BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Someone will get there "panties in a wad" over this debate!

RE: "It's a figure of speech" It also has not been fully assimilated into the English language, so it doesn't really mean anything. It is a term that my opponent should have defined in the first round. I'll provide a definition, since my opponent failed to: To get one's panties in a wad: to become upset. [1] [1] . http://onlineslangdictionary.com... ==== RE: Grammar My opponent asserts that she thinks the resolution has fine grammar. This is inconsequential. The resolution uses improper grammar, whether my opponent thinks so or not. The word "there" cannot be properly used the way my opponent used it. As a sentence written in improper grammar, it cannot be true, and so the resolution is negated as a result of meaninglessness. ==== RE: Upset My opponent says she never said anything about someone getting upset, and that she meant "uptight. " There are a few problems here. 1. My opponent has failed to put forth a convincing case that someone will get uptight about this debate. 2. My opponent in fact did say something about someone getting upset; her first comment on this very debate reads: "Just watch people will get all upset about it i promise u it will be funny! !! !" The comment was in response to the following comment by jonpistone2: "I'm confused. .. other than panties being in a wad. .. .. what is this debate about exactly? !? !" That seems to be a direct indication that this debate is about people getting upset. 3. The definition for "getting one's panties in a wad" that I provided defines it as becoming upset, not uptight. Either way, my opponent has given no evidence to support the notion that people will be upset OR uptight about this debate. ==== RE: Forfeiture I'll drop this point.
Someone will get there "panties in a wad" over this debate!

OK!!!! 1."pantie in a wad" It is a figure of speech... DUH!!!! I mean did you not notice ""<------- those around "panties in a wad" 2. Grammer I think that my grammer is fine because where I come from that is how is our grammer is so get over it!!! 3. Upset I never said anything about someone getting "Upset" i said " uptight " Here is the definition for Uptight and i was going for number two's definition? http://dictionary.reference.com...= 4. My plain I plain on going all the way unless u mess it up!!!! VOTE PRO!!!!!
Someone will get there "panties in a wad" over this debate!

I'd be happy to. First, I pointed out that the resolution does not make sense because the grammar is incorrect. A grammatically incorrect statement cannot be true. Second, I pointed out that the resolution, if taken literally, is very unlikely to happen; people's literal panties are very unlikely to become wadded as a result of this debate. "Panties in a wad" is not standard English, so I expect some people to only accept the literal definition. Third, I pointed out that the resolution, if taken figuratively (get one's panties in a bunch = becoming upset), then there is not a good reason to think people will become upset about this debate. I also pointed out that the comments indicate that no one is truly upset yet. I also pointed out that not many people will see this debate. One of us will forfeit a round, which will prevent the debate from showing up on the front page and will therefore reduce the number of people who see the debate. This further reduces the likelihood of someone becoming upset.
Someone will get there "panties in a wad" over this debate!

I negate the resolution. I. Incoherence The resolution is not a coherent statement. The word "there" does not seem to make any sense in the resolution. Even if my opponent had used "their" in the resolution, it would make no sense, because "their" is plural and "someone" is singular. II. Literally unlikely It is unlikely that this debate will cause anyone to get his/her panties in a wad. The overwhelming majority of men do not wear panties; panty-wearing men are negligible. Men are the majority of debate. org users; 6237 members are female[1] and 11,826 members are male [2]. Note that these numbers are likely to change slightly. Even for the relatively small portion of users who wear panties, there is no known mechanism by which this debate might cause a panty-wearing user to get her panties to a wad. It is likely that either myself or my opponent will forfeit at least one round, which prevents the debate from appearing on the front page when it is completed. This will further reduce the number of people who will see this debate. I will refer to this as the forfeiture effect. Even if there was a mechanism by which this debate could cause panty-wadding some percentage of the time, this effect lowers its chances of happening. [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://www.debate.org... III. Idiomatically unlikely A few sources consider "getting one's panties in a wad" to be a valid English idiom. These are by and large slang dictionaries such as urbandictionary. I personally do not see this as a valid source on the English language, but there are no doubt some of you who do, so I will address this idiomatic example. To get one's panties in a wad over something is said to mean to become upset about that thing. It is unlikely that anyone will be upset about this debate. First, I'll cite the forfeiture effect - few people will see this debate, which reduces the chances of anyone becoming upset about it. Second, as of right now, there are 8 comments - none of them seem to be overly upset about this debate. Rather, people seem to be humored by the obvious parody of inane debates with pointless resolutions and arguments. It is likely that if someone was upset, they would have posted a comment telling PRO how much they don't like what he's done. FREEDO posted a comment saying "This debate really upsets me! ", but that comment was obviously a humorous reflection rather than his true feelings. IF my opponent wishes, I can contact FREEDO for his testimony on the matter. Given that no one is upset currently, and few people will see this debate later, there is a very low chance of someone becoming upset as a result of this debate. That is all for now.
February Beginners Tournament (Round 1): Abortion should be illegal.

Pro, Krushia, is arguing in favor of the resolution. Con, myself, against. Terms: In the context of the debate, an abortion is "a surgical or medicinal procedure that terminates a pregnancy by removing the fetus; a therapeutic abortion. " [1]Structure:R1: Laying out the terms of the debate, acceptance, and clarification, if necessary. R2: Pro and Con lay out their arguments in regards to their positions relative to the resolution. R3: Refutations of opposing cases. R4: Defenses and conclusions. No new arguments permitted. Rules: 1) No insults/trolling.2) No forfeits[1] . https://en.wiktionary.org...
ke$ha sucks

Definitions: Ke$ha - Kesha Rose Sebert (born March 1, 1987), better known by her first name Kesha (stylized Ke$ha), is an American pop singer and an active musician since 2005. Her breakthrough came in early 2009 after an uncredited appearance on Flo Rida's number one single "Right Round". . .. Arguments: My opponent states that "Kesha represents how talentless and bratty but attractive and cocky can sell more songs than talented and thoughtful songwriting" I would like to know what makes Ke$ha "talentless" or "bratty" when she has both won and been nominated for so many awards such as: Artist of the Year Favorite Female Artist Best New Artist Of The Year Best New Act Best Push Act Best New Artist "Tik Tok" Best Female Video Best Pop Video "My First Kiss" Best Collaboration International Video of the Year Also I find it odd how she is considered bratty when she is strongly for equal rights as shown in the lyrics from the song "We R We R" She also has a video on youtube named "It Gets Better: Ke$ha" that encourages people who are going through tough times dealing with bullying, ect. Speaking against judgement based on sexuality. I would not define this as being "bratty" as my oponent states in his original argument. Ke$has songwriting is just as, if not more "talented and thoughtful" as other artists and songwriters. Conclusion: Once again I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him the best of luck. This will surely be an enjoyable and interesting debate. Sources: . http://www.azlyrics.com... Http://en. wikipedia. org. .. . http://www.youtube.com...
The Nintendo DS (all models) is superior the Wi

Yes, it is true that the Nintendo DS has had more time to develop and manufacture a grander scheme of models; but is this no different than the Nintendo Wii's updates? Furthermore, the DS has its fair share of classic NINTENDO video games such as New Super Mario Bros, Mario kart DS, Super mario 64 DS, Metroid Prime Hunters, Zelda Phantom hourglass, and soon to be Zelda spirit tracks. However, you seemed to have some bias in your statement of "most epic video games in the history of video games." Not to mention, why only Nintendo titles? Yes they are superb; but a system requires balance between the third party and the first; even a second party game would have been nice to see in you list of "epic" and "fun" games (look what Pokemon has done for the DS!) Clunky model? The original model though "clunky" by todays standards was state of the art at the time. Each DS though some with brighter screens and eye toy like cameras; all contained the same essential for a gaming system; high quality video games. (For a great price too) The DS was a radical innovation thus requiring radical upgrades that in the end produced a much greater sum than its parts.
The Nintendo DS (all models) is superior the Wi

Thank you for starting this debate. Superior - 4b: excellent of its kind : better http://www.merriam-webster.com... "The Nintendo DS is a superior gaming system to the Wii in terms of worldwide sales, Wi-Fi connectivity, and high quality third party support games (quantity and quality)." For one thing, you have no statistics about Wi-Fi connectivity or third party games. For another thing, there are a few reasons why the DS has more worldwide sales than the Wii: 1. The Nintendo DS has been released longer than the Nintendo Wii. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. The Nintendo DS has had more models, and thus, people are inclided to buy each model in succession. 3. A family of three children will probably only have one Wii, but multiple Nintendo DS's. This also accounts for the quantity of games on each system. Additionaly, because the Wii was released after the Nintendo DS, it had more time to be rennovated and improved, and used later technology, and it has better graphics than any handheld game. Finally, the Wii supports some of the most epic video games in the history of video games: Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Super Mario Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Super Paper Mario (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Super Smash Bros. Brawl (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Mario Kart Wii (http://en.wikipedia.org...) In addition, it has a few more fun games: Wii Sports, Play, Music, Fit, and Sports Resort (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Finally, you have to prove that all three models are better than the Wii, including the original, clunky model. Thank you for your time.
The Nintendo DS (all models) is superior the Wi

The Nintendo DS is a superior gaming system to the Wii in terms of worldwide sales, Wi-Fi connectivity, and high quality third party support games (quantity and quality). VG charts confirm the worldwide sales boom of the Nintendo DS, with the recent statistic of 102.33 million units sold worldwide; as to the 49.59 m for the Wii, 30.12M for the x box 360, and 21.94M PS3. The Wii has 62 wi-fi games released so far (Wii ware not included;international), while the DS has an approximate 195 wi-fi games currently released (DS ware not included; international.) Such high quality third party series/games on the DS include Professor Layton, Trauma Center (control better than Wii; and originated on the DS), GTA Chinatown wars (highest rated DS game on Gamespot); to name a few.
The Nintendo DS (all models) is superior the Wi

Firstly, your extreme fan boy bias make your main points obsolete. You have absolutely no reasons for the wii's games being superior to the DS besides screen size and graphics! The DS can fit in your pocket! Of course the hardware capabilities the wii has out compete those of a hand held. You want a fifty foot screen on your DS? Then it would not be considered portable at all! The wii is VERY clunky compared to the DS; we are debating the Wii and Nintendo DS, please you evidence instead of personal assumption. -i stated all of your games were NINTENDO based; published by Nintendo would suit my statement just fine. - You never addressed why you used bias in your arguments. (You can not be your own source for factual information.) - How is the Wii less clunky than the original DS? The original DS is lighter and smaller; this is why they are called hand-held. -The Nintendo wii drains wii mote batteries faster than believable; while the DS can be charged to play for up 8-10 hours 1000 times over. -The Wii games are more expensive and are much more pliable to breakage and scratching. While a DS cartridge wont break even when you step on it; they are much more durable and about 33 dollars(with tax) a pop. -Without third party games wii sales would plummet. This is already being predicted for the Wii this year as Nintendo released all of its mainstream games last year. Wii sports is a collaboration of mini games; the only other Nintendo Wii mainstream (1st party) game this year is Punch out!!. While the DS is getting a new Zelda this fall. The Wii is still holding up do to the upcoming little kings story,the Conduit, Red Steel 2, and the realization that the fantastic game No More Heroes is getting another shot. Finally, you state that the DS has considerable upgrades through piles of money; yet you forget to count in the Wii's upgrades; or as the market calls them, peripherals. Wii Speak-30$, Classic controller-20$, Wii zapper-20$, and the Wii wheel 20$. For the Wii's weaknesses such as expense, size, battery usage, and poor control functionality; And for the DS' benefits of worldwide sales, wi-fi compatibility, and a wider variety of 3rd party games the Nintendo DS is superior to the Wii. Thank you for you time and full participation in this debate.
The Nintendo DS (all models) is superior the Wi

Yes, it is true that the Nintendo DS has had more time to develop and manufacture a grander scheme of models; but is this no different than the Nintendo Wii's updates?" Yes, it is, because you don't need to buy a new Wii every time an update is made; the Wii's software is automatically updated. "Furthermore, the DS has its fair share of classic NINTENDO video games such as New Super Mario Bros, Mario kart DS, Super mario 64 DS, Metroid Prime Hunters, Zelda Phantom hourglass, and soon to be Zelda spirit tracks." The Wii has the Virtual Console (http://en.wikipedia.org...) that allows players to buy the REAL classic games. Additionally, what makes New Super Mario Bros. more classic than Super Paper Mario? Super Mario 64 DS to Super Mario Galaxy? Metroid Prime Hunters to Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org...)? LoZ: Phantom Hourglass to LoZ: Twilight Princess? "However, you seemed to have some bias in your statement of 'most epic video games in the history of video games.' Not to mention, why only Nintendo titles? Yes they are superb; but a system requires balance between the third party and the first; even a second party game would have been nice to see in you list of "epic" and "fun" games (look what Pokï¿½mon has done for the DS!)" First, I really do think that Wii games are more epic than DS games, usually because of the graphics and the fact that you play on a large TV, rather than a small screen. Secondly, Nintendo makes the best games, because they are Nintendo. Thirdly, why must a system have third-party games? Fourthly, Super Paper Mario is in fact a second-party game developed by Intelligent Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Fifthly, if you want an epic third-party game, just feast your eyes on Sonic Unleashed (http://en.wikipedia.org...). "Clunky model? The original model though 'clunky' by today's standards was state of the art at the time. Each DS though some with brighter screens and eye toy like cameras; all contained the same essential for a gaming system; high quality video games. (For a great price too) The DS was a radical innovation thus requiring radical upgrades that in the end produced a much greater sum than its parts." Because the original model is today considered clunky, that is how it is compared to the Wii. The Wii is not clunky, and is updated automatically, making it automatically superior. In conclusion, my opponent has not really attacked my contentions, and it stands that the Wii is superior to the DS.
Seabiscuits account was unjustifiably closed.

Thank crackrocks for istarting this challenge. Since my Opponent has failed to define what qualifies as "justified" I will make the argument that if it can be proven that Seabiscuit caused more harm than good on this website, than he was justifiably banned. I will cut right to the chase.Seabiscuit was a vote bomber!After defeating him in our debate over whether or not gay men should be forced to use the womans restroom[1], Seabiscuit voted on one of my debates[2] with the reason for decision as "argumentation was astoundingly better for Con than for Pro." I PMed him about it, and this is what he said:"Cost v. justice solidified my decision. Also I personally think your a bad debater. But I can assure that it in no way effected my decision this round." Ok, one major problem with that reason for decision. Cost v. Justice was an argument that supported my side. When I called him out on it he, of course, did not respond. Of course, I'm not the only one who thinks this was a votebomb. If you look in the comments, you can see the member Condradiction calling out seabiscuit for his votebombing, and Bruteapologetia countered it. So there was a popular consensus that this was a votebomb. Of course, he did not only do this to me. I will link a forum topic, that contains a discussion of seabiscuits vote bombing.[3]. He also Voted against mongeese and double_R based on personal grudges against them.[4][5]. I think I have given enough evidence to show that Seabiscuit was a votebomber, and was thus justly banned.Sea biscuit was a jerkOf course, this is not enough of a reason alone to ban him, however it helps to justify the decision. Here is a quote from a message he sent to Double_R ""You should change your sexual orientation to interested in men, cause your stupid and gay."[3]. Also, you can see based on my debate with him that he is very homophobic, and if you read the comments you'll see more evidence of his meanness. Sea biscuit contributed nothingNothing of any value came from Seabiscuits debates, and he was not a contributing member of the site. Thus, the mods were justified in banning him because he did harm, but did no good. I strongly urge a Con vote, and greatly look forward to my Opponents reply.Sources:1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.debate.org...3. http://www.debate.org...4. http://www.debate.org...5. http://www.debate.org...
Seabiscuits account was unjustifiably closed.

First and foremost, thank you for calling my vocabulary elegant. Here are some examples of the dogma's he tried to secularize. "...that liberty, property, and morality are just temporal assertions in one particular time and place and have no legitimate grounds in terms of a real phenomenological argument." (http://www.debate.org...) " The "progressively" egalitarian collective, have been forcing this leveling mechanism where, all people regardless of there complacent prerogative are for some reason equaled by the destitute, that through there oppression are conditioned to obtain there own astute acumen." (http://www.debate.org...) Furthermore, Seabiscuits first debate "Men are smarter then women" (http://www.debate.org...) The entire debate was over accepting the norms, we have been conditioned to believe, versus a more objective un-indoctrinated truth, and even if men truly aren't smarter then women, at the very least it removes the impression that extremism has kept ethical debates packaged within, in a way that makes it impossible for the realm of discursiveness to deviate from with any seriousness. To say that he contributed nothing is unbelievably offensive when it's obvious that quite the opposite is true. On vote bombing (1)No matter what the con census is on Seabiscuit as a Vote bomber if you extend the analysis on voting. It will be abundantly clear that it is impossible to vote through an impartial sentiment, And all decisions are completely subjective. This notion went dropped in my last speech, and was only answered by a regurgitation of the rules. But the former presupposes that the an objective conclusion can be reached which is the logical premise which I have destroyed. Therefore, although it may seem Seabiscuits conclusions were illogical, they were grounded in as much fact and objectivity as any other voting conclusion. This went dropped in the last speech so please take this into consideration when voting. (2)Vote bombing isn't enough to delete someones account, as i have stated Thett3, and Man_is_good are both guilty of vote bombing if you check the (http://www.debate.org...) Thett3 even made it clear it was personal by smugly quoting "argumentation was astoundingly better for Con than for Pro." Although i think he recently changed it to avoid losing this debate. On his new argument. The multi-accounting was discussed privately with one of the administrators of the site. I'm Seabiscuits sister, and the other account (skateall24) is a personal friend of Seabiscuits who doesn't have a computer at home. He got both of us into the site and I expect this argument will be dropped in the next round.