule, whites can expect more taxation 4) as most of the nations become big Detroits, Londons and South-Africas, violence by maras and gangs is bound to increase 5) Minorities are usually oppressed in the nations that are ruled by the ethnic group that will be the new majority (specially muslims and africans in the case of Europe, so whites may expect some of that) 6) It is in the best interest of a white person to vote for nationalist parties if that can stop them from becoming a minority show if there is an issue with that reasoning from a white POV
Liberalism and White Guilt will end up destroying the world

Without evidence your arguments don't hold any ground. 1. It has not been proven that white guilt alone causes aid to be sent to foreign nations. Moreover, it is unproven that this causes population booms, and finally it is unproven that this leads to any of the impacts you have proposed. 2. In response to the environmental and social conflict impacts, even if your link was to still stand, or if you could prove that white guilt causes this, neither of these would destroy the world.
Liberalism and White Guilt will end up destroying the world

No it is not a troll debate It is more like making some points across about the fact that white guilt ends up making damage to both european and african nations, by making the african population baloon, which leads to social conflict and immigration to Europe, where even MORE social conflict will occur it is OK if you dont wanna address my points that the environment is being destroyed in the tropicals as the population explodes, and mass immigration is destroying Europe as consequence
Liberalism and White Guilt will end up destroying the world

- White guilt leads to massive exportation of food and supplies from First World countries to poor countries which natural resources cant sustain such population - It leads to unsustainable population growth that destroys natural resources like forests, which turn into cities - Mass immigration into the Western World occurs, liberals welcome the invaders, social services collapse due to the pressure of the extra population. Cities expand, global warming is worsened - Libs blame whitey
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

"Well obviously HE shouldn't because that would be a gross overuse of excecutive power. I am assuming he shouldn't argue for it. Though this is not what Baraack Obama wants, he wants gun control." Barack Obama is slowly moving towards wanting gun bans. Also, I think you just conceded the resolution, which basically means that you conceded the entire debate. "Gun CONTROL doesn't, however, I didn't understand the resolution. I now understand we ae arguing a gun ban." Good. "Just because it is unlikely does not mean it shouldn't happen." Well, I'm just going to come out and say that it CAN'T happen. 38 states are required to undo the second amendment. 13 are necessary to disagree. Forty-four states, however, like their gun rights. I can guarantee that it will take more than eight years for them to want to change their ways to not include gun rights, and by then, Obama will have no presidential power. I know that Texas will not give up its guns in the near future. "He is for gun CONTROL not a gun ban, and, yes, I do concede the point that people like there guns. So dpo criminals, gangs, and other "Wrong-doers". If you want to protect yourself, use another method." If you're under eighteen, you are not allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't apply to the "general American public". Also, criminals will have guns, whether there is a gun ban or not. If a robber breaks into your house, and you have a gun, and you manage to point your gun at him before he draws his gun, you're safe. If you're unarmed, however, you're either dead or robbed. Guns are THE best protection method to use in a home invasion. They're quick and long range, all you have to do is point and hold a finger on the trigger, and it doesn't take too much skill to use. No other weapon is so efficient. If there is, it would be banned before guns. People lose their gun rights when they abuse them. This does not apply to the general public. Generally, if everyone has a gun, it is safer than if only those who are willing to break the law having a gun. "Strict gun control works in the same effect as a ban in most cases. Also, if in your hypothetical situation, the criminal didn't have a gun, or the police were doing their job, there would be no problem." The criminal will always have a gun. He could import one, he could build one himself, I don't care. The point is, the criminal will get his dirty hands on a gun and use it. Also, the police can't get to every robbery, especially if the robber doesn't let anyone call 911. It is so much more efficient for a civilian to just shoot the robber then and there. "I am sorry about the misunderstanding of the resolution." Yeah, I think that the entire misunderstanding thing killed the debate. Thank you for responding.
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

Thank you for a quick response. "Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns." Well obviously HE shouldn't because that would be a gross overuse of excecutive power. I am assuming he shouldn't argue for it. Though this is not what Baraack Obama wants, he wants gun control. "First off, that was just a response to your comment about how gun control doesn't violate our second amendment rights." Gun CONTROL doesn't, however, I didn't understand the resolution. I now understand we ae arguing a gun ban. "Secondly, to change the constitution, three-fourths of the states have to agree to give up their guns completely. "Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (the exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York)." http://en.wikipedia.org......(by_state)#Texas Somehow, I doubt that such an amendment could be passed by states that like the idea of gun rights." Just because it is unlikely does not mean it shouldn't happen. "They are all facts; it's just that it shows the facts they want you to hear. Here's another source: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org...... You also failed to refute, and thus conceded, the fact that people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion." He is for gun CONTROL not a gun ban, and, yes, I do concede the point that people like there guns. So dpo criminals, gangs, and other "Wrong-doers". If you want to protect yourself, use another method. "Gun control is irrelevant to this debate, because this debate is about disarming people, not regulating them. I am against strict gun control as well as against gun bans, but this debate is about banning, not controlling. Additionally, loose gun control sure seems to be working for Texas. If a Japanese man got his hands on a gun and robbed a store, they would probably be powerless. Not so in Texas." Strict gun control works in the same effect as a ban in most cases. Also, if in your hypothetical situation, the criminal didn't have a gun, or the police were doing their job, there would be no problem. "In conclusion, my opponent has not actually said anything about gun bans, only gun control, which is irrelevant, and Barack Obama should not disarm us." I am sorry about the misunderstanding of the resolution. Thank you.
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

Please clarify a absolute resolution." Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns. That's about as clear and absolute as it can get. disarm - to divest of arms (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) arms - guns "The constitution can be changed, this is not an argument for guns, it is just a statement" First off, that was just a response to your comment about how gun control doesn't violate our second amendment rights. Secondly, to change the constitution, three-fourths of the states have to agree to give up their guns completely. "Forty-four states have a provision in their state constitutions similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights (the exceptions are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York)." http://en.wikipedia.org...(by_state)#Texas Somehow, I doubt that such an amendment could be passed by states that like the idea of gun rights. "I am going to need a source that is not extremely bias to tell me this." They are all facts; it's just that it shows the facts they want you to hear. Here's another source: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org... You also failed to refute, and thus conceded, the fact that people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. "These prove that gun control is safe, so it should be instituted." Gun control is irrelevant to this debate, because this debate is about disarming people, not regulating them. I am against strict gun control as well as against gun bans, but this debate is about banning, not controlling. Additionally, loose gun control sure seems to be working for Texas. If a Japanese man got his hands on a gun and robbed a store, they would probably be powerless. Not so in Texas. In conclusion, my opponent has not actually said anything about gun bans, only gun control, which is irrelevant, and Barack Obama should not disarm us. Thank you.
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

"I already know that he wants gun control. I'm just fearing that he might step it up to making guns illegal. That is the point that I am trying to make here. Sorry, but you assumed wrong." Please clarify a absolute resolution. "Disarming the general public does violate our second amendment right." The constitution can be changed, this is not an argument for guns, it is just a statement "But people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. Barack Obama did, as a Senator in Illinois, try to make it so that if you shoot a robber when he robs your house, you can get charged with gun assault." I am going to need a source that is not extremely bias to tell me this. "I'm looking at your sources, and they just say what the homicide rates are. They say nothing about which countries have gun control and which ones don't. The word "control" does not appear anywhere on either of your sources. I see no correlation." Forgot to add these http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.guncite.com... http://archives.cnn.com... These prove that gun control is safe, so it should be instituted.
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

Thank you for responding so quickly. "First off, your source is a campaign video, they emphasize the bad things. Second, he wants gun CONTROL not a gun ban. I am asssuming this is what we are to debate." I already know that he wants gun control. I'm just fearing that he might step it up to making guns illegal. That is the point that I am trying to make here. Sorry, but you assumed wrong. "Gun control doesn't violate our second amendment right. It makes it harder to get a gun, but not illegal. Barack Obama wants to make it so you cannot go to K-Mart, buy a gun, and shoot someone." Disarming the general public does violate our second amendment right. "You still can get a gun, it is just harder to." Not if you've been disarmed. "There are other methods one can use to protect themselves." But people like their guns, and they are one of the better methods for security during a home invasion. Barack Obama did, as a Senator in Illinois, try to make it so that if you shoot a robber when he robs your house, you can get charged with gun assault. "It is not breaking the law unless there is a gun ban." And I'm talking about a gun ban. Even if it is just gun control, the innocent hunters have to spend much more time becoming registered for a gun, while a robber would just obtain one through illegal means. "Actually the homcide rate is much lower in countries that have gun control (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2)" I'm looking at your sources, and they just say what the homicide rates are. They say nothing about which countries have gun control and which ones don't. The word "control" does not appear anywhere on either of your sources. I see no correlation. Thank you for accepting, and sorry about the misunderstanding.