BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should be banned for forfeiting debates on debate.org

This debate was not some random idea that I came up with and decided to post. It was from personal experience on debate.org I have only been in about 5 debates and only 2 have been fully completed, the others have been forfeited. I know a lot of newer sites are started with word of mouth and this site is still fairly new. I'm not saying that's the only method to gain popularity but it does play a huge role. I loved the setup of this website and the atmosphere. It was very intuitive and very well designed. I knew then, i might finally have a chance to get my mother a bit more interested in some online activities. So i thought this would be a great place for her to start her online experience, beyond msn and hotmail. Well she spent quite some time writing up her argument for her opponent to see, she had notepad (yes an actual notepad,) taking notes to come up with a debate) Her opponent forfeited and also didn't even have the common courtesy to respond in the comments to say sorry, he just let it dry up and die. I understand people have lives, and sometimes things come in your way that will prevent you from doing a debate. However, there are 72 hours on most debates, and on mine and my mothers specifically. So there is ample time to come up with a debate to continue and FINISH what you started. So I feel there should be some rule to deter this type of carelessness, because for people who actually want to have an enjoyable time here, its ruining our fun. We spend so much time researching to debate someone, only for them to give up and all your hard work is suddenly washed down the drain. They should be warned, 3 times or something then after that removed from the site. Like that famous saying goes. "Once a quitter always quitter" do we really need quitters on this site.? I challenge you to prove to me, at least, that forfeiting should be allowed and there should be no punishment involved.
Computers subject is far better that Commerce

The silk road example was used to disprove your theory that commerce has been around before computers. Also, I never suggested that society as a whole is supposed to go back to those times.Let me once again reming my oppponent that without comerce to assist us, computers would never be widespreadly avaliable. Think about it. How do Dell, Compaq, etc; get their goods to all of the stores on time for everyone to buy them? Commerce. Why do we have a CHAMBER of commerce in what one could call the number one superpower country?
Computers subject is far better that Commerce

You say that we need to trace back to the old golden ages of silk time.... But come on... GROW UP.... I am not talking about Commerce and Computers in the 18th century... we are now in the 21st century... think practically.... Commerce is something that wholly deals with transactions. Now that the barter system is abolished, we have to trade using money. And you might argue that a large number of workers are required to run those machines which print money. But nevertheless, if they call me, even without thinking twice, I would have switched on the machine and got back home (without talking salary). Hence, in this regard, I completely argue that computers is more important that commerce.
Computers subject is far better that Commerce

Let me begin by using a dictionary to define a few key terms. Commerce: the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Computer: one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Subject: the person or thing that is being discussed or described ( . http://www.learnersdictionary.com...) With that in mind, let’s look at what Pro said again. “I strongly feel that Computers is far better that Commerce, as the word COMPUTER makes sense by itself. But, speaking frankly, I do not at all understand the meaning of the term, COMMERCE. ” That’s the case for you. However, this debate goes further than just your opinion. If we were to walk into a company’s logistics department, everyone would know what we’re talking about. “Thinking logically, I feel that Computers is at most necessary for commerce as for the printing or manufacture of money, computers is needed exclusively. ” Computers did not play a role in the old days at all. Think back to the Silk Road times, when people traded goods in large scales over long distances[1]. Did they have an IPad to help them keep track of their stock? Nope. Finally, the debate’s topic is that “Computers subject” is far better than commerce. My argument on why commerce is better than computers? It’s been around for far longer, and facilitated mass computer distribution. Without commerce, only a small group of people would even know about the existence of this machine! Also, in the same link, you can see a coin they used. No fancy gadgets. [1] . http://www.livius.org...
Computers subject is far better that Commerce

It is my pleasure to argue about this topic. First of all, I strongly feel that Computers is far better that Commerce, as the word COMPUTER makes sense by itself. But, speaking frankly, I do not at all understand the meaning of the term, COMMERCE.When I Googled the topic Commerce, I got to know that "Commerce means the whole system of an economy that constitutes an environment for business". I conclude from this definition, that commerce is an subject relating to money. Thinking logically, I feel that Computers is at most necessary for commerce as for the printing or manufacture of money, computers is needed exclusively. This is the argument from my side, and I feel this kick start for this topic is more that enough.
Dead/ Alive/Yet to be born ...............there is no real difference.

treeless, I accept that you are sincerely trying to engage here. Let me attempt to further simplify the debate topic, for youImagine that I have a stall in your local supermarket with the words 'Debate Opportunity' written on it. Imagine that I have three cans of beans on this stall/table. One is produced by Heinz, one by Branston and the third is the inhouse own brand. Above the stall I challenge people to identify significant difference based on tasting/ experience and personal opinion. I challenge them to refute my assertion that the three are without any significant difference with the exception of a 'branding' obvious .Now treeless, replace the cans of beans with lives. All kinds of lives that are over, that are happening and that are yet to happen. I am totally unconcerned about the average number of daily defications that these people had/have/ will have. I am totally unconcerned about their acccomplishments or their anxieties be they in the past, present or future, whenever.I am declaring that there is no significant difference(except pulse)within these three 'lives' types ie past lives, present lives, future lives. What is the significant difference between these types? That is what you are in this debate for, treelessWhy would I need to identify 'similarity' when I am declaring that they are essentially,the same. How would this sameness play out, you might wonder.I will give you an example.It is irrelevant beyond any degree of importance whatsoever, if you are walking down the road to your local town square, or if we are considering an historical account of a person in the past who once walked to their town, or if a person in the future undertakes a similar experience. All three events are a happening that are similar beyond the need for differentiation. I make no deliniation that is worth mentioning between these three 'conveyor belt' states of humans along a ficticious timeline and within fabrication notions of assumed deliniation. When I look at this thing I see a sparrow eating crumbs on the 1st Century streets of Damascus, I see sparrows eating crumbs under the chairs of an Algarve Bistro tonight and I see sparrows eating grain on a roadside in 2022. I can see no significant difference that would make me afford importance or added value to one over the other. Read the Debate Heading again , treeless, and then 'Be Wonderful'Dead/ Alive/Yet to be born ...............there is no real difference.
Dead/ Alive/Yet to be born ...............there is no real difference.

treeless AI:Not a point with reference to Debate SubjectA2:An unfathomable off-point rambleA3: Correction :Pro is stating that there is little significant difference between the states of being Dead/Alive/ Yet to be born (except pulse). Stating that there is a difference between being and potential will require example and clarification. Stating it does not make it true.A4:treeless states ' We can deduce his argument as this: "Life is life, therefore, all life is life, no matter what time it happens to take place." While true, this argument has no meaning, and is itself devoid of significance' I am glad you agree that it is true, this may however not help your case.A4:The former has lost the capacity to do so, while the latter has yet to exist to develop such a capacity.How is this different to the pulse argument? Isn't it just a mix of the same with a blend of the obvious.There is nothing here for me to repel. Perhaps with a re-reading of your argument, I may find more to deal with. Let us be frank here, treeless. Thank You for accepting this debate, now give it your best shot. The Debate Title is beyond ambiguity.Question: Dead/ Alive/Yet to be born ...............there is no real difference.Debate that there is difference, and illustrate your reasons. I think that is your end of this deal, treeless 'Good Luck'
Dead/ Alive/Yet to be born ...............there is no real difference.

Good people have lived in the past, wonderful people who had full and productive lives.Good people are actively pursuing lifetimes of useful undertakings, in the world today.Good people will accomplish great feats in the future, no doubt.The same references can be applied to the endeavours of villains, past,present and in the future.Debate Question What is the significant difference(s) between these perceived states of being?There is none. (Apart from a pulse)
Dead/ Alive/Yet to be born ...............there is no real difference.

"treeless states: My arguments revolve around people being significantly different." If Pro understood the syllogistic implications of his own argument (ie all people are the same regardless of their temporal state), he would see how it refutes his resolution. I also have nothing further to add, as his counter-argument thus far can be best summarized as, "Sorry but Nope!" Your very welcome, zeromeansnothing, and thanks for instigating the debate.
Shark v. SolonKR, Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

This is the final round of the September Beginners Tournament, hosted by The-Voice-of-Truth and lannan13. For the final, SolonKR and I have decided on this resolution, which states - Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage. I will be affirming the resolution, and SolonKR will be negating the resolution. For clarification, let me provide definitions of the terms. The definition of "just" is up for debate, but I will define justice as "fairness or reasonableness," or as "giving each their due". A government is a group of people with the authority to govern a country or state. "Ought" indicates moral obligation or moral desirability. "Require" is to demand as essential or fundamental. An employer is a person or organization that employs people. What is a living wage? A living wage is a wage which is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living. In public policy, a living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. Basic needs are not the same as a biological minimum. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition[1].The first round is for acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. The burden of proof is shared.===1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Euthanasia is a human right.

Well, I have to say that some time dying is the best think that can happen to us, For example, if you have an extremely painful cancer which is going to torture you for another month before killing you, then I would say that the most morally correct think a doctor can do is to help the patient to die (if he/she with) Why are you referencing God when you know that non of us beliefs in fairy tales? Apparently I screw the debate by missing 1 round. Can we start again?
Euthanasia is a human right.

Under the terms of the debate a forfeit results in an instant loss. I will for the sake of it lay out some arguements. Sanctity of Life All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself rather than as a means to an end Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in self-defence or the legitimate defence of others Dying is good for usWhen people are dying they may be able, more than at any time in their life, to concentrate on the important things in life, and to set aside the present-day 'consumer culture', and their own ego and desire to control the world. Curtailing the process of dying would deny them this opportunity. Suffering is something which draws upon all the resources of a human being and enables them to reach the highest and noblest points of what they really are. Suffering allows a person to be a good example to others by showing how to behave when things are bad.Other people have rights too Euthanasia is usually viewed from the viewpoint of the person who wants to die, but it affects other people too, and their rights should be considered. family and friends medical and other carers other people in a similar situation who may feel pressured by the decision of this patient society in general
Euthanasia is a human right.

Definitions:Euthanasia: the act of putting to death painlesslyor allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures,a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition.Human Right: any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitledand in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expressionand equality before the law) I location will be the western 1st world democracy, focussing on the United StatesI will lay down some terms:The rules will be as follows:1. No Semantics2. No Plagiarism3. 2,000 characters. 4. Forfeit/Concede results in immediate loss. 5. Round 1 is terms. (done) If you deny these terms I will not partake in this debate.
Divinity is real in some form

This is a continuation of another debate, where me and Raymond disagreed on the structure. I will be arguing that divinity is real. Note, this is a philosophy debate, and not a religious one. I intend on using the stoic argument for the existence of god, as it has been accepted by atheists, scientists, and the religious alike, and will keep this from turning into a "religion vs atheism" debate. This is a metaphysics debate, and should be argued from a secular POV, and from scratch. Arguments that are not started from scratch, shouldn't be considered in a real philsophy debate.Like most philosophy debates, we will use science, reason, and logical anaylisis to determine what is true and not true. This debate should not be voted on if you are not going to read it carefully and in depth. If you have a tendency to want to skip over arguments, or not read things with focus, then I request that you do not vote. I would like to give a little background on what I'm arguing.I have read quite a few stoic books regarding divinity upon death, and the one that made the most sense was the Tusculan disputations, do to it arguing not one, but several theories on what happens after death. Do to this influence the book had on me, I will be mostly deriving my arguments from Cicero. Just as a forewarning. I hope to have a good debate, and remember, the BOP resides on me proving that divinity more than likely exists. This is not an absolute assertion. Absolute assertions and philsophy can't coexist. First round is acceptance.di·vin·i·ty (d-vn-t)n. pl. di·vin·i·ties Godlike character. char·ac·ter kariktər/ nounthe distinctive nature of something. god·like G2;gädG6;līk/ adjectiveresembling God or a god in qualities such as power, beauty, or benevolence. soul s!3;l/ nounthe spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. [Additionally, in greek, it literally means "breath"]
Belief in God is better for society

Reasons for Victory Conduct Pro forfeited all their arguments, posting onlyone argument of three lines. This forfeiture results in my better conduct. Sources I used the only sources in the debate, from analyses of terrorism caused by religion (Bruce Hoffman, Mark Juergensmeyer, John Arquilla, Brian Jenkins, Michele Zanini), the Bible and Quran (Oxford, A.J. Arberry), and the Merriam-Webster dictionary. S&G "If God exists, many won't ..." - here, after "many", there is no noun for the numerical/quantitative adjective "many". "If God does exist, truth has logical significance and belief in God is true, and thus is valuable to society." There are two errors - one grammatical: "If God does exist" is not the appropriate subject for the predicate-conclusion "and thus is valuable to society." There are no appropriate subjects in the middle of the sentence either. The comma after "true" is misplaced - there should not be a comma before "and" here, since the purpose of "and" is as a non-punctuator conjunction. The comma should be placed before "thus" and after "thus", as "thus"'s purpose as a determiner is as a conclusion, similar to "therefore". [All the grammar is from http://www.grammarly.com...;] According to Grammarly, I did not make any errors in my arguments. Therefore, the S&G point is to me. Arguments I made the only arguments in the debate due to my opponent's forfeiture. Pro did not fulfill their BoP, which I requested them to do in Round 1. Therefore, I must gain a 7-point victory.
Belief in God is better for society

My opponent has not presented his positive case. Nonetheless, I shall construct a negative case detailing why belief in God can be harmful to society. Negative Case: Belief in God can be harmful to societyTo begin my negative case, I must first define religion. Religion is defined as "an organized system of beliefs, rules, and ceremonies used to worship a deity or a group of deities." [1] God is defined as, "the perfect and omnipotent deity that is worshipped as the one who created and rules the universe." As God is a deity, worship of God can involve religion. Religions divide believers in that religion from outsiders. Rather than assuming good intentions adherents are taught to treat outsiders with distrust. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?"-- 2 Corinthians 6:14 [2]"They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them." -- Sura 4:91 [3]Both these statements clearly criticize any belief apart from the beliefs advocated and propagated by the religions themselves. These lead to forcible religious conversions and riots. [4] Religion has a major negative impact on socio-political peace. Militant organizations such as ISIL, al-Qaeda, the Army of God et cetera are all based on promotion and propagation of religious ideologies. [5] Former United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher has said that terrorist acts in the name of religion and ethnic identity have become "one of the most important security challenges we face in the wake of the Cold War." [6] Various militant organizations use religious justification to carry out inhumane acts of violence. [7]ConclusionAs religion has had a huge negative impact on society, so has, indirectly, the belief in God. Thus, belief in God does more harm than good.References[1] Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2] The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833 (Reprint, ISBN-1565631625) [3] A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted. Simon & Schuster, Touchstone Publishing, 1996. ISBN-978-0684825076. [Original edition: 1955][4] http://www.salon.com...[5] Hoffman, Bruce (Summer 1997). "The Confluence of International and Domestic Trends in Terrorism".Terrorism and Political Violence 9 (2): 1–15. [6] Juergensmeyer, Mark (2004). Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press.[7] Arquilla, John; Hoffman, Bruce; Jenkins, Brian Michae; Lesser, Ian O.; Ronfeldt, David; Zanini, Michele, eds. (1999). Countering the New Terrorism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. ISBN 0-8330-2667-4.
Gun rights

I am terribly sorry, I was just very busy and I always forget to keep up with my debates! Again, I am sorry, I know how annoying forfeits can be. Okay, now. I don't know where you are getting that Hoover was a fan of gun laws, could you please give me a source? Oh right, this is the last say... Could you please put it in the comment section? Attention voters: Please look in the comment section for my opponent's source. :) And I assume by franklin you mean FDR since you could mean President Franklin Pierce, or Benjamin Franklin. (He was never a president, it's just a lot of people seem to think he is, I have absolutely no idea why.) So where's your source. And actually, Franklin Roosevelt is actually called the father of gun control, http://www.newrepublic.com... there's my source. I believe that you are mistaken. And just because people will be unhappy is no reason not to save lives (by the way, I believe more than several people are already unhappy) And ban doesn't mean no guns at all. For example, what about keeping guns in banks and other places that are targets for stealing. A bank isn't a citizen, it will be kept safe and it won't leave the bank. That's really just a suggestion, I'm sure someone will say, "Well one of the tellers could go bad and use the gun to take control of the bank" and so that wouldn't exactly work that well, but my point is that a gun laws don't necessarily mean no guns at all, and a ban on guns worded correctly doesn't necessarily mean no guns at all. During the prohibition, I'm sure they had rubbing alcohol, and a ban could just mean banning all citizens from having guns. Also, it's been proven that there is a direct correlation with guns and homicides. More guns=more homicides. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... And higher avilibality to guns= more homicides. Ergo, if we restrict the availability to guns (i.e. gun laws, gun ban) there will be less homicides. And gun ownership in america is the highest in the world. I mean geez, it wouldn't hurt to scale down, even a little. People say that if everyone had a gun, we could just shoot a mass murderer down before he kills anyone. Wrong. An armed civilian saving everybody has only happened once in the last thirty years. (It only happens in 1.6 percent of all mass shootings since 1980) That's TINY. Everyone having a gun obviously doesn't save anybody, why can't we just limit the amount of guns in circulation (i.e. gun control laws or gun ban) and try it, since a lot of studies are backing us up on this. http://listverse.com... (number 2) I think I'm done here, fightingrebel (by the way, LOVE the name. :) ) I thank you for this debate, I hope people will vote on it, my last debate I was VERY proud of except nobody voted! I was so annoyed. And remember, could you please give me your source on the Hoover thing?