BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

"I think it's possible you have misunderstood me. I have said that if two individuals do NOT make it obvious that they know each other, for the purpose of this debate, they may as well not. Obviously, there is nothing inherent about them knowing each other that makes it unacceptable for them to debate, my argument is that when you can tell that they know each other from the debate, then it becomes unacceptable." This argument carries as well. "'However, I did not discredit those debate[s] between members who know each other personally that DON'T use personal information in their arguments,' and thusly, you did not prove to me that debates between members are unacceptable."
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

I think it's possible you have misunderstood me. I have said that if two individuals do NOT make it obvious that they know each other, for the purpose of this debate, they may as well not. Obviously, there is nothing inherent about them knowing each other that makes it unacceptable for them to debate, my argument is that when you can tell that they know each other from the debate, then it becomes unacceptable.
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

"I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe that you actually made any arguments against my points in round 3. You agreed with me that personal information should not be used." Let me clarify: I did agree with you against personal information being used. "However, I did not discredit those debate[s] between members who know each other personally that DON'T use personal information in their arguments," and thusly, you did not prove to me that debates between members are unacceptable.
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe that you actually made any arguments against my points in round 3. You agreed with me that personal information should not be used. Then you said that my second and third arguments carry through. If users do not make it obvious that they know each other personally, then, for all intents and purposes, they do not, and are thus outside of the resolution.
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

"My argument (which I unfortunately did not make quite clear), was that had the information NOT been immediately acknowledge[d], no information is available to the voters as to which debater was correct." It is correct to say that debaters should not bring up unsourcable personal information, like when Danononian brought up that his teacher was stupid and paid $20,000 per annum. I honestly didn't know whether this was true or not, but I dismissed the information with a true statement that happens to be unsourcable. This is a clear example why you should not use personal information. However, I did not discredit those debate between members who know each other personally that DON'T use personal information in their arguments. Your second and third arguments carry through, as those are not serious debates/
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

My argument (which I unfortunately did not make quite clear), was that had the information NOT been immediately acknowledge, no information is available to the voters as to which debater was correct. The debate you mentioned as a refutation of my second and third arguments falls under my note which I posted originally. If the debaters do not make it obvious that they know each other personally, they might as well not know each other (from the perspective of the voters) and thus are outside the resolution. Carry my second and third arguments through.
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

"First, the debates can skew the voting system in such a way that the better debater could actually lose the debate. In the debate where my comment was posted (http://www.debate.org...), part of the refutation of PRO's argument was based on the personal knowledge that CON had gone to a Catholic school. While in this case the information was immediately acknowledged, personal information can be used to discredit an otherwise creditable source. Those voting have no way of knowing who to trust. Second, it is all to easy for personal, previous conflicts between the debaters to be drawn in or created by the debate. Not only does this harm the debaters' relationship, it also pollutes the site, by leading to people being sidetracked. Finally, in many debates between people who know each other personally, references are made to outside events. For instance http://www.debate.org.... In this case, the entire debate is based around personal information and previous events. This is useless to anyone else who reads it. Such debates would be better conducted on an instant messaging service or through some other form of communication." 1._ While "personal information can be used to discredit an otherwise creditable source," you also stated that personal "information was immediately acknowledged" in the debate between Danononian and I, so it is not definite that using personal information in a debate is unacceptable. 2._ For your second and third arguments, those types of "debates would be better conducted on an instant messaging service or through some other form of communication." However, this does not immediately discredit all debates between members who know each other personally, such as this one: http://www.debate.org... My opponent has not proved to me that debates between members who know each other personally are unacceptable. Your rebuttal, Flare_Corran?
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

My argument is that debates between members who know each other personally skew the voting system (by some sources being of unknown reliability for anyone other than the players), can cause personal conflict between the players, and irritate those who read them, since they do not actually understand some of the things that are said. (note: if the debaters do not make it obvious that they know each other personally, there is no longer an issue.) First, the debates can skew the voting system in such a way that the better debater could actually lose the debate. In the debate where my comment was posted (http://www.debate.org...), part of the refutation of PRO's argument was based on the personal knowledge that CON had gone to a Catholic school. While in this case the information was immediately acknowledged, personal information can be used to discredit an otherwise creditable source. Those voting have no way of knowing who to trust. Second, it is all to easy for personal, previous conflicts between the debaters to be drawn in or created by the debate. Not only does this harm the debaters' relationship, it also pollutes the site, by leading to people being sidetracked. Finally, in many debates between people who know each other personally, references are made to outside events. For instance http://www.debate.org.... In this case, the entire debate is based around personal information and previous events. This is useless to anyone else who reads it. Such debates would be better conducted on an instant messaging service or through some other form of communication.
Resolved: Debates Between Members Who Know Each Other Personally are Acceptable

Member defined: A person who belongs to a group of people or a group such as a company or nation who belongs to another group like an alliance or consortium. By extension it can refer to any part of a whole. http://en.wikipedia.org... Acceptable defined: Capable, worthy, or sure of being accepted or received with pleasure; pleasing to a receiver; gratifying; agreeable; welcome. http://en.wiktionary.org... Using these definitions, I will seek to defend the position of deeming debates on the website debate.com between members of the aforementioned website who know each other personally are indeed acceptable and foster debate between friends in a quasi-formal manner in the domain of the Internet, viewable by all. By agreeing to this debate, my opponent, Flare_Corran, has confirmed that he thinks debates on the website debate.com between members of the aforementioned website who know each other personally are not acceptable, as referenced by the following comment: "I hate all these debates between people who actually know each other." - Flare_Corran http://www.debate.org... I am looking forward to a response.
Universal Basic Income

IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!
Universal Basic Income

Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.
Genocide

Thanks to my oponent for a provocative second round.Firstly, I disagree that eliminating a race or group is best served by implementing certain laws etc. that cause injustice or degradation or suppression. The best method is to round them up and kill them, like the Nazis did. This is not happening to African-Americans in a systematic, deliberate attempt to wipe them out. The demonstration of this is that the population is increasing.Suppression and disenfranchisement are not the same as genocide.Gay marriage by nature is an institution of inclusion, not death, so it is therefore not a genocidal enterprise. Gay people are not coming to get you.Difficulty in getting insurance or governement assistance is not genocide. Black on black violence is only genocide (that is, autogenocide) if it was the case that some black people or black person was actively attempting to wipe out all the black people. This is not happening.The time scheme is irrelevant.Martial Law is not genocide.
Genocide

When you eliminate a race or certain type of ppl what do you do? You put elements laws and programs in certain areas that will neutralize a specific group. When I said my thoughts on genocide I was speaking of what's to come. First it was gay marriage then watch how they are going to boost up qualifications for insurance and many other government assistance. That's what I'm talking bout and the increasing of black on black violence is rising . Trust me you not going to see this in a few days or even a few years. But watch America unfold itself it the next 5-10 years. Marshall Law is coming
Genocide

Before posting my argument, I'd like to acknowledge the fact that I am not in favour of genocide as 'Pro' - the terms of this debate are unconventional. Strictly speaking, I would be the Con for this debate, arguing that African-Americans are not the subjects of ongoing genocide. First, more clear definitions. Genocide is a specific term that was first coined by a Polish Jew called Raphael Lemkin who was a lawyer who migrated to the States because of the war and his writing was instrumental in constructing The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (which is the UN's current genocide document).^1 The word genocide was first published in 1944, so it is a fairly new descriptor. The destruction, in whole or in part, of one group of people must have specific intent and must be with the intention of completely removing that group (or that part of it) - you used the word "extinction". Typically, when we think of genocide, we think of mass rape in Yugoslavia, we think of Bosnia, and quintessentially, we think of the Second World War in which six million Jews perished in the bowels of death factories whose only constructed purpose was the mass execution of people to bring about their total obliteration. That was the only purpose. We then counterpose this with the situation in the United States. African-American populations residing within the U.S. have been increasing by around 4 million people per decade for the last 70 years^. Before that the rate continued to increase as well. By definition, then, since the population is rising, there is no genocide taking place. What we should be arguing for is social justice, equality under the law, fair treatment by the courts and law enforcement. There is still a long way to go before anybody can seriously be ready to say that social equality has reached an acceptable point. But when the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the leader of the country is African-American, when the population is rising, and when there is no mechanised extermination process, a charge of genocide is both inaccurate and offensive to genuine victim groups of genocide. Genocide is a term we reserve for the most egregious of mass atrocities. Injustice, even when it results in the abhorrent deaths of countless black men and women, is not synonymous with genocide. Finally, on your irrelevant point about homosexual African-Americans, given that it's a free country, surely we should be advocating for our brothers and sisters to be able to participate in whatever way their conscience guides them? And since the African-American population is rising at an ever-increasing rate, and African-Americans identifying as any form of LGBTIQA is 4.6%^2, it's really not a demographic problem that needs worrying about. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, which they’re not, who cares? Summarily, for the first round, it has been thoroughly demonstrated that the case of African-American injustice is not a case of genocide. References1. http://www.hrweb.org...;2. https://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement

Okay, this is my first debate on debate.org, so let's see how this goes. This is a very interesting topic, but something that I have never encountered before personally. If the people in the comments section want to give their opinions on this debate, they can. This topic seems like something that multiple people should give their input on. So, the resolved is that the voting system is flawed, and I am negating that resolution. My contentions: 1) It's very simple to understand: When you vote for con or pro, he or she gets a point. (For the specifics of the point system, http://www.debate.org...) The person with the most points out of the 6 voting topics gets a bonus point. Why risk making it more complicated by changing it? 2) It goes over a wide range of topics, which gives fairness to both pro and con. You can vote on grammar and and conduct and what not, so if pro were to only get one point and con would get the five remaining points, pro would still get one point and maybe have a chance to come back. One point could make a difference, after all. 3) It can give you an estimate of how much you need to improve. For example, if I were to lose this debate 52 to 5, obviously I need some work. But if the score were much closer, so something like 52 to 48, then I could infer that either my opponent's case was slightly stronger than mine, or the voters voted for my opponent on the first and second voting topics (Who did you agree with before/after the debate?), giving my opponent an edge. I'm going to comment on your suggestions, if you don't mind. Since the resolved is that the voting system is flawed, and not to see whether his specific ideas are "the best," I hope the voters won't penalize me for saying whether I agree with a suggestion or not. 1) If you look at the section below the voting part and the names + pictures in the debate, there are three tabs that say Debate Rounds, Comments, and Voting. They're redesigning the Voting section to describe exactly what #1 says. ("This page is being redesigned to show the voter's picture and username.") 2) Define "more closely." 3) That wouldn't be a bad idea, but getting too specific about a feed on someone's profile might make people think that it's an invasion of privacy. 4) I like the idea of putting a paragraph, but I feel like letting other members being able to comment/report on a paragraph would start a "comment fight," which would be annoying. Is there a way to contact a support group about that problem? Honestly, I like your ideas on how the voting system could be improved, but if you were to elaborate on them and get some opinions from other debaters like I just did, you could have some legitimate improvements.
The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement

It seems obvious to me: anyone can set up an account on DDO, search for their favorite topics, and easily vote on whatever they want, without even reading the arguments. The resolution is that SOMETHING must be done to improve the voting system on this site. I will give a few ideas that could be incorporated by the DDO creators, but am open to any other suggestions: 1) Show how each person voted. 2) Moniter the votes more closely. 3) Show a feed on each account's page that reveals what they voted on and how they voted. 4) Have each voter write a short, detailed paragraph on why he/she voted that way, which fellow members can see and report if they find something wrong with it. Also, I am not able to vote, even though I have a cell phone. Why? I do not know. I have sent in my number multiple times, and have never received an approval text. This must be remedied as well. Remember, this debate is focusing on whether or not the DDO Voting System is flawed, NOT on whether or not my specific ideas are "the best". I await an opponent
The Bible Advocates Slavery

First, let me state that i agree with using the KJV as the only bible source. Secondly, as for the word "doulos", I would like to use the strict meaning of "Slave" as defined by my opponent, to which i shall expand a bit. The definition of "Slave" in dictionary. com is as follows: "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. "(1). I would like to use that as the specific definition. The definition of Advocation, or more specifically, Recommend, is to "to present as worthy of confidence, acceptance, use, etc. ; commend; mention favorably"(2). I shall use that definition as well. Now, for my arguments. First off, i shall start with how Slavery is accepted in the bible. Leviticus 25:45 states, "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. " Note the keywords, "Buy" and "possession". Although i can sit here and claim victory as this alone, both recommends and advocates slavery, i shall continue with the passage to Leviticus 25:46: "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit [them for] a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. " Again, the keyword here is "Inheritance" and "Forever". As if that wasnt damning enough, we have Exodus 21:7, where the bible specifically talks about how one is able to sell his daughter as a sex slave: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. " Clearly the bible advocates, promotes, and teaches how you should treat and obtain slaves. And to teach something is to advocate it.