BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate is too definite.

Lol. It's okay, not everyone can get wet at my arid sense of humor. First of all, how many times do the neutral guys get the vote? (especially recently) The truth is that a definite debate is regarded as a strong debate. Your argument keeps drifting to political debate, which is only one kind of debate, but let me indulge you: A republican senator says 'President Obama's tax cut plan is beneficial for the majority of American workers and their families, but...' But what? Shedding any light on a hole in your argument is detrimental to your position. Another example: My rebuttals are not contradictory to my debate. I am reinforcing my debate by sticking to my argument. You are not going to give me samples of debates where opponents were mercilessly bound to their side of the debate (like this one). You keep bringing up debates that continue on forever to infinity and beyond, but there are differences between debate topics and flat-out conundrums. I am not saying that a debate winner's antics are the definite say on a matter, but that he is tied too strictly to his antics. The other guy must have a point, but it is not debate etiquette to entertain that notion, whatsoever. There is chili powder(red) on the affirmative and turmeric powder(yellow) opposing. So far the win is in Chili's favor. He gets bold and tries to make a point by dipping his toes in on the turmeric side of the debate. After this is done, Chili struts back over to his side with a smug grin on his face, but when he turns around, Turmeric has the evidence against Chili's argument in the form of little red specks on the other side of the debate. Chili's argument is weakened and he loses :( The truth is that a definite debate is regarded as a strong debate. Although I love it, debate is too definite, and constricts you to an immovable argument. Let us have a movable feast!
Debate is too definite.

1. First of all, I find my opponent sarcastic comment: "Wow! I was not informed, prior to joining debate. org, that winning arguments would be turned into legislation. We are not on Capitol Hill. I have been on the floor of the House of Representatives, and this is not it." Rude and offensive. My comment: "The goal of the debate is to influence, in government, to approve the resolution into a bill/law." Was to provide a reference so the audience and yourself would be able to familiarize yourself in a way that both could understand easier. I did not say that this was Congress. 2. My opponent said to my comment "In order to debate something, one does not nessicarily have to believe in it." He says "This is true, but relentlessly hypocritical." This doesn't matter. Lawyers do this "rentlessly hypocritical" act all the time. Whether or not it is hypocritical is irrelvant, for my point stands as truth and negates yours. 3. My opponent says: Here is how debate (even in politics) is definite: We take extreme positions. Debate topics are rarely ever questions. Every blue moon, they begin with 'in most cases,' or ' sometimes.' When a topic is proposed, it is automatically understood that 'whether you agree with it or not, whether an astronaut is singing in the shower, or a beauty queen is break-dancing, in all cases THIS IS TRUE!' Actually, in government, when a topic is proposed, there are those for it, against it, and neutral people. The debate is what gets those votes. If you eliminate the votes, then you would quickly realize that the debate isn't definite, because it could go on forever without reaching a consenus. The resolution is definite, but it is the object of debate, not the debate itself. 4. My opponent says: "If you were to debate '98% of Homosexual Marriages Should be Legal,' there would be that 2% wiggle room for your opponent. That is a 2% chance of losing that I doubt you want to take. Debaters are afraid of even a small percentage of 'indefinite.'" I have never heard of a debate like this, and my opponent would be negating that and his odds at winnng would not be only 2% because of the resolution. Furthermore, you did not contend with my point that all of your rebuttals would be contradicatory to your debate. Therefore, I assume you accept the point as truth. It is for these reasons I heavily urge you to =VOTE CON=
Debate is too definite.

Itsallovernow says: "In order to debate something, one does not nessicarily have to believe in it." This is true, but relentlessly hypocritical. Wow! I was not informed, prior to joining debate. org, that winning arguments would be turned into legislation. We are not on Capitol Hill. I have been on the floor of the House of Representatives, and this is not it. Here is how debate (even in politics) is definite: We take extreme positions. Debate topics are rarely ever questions. Every blue moon, they begin with 'in most cases,' or ' sometimes.' When a topic is proposed, it is automatically understood that 'whether you agree with it or not, whether an astronaut is singing in the shower, or a beauty queen is break-dancing, in all cases THIS IS TRUE!' If you were to debate '98% of Homosexual Marriages Should be Legal,' there would be that 2% wiggle room for your opponent. That is a 2% chance of losing that I doubt you want to take. Debaters are afraid of even a small percentage of 'indefinite.' Stay tuned.
Debate is too definite.

1. "We have all done it: begrudgingly realized that our debate opponent has a point. We then proceed to manipulate our argument to keep ourselves from drowning in it ("No way am I forfeiting a round! ") . We agree less and less with our own words, and our initial ideas become clouded. " In order to debate something, one does not nessicarily have to believe in it. I debate "The marraige of Homosexuals Should Be Legal. ", I decided to argue against my belief that it should be legalized. Of course, there are always going to be points that our oppnents would bring up that are true, thus a debate is formed. However, we should look at the objective of a debate. A debate is something, like the one here, that two or more entities argue based on their claims. The goal of the debate is to influence, in government, to approve the resolution into a bill/law. The debate in itself is not definite, because they could argue endlessly. The only definite thing, is the votes, which are not part of the debate itself, but a subsquent retaliation to the debate. "There is no wiggle room. " The "wiggle room" can be looked at as rebuttals. It allows you to negate your opponents points and prove them wrong, thus "wiggling" out of forfiet/losing. If you rebutt against my arguement in an attempt to win, you attempt to "wiggle out", thus proveing my point through your own actions. If you do not, then you accept my arguements and lose this debate. Thusly, I should win this debate.
Debate is too definite.

Debate is too definite. We have all done it: begrudgingly realized that our debate opponent has a point. We then proceed to manipulate our argument to keep ourselves from drowning in it ("No way am I forfeiting a round!") . We agree less and less with our own words, and our initial ideas become clouded. Here are some examples of debate topics: 'Merit pay based on student achievement is necessary' 'Capital Punishment Doesn't Go Far Enough' 'Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy' Controversial topics? Yes, but there is no wiggle room. There is one very loud, unspoken rule that one cannot change their mind in a debate. "Hell or Glory, I don't want anything in between." That is the difference between debating and philosophizing. Everyone is stubborn. Everyone is a hypocrite. Everyone Says I Love You.
Debate is too definite.

Whoa, that was a tad perverse and appeals to my own sense of humor. 1. "First of all, how many times do the neutral guys get the vote?" I wasn't suggesting people in legislation advocate neutraility. For if they do, the bill doesn't pass, thus making them Con. They are mas o menos (more or less) the "swing votes". 2. "Shedding any light on a hole in your argument is detrimental to your position." Unless you rebut it, of course. This way, sustaining yourself and minimalizing weakness. =Main Point= You stated: We have all done it: begrudgingly realized that our debate opponent has a point. We then proceed to manipulate our argument to keep ourselves from drowning in it ("No way am I forfeiting a round!") . We agree less and less with our own words, and our initial ideas become clouded. Every arguementation is a point. And you said "My rebuttals are not contradictory to my debate. I am reinforcing my debate by sticking to my argument." However, you definately contradict yourself when you stated that you were reinforcing your debate by sticking to your arguement with your statement above! Your rebuttals prolong the debate since you do not, nor will ever, agree with me. Thus, this debate could carry on into eternity! It would not be definite until it was resolved! Then it would no longer be a debate, because it would be resolved! =Other Points= 3. "You keep bringing up debates that continue on forever to infinity and beyond, but there are differences between debate topics and flat-out conundrums." A debate can never end until it is resolved, because you will not submit and I will not. 4. "The truth is that a definite debate is regarded as a strong debate. Although I love it, debate is too definite, and constricts you to an immovable argument." I will continue to assert no debate is definite, because every debate is infinite until it is resolved. Then, there is nothing to debate! If by your analogy, you are asking that I like chili, then yes, I do. I love chili with every fiber of my being, especially chili omelettes. For the reasons above, I believe I have won. Good luck, and =Vote Con=
Christianity

This article is mostly about Christianity. Religion is a tough topic. Many people think that their religion is correct and none of the others are. But most likely, none of the religions are correct. Think of it logically. Forget your religion for a little bit. In the Bible, God supposedly created the Earth and everything on it. Why didn't anyone believe in any of the religions that we believe in today? Wouldn't this so called God, creator of the earth leave a little evidence that he actually created the earth? Like tell at least one person that instead of all of the Greek gods that they believed in they should believe in him? Who would just let the people he created believe someone else made them? Also, why does the bible not include
homosexuals should be moved to Mars

Ah, but most gays and lesbians are interested in beauty, right? Aside from this, no planet in this Solar System aside from Earth has air - I assumed you would be nice and build them houses on Mars, but it appears you are a cruel, evil, and sadistic person who believes that we should let them all suffocate to death. To that, I say a firm and resounding 'No'.Instead, we must build them a colony on Venus. Venus is the perfect location for such a colony - living in its unique environment would enrich our knowledge of the universe, helping humanity discover the unknown. Venus is far more appealing for a colony than Mars in that regard - we should send all of North Korea to Mars instead. This would solve the Korean crisis by giving Kim Jung-un his own planet to play with, and the resources available on Mars are far better than those in North Korea.
homosexuals should be moved to Mars

My opponent's hypothesis is interesting - move all homosexuals to Mars. He notes that "they ruin this planet with their evil and discusting ways. they can not reproduce therefore they are not human". Unfortunately, this fails to explain why Mars is the best destination. Mars is named after the Roman God of War - homosexuals have not warred against straight people! Why not move them to Venus instead? Venus is named after the Roman God of Love and Beauty. That is clearly a more appropriate planet to send homosexuals to, because everyone knows all homosexuals fit the 'flaming feminine gay' stereotype.
homosexuals should be moved to Mars

I assume by 'kick off the face of the earth' you mean 'voluntarily move', no? Wait, you don't? Well then, good sir, the answer would be a resounding "No!"Homosexuals deserve the right to move wherever they want. A colony on Venus is a gift to them, an opportunity to claim an entire planet for themselves. In the process, humanity's understanding of the universe would be increased. While many homosexuals will balk at this concept, I expect a few brave homosexuals will accept this daunting challenge - not for the good of homosexuality, but the good of mankind. Homosexuals have the right to live here, but why not start a country (let's call it 'Gayland') on Venus where their actions are socially acceptable by all (because the population would be entirely gay, or the adopted offspring of the gay)?
Pick-Up Line Battle

Any pick-up line you like. Yes, you may plagiarise others and no, I don't require citation. Please don't get all offended and upset about any of the obscene and/or gross lines that may be posted here, you all know what you're getting into by opening a topic like this, it's just a bit of fun.They must be funny and entertaining. Whether or not they'd actually work is irrelevant, this isn't a group therapy session, it's just for shiggles. You may post up to two pick-up lines per round. It's a 3k character limit, so if you just wanna chat or get to know me we can do that in between ;) Further, additional consideration ought to be awarded for successful flirtation and penetrating your discourse with rigid euphemisms, although this is not the main point of the debate. Being a straight male, it would obviously be more interesting if a straight female accepted, however there is absolutely no restriction on this and anyone is free to accept, so long as you feel that you can succesfully entertain the crowd. 1st round: Funny2nd round: Creepy3rd round: Backhanded/mean4th round: Cute/sweet/nice/sexy (please don't make me vom, though)5th round: Whatever you like!While there are themes for each round, keep in mind that the overarching point is that they are funny and entertaining.5 rounds, 24 hours (just a quickie). Please don't make it too hard.____________________________________________Round one:1. I know the bartender. Or the DJ. Whichever you think's cooler.2. Did you sit in a pile of sugar? Because you've got a pretty sweet arse.
Pick-Up Line Battle

It's truly been magnificent. I want to finish with a pick-up line of my own creation. 1. My mother told me never to stare at beautiful women, because if I did I'd turn to stone. Here, now, looking at you, I know she was right. Because I feel something getting hard. And finally, 2. I don't want to impress you or anything, but. .. I'm Batman. Thanks for the battle, man. It was good fun! XD
Anime dubs are better than anime subs

We've spent the last two months arguing about this topic-its time to end this once and for all... round 1-announcing point of view/beginning arguements round 2-second arguements round 3-rebuttle/closing statement I think anime dubs are a good thing-not all the time mind you-but most of the time its a convinient way to enjoy watching an anime without reading all that annoying text at the bottom of the screen that totaly ruins the immersion and you need to read in half a second or else you won't know whats going on.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should ban pornography in all 50 states.

This is a debate about whether or not pornography should be banned in all 50 US states. NOT about the punishment for violating such crime. RulesRound 1 is rules and definitions for Con, Pro may begin his Constructive Case. Round 2 Con may begin his Constructive Case (No Rebuttals), Pro will begin his rebuttals. Round 3 Rebuttals (Pro may also post his conclusions)Round 4 Rebuttals and Conclusion by Con. Pro will post "No round as agreed upon. "If Pro posts anything, but what is posted above then it is an automatic forfeiture. No trolling. No semantics. No profanities. United States Federal Government- The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should- must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, orexpediency): (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) ban- to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict [for the sake of this debate to make illegal] (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)pornography- movies, pictures, magazines, etc. , that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should ban pornography in all 50 states.

I do appologize for my last round folly, but I must now end the debate with my rebuttals and why I believe that I've won this debate. Contention 1: Effects of PornSince my opponent's arguments all stem around it's health factors I shall argue that it's actually healthy and good for you over the net harm so we can see that through this argumentation that I would thus negate my opponent's argument.As it turns out, according to a Dutch study of over 600 people, we have seen that people have seen an increase in self confidence and sexual satisfaction. [1] Next I would like to site a paper from the International Study of Law and Psycharatry, ""Indeed, the data reported and reviewed suggests that the thesis is myth and, if anything, there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography and sex crimes. Further, considering the findings of studies of community standards and wide spread usage of SEM [sexually explicit material], it is obvious that in local communities as nationally and internationally, porn is available, widely used and felt appropriate for voluntary adult consumption. If there is a consensus against pornography it is in regard to any SEM that involves children or minors in its production or consumption. Lastly we see that objections to erotic materials are often made on the basis of supposed actual, social or moral harm to women. No such cause and effect has been demonstrated with any negative consequence." [2]Here we can see that there is NO corrilation between this said harm. This is shown as a massive break through and is key in this debate as the entirety of my opponent's arguments revolve around this supposed corrilation, which as I shown from a highly qualified source in an international study that it doesn't exist. You also can find out more about yourself. Many people have stated that the homosexual's first step in finding this out is through porn. We wouldn't want to destroy the family unit by not permitting this natural process to occur. We can also see that on the same ball field that it allows people to find out more about themselves on what they prefer and such. Jamie Woo has shown that through this and an exploration of this field can help a male or female find out what they would like to see from their significant other.I appologize as I do not have a lot of response time so I'll have to cut it short here.I thank you and please vote Con!Sources1. (https://www.psychologytoday.com...) 2. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) pg. 312)
Was Hitler a Jew

Accepted. For the rest of this round, my source if not otherwise specified is the Nook version of the book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Hitler had been Jewish, that is a fact [Rise and Fall]. Hitler's father, Alois Hitler. was Jewish and Adolf Hitler thus was part Jewish [1]. Now, for the reason he killed Jews. Mr. Hitler growing up had no hate for the Jews. He used Jews as a common enemy. [R&F] http://www.history.com...
On balance, a Christian God or any other god(s) does not exist.

I do have a reason to say you have lost the debate and it is as follows. The contention was, On balance, a Christian God or any other god(s) does not exist. There is no specified religion stated, and we are arguing about the existence of God. We are not arguing about which God or god(s) do not exist, this debate is on whether or not God exists. You have lost the debate because on multiple occasions you have said, yourself, that God exists. So since you have refused to debate me on the existence of God you have forfeited the debate.
On balance, a Christian God or any other god(s) does not exist.

Well seeing as the pro has already lost the debate, I would like to provide some proof for the existence of a God. First let me establish a framework. According to the Oxford English Dictionary God (Christian and many other monotheistic Religions): The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. gods (Plural): A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity Exist: To have actual being; be PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF GOD The Complexity of the Universe as a Whole: Take into account things like water's role as a sustainer of life, DNA, a baby, or even the human eye. When you delve into these topics it's clear to see that there is no conceivable way that this is all by chance or not ordained by a higher power. Take into consideration one of my examples DNA. "All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program?" (-everystudent.com). All evidence of this "programming" in our body points to the fact that a higher power has to have designed and put a "instruction manual" if you will into our body.
The existence of God conflicts with science.

The purpose of this debate is to talk about whether, in any and what circumstances, God and science are contradictory. Main discussion topics will be about creation and the big bang, evolution, age of the earth, whether the existence of God matters to everyday science (both functional and forensic), et cetera. I only want to debate someone who is truly qualified and knows about the subject. Bring your best. Also, asking questions is highly encouraged, because CX is important to a debate. Please put all your questions in the same place so I can answer them easily.
The existence of God conflicts with science.

davidmgreen you instigated this debate. But when it came to post, you arrived late. Now I'm writing this poem Oh your FF would upset David Bohm Roses are red I've never seen a violet, so I'm not sure what color they are. I'm going to drown my sorrows in a bar. But I'm too young. I'll just play it the cow dung. This poem is getting off topic. Davidmgreen was too busy sipping his drink in the tropic. Why you no post? Perhaps you became a ghost. That would be sad. I'm going to end this poem quick because the readers are probably getting mad Goodbye Don't lie and who the hell is fluttershy?
There is only one god

There is only one God and I call him Allah.The truest prophest after Jesus, PBUH, was the great prophet Muhammad PBUH!It is the truest of true!Assumption for this debate, as Con correctly said, is any contradiction means that we don't take it into account when discussing the religion!God is define as a superhuman being or spirit is it described as many superhuman beings? Oh no! So that is what I thought!Voila, I win! <3