BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Overregulation Was a Significant Cause for the Fall of the Roman Empire

I have challenged TheHitchslap to this debate to see if he would like to defend his comment on this debate. Full Resolution Excessive regulation of the economy was a significant contributor to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Definitions Economic Regulation: "The use of legislative measures and government regulations to affect economic outcomes. This can extend from forms of government that control and regulate all aspects of economics to measures which are enacted to address particular issues such as deregulation of industries or measures intended to address various economic factors."[1] This includes taxation and spending. Signficant: "Important; of consequence."[2]Cause: "The producer of an effect."[3]Fall of the Western Roman Empire: The decline, and eventual overthrow of the Western Roman Empire in 476 ACE.Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources [1]: http://www.businessdictionary.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
People voting on their personal opinions rather than debate content.

"It appears you have copied and pasted the majority of what I said. I am not sure if it is a debating strategy to copy exactly what the other person has said but I will agree with the comments of mine that you posted?!" No I did not copy and paste a single thing. My opponent has failed to make a valid or any argument, so I will restate my opinion. I am against people voting just due to just their opinions. This is because, this is a debating site where people debate. You should vote according to who made the better debate and arguments. If you notice, in the voting round, the question is asking "Who won this debate?" It does not state, "Which side do you agree with?"
People voting on their personal opinions rather than debate content.

It is true that many people vote on what they believe rather than on who made the better debate. But, is that necessary? I mean, this is a debating site. Not a polling one. We are here to debate, not to argue which point is more popular or to just vote on our beliefs. The whole point of this website is to debate and practice our debating skills, again not just to express our opinions through voting. Although, we do have the ability to debate our beliefs, voting our After reviewing some debates, one person seems to always presented the best information, the most facts/figures, and proper grammar while the other person was the opposite. When the voting comes in, the person with the more "popular" viewpoint tends to win. My argument is that the question is "Who won the debate" not "Which side of the issue do you agree with". Is winning a debate more than saying what is popular? I am getting the feeling that on this site, the popular view points will almost always "win the debate" rather than the side with the "better debate".inions without truly seeing who debated better is unecessary. Again, we are here to debate.
People voting on their personal opinions rather than debate content.

After reviewing some debates, one person seems to always presented the best information, the most facts/figures, and proper grammar while the other person was the opposite. When the voting comes in, the person with the more "popular" viewpoint tends to win. My argument is that the question is "Who won the debate" not "Which side of the issue do you agree with". Is winning a debate more than saying what is popular? I am getting the feeling that on this site, the popular view points will almost always "win the debate" rather than the side with the "better debate".
My Opponent Exists.

Existence: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence (merriam-webster.com) My opponent must conclusively prove that I exist. Since I do not think it's possible to prove that I exist, the resolution cannot be affirmed. Maybe I exist, maybe I don't. This lack of certainty goes against the certainty of the resolution; therefore, the resolution is negated.
My Opponent Exists.

"A sophisticated computer program can't discern nor can it rationally think" We do not have any such program, but there is no reason to think that thinking programs cannot be created. In fact, computers are becoming smarter and smarter all the time. We cannot know that thoughts only come from brains. We are unable to perceive any thoughts outside of our own brains, and cannot empirically test their existence. But we do not know if thoughts only come from brains. We cannot detect thoughts from other people's brains, and have no way of knowing if other people actually have thoughts. Why not assume that rocks have thoughts? We can no more find thoughts in brains than in rocks. "MTGandP is a concept; all concepts exist; therefore, MTGandP exists." This is false reasoning. For example, I have a concept of invisible pink unicorns. This does not mean that invisible pink unicorns exist. 1. We have no proof that concepts themselves exist. It is possible that we only have concepts of concepts, or that concepts are merely illusions. 2. MTGandP as a concept may exist, but this does not imply that MTGandP exists. Concepts and actual beings are independent. Resolution negated. There is inadequate proof that MTGandP exists.
My Opponent Exists.

"My opponent has written up responses on this site which were tailor made to suit specific conversations and debates." I might just be a sophisticated computer program, but still short of self-aware, cognitive thought. "In essence, thinking directly equates to existence because someone has to come up with a thought, or else thoughts couldn't exist, so it follows that to think means someone exists." There is no reason to think that thoughts cannot exist without people thinking them. Sure, we have never observed them, but we are limited to our own thoughts and cannot even observe the thoughts of another person, much less disembodied thoughts. "To make such an argument, an ability to perceive my post and to critically analyze it are necessary." It is entirely possible that my opponent's argument, as well as mine, was preprogrammed and then implanted into our heads. The mind is easy to trick, especially when it doesn't exist. Rational thought is impossible since free will does not exist; rational thought is an illusion. Therefore, I do not think. Since "cogito ergo sum" is the only "proof" of existence that anyone has, there is no longer any reason to believe that I exist.
My Opponent Exists.

<"It is possible that all of these responses are pre-written, and only appear to exhibit rational thought."> Who said *these* responses were the means by which I was concluding that my opponent exists? I sure didn't, which means that his above argument is a straw man (1.) My opponent has written up responses on this site which were tailor made to suit specific conversations and debates. To contextualize in such a way means he thinks; therefore, he is. His debates and comments prove that he can discern and critically think, which, again, means he is. <"Why does it follow that rational thoughts prove existence? I see no reason for this."> In essence, thinking directly equates to existence because someone has to come up with a thought, or else thoughts couldn't exist, so it follows that to think means someone exists. <"It is entirely possible that I do not think, and that thought is merely an illusion, much like free will is an illusion [1]. We have no conclusive evidence that I do, in fact, think."> Ah, but this rebuttal is evidence that my opponent *does,*indeed, think. To make such an argument, an ability to perceive my post and to critically analyze it are necessary. To explain further, to rebut is to think rationally and perceive; to do those things, existence is required; therefore, my opponent exists. Resolution affirmed. (1) = http://www.nizkor.org...
My Opponent Exists.

I as a person do not necessarily exist. It is possible that all of these responses are pre-written, and only appear to exhibit rational thought. "that link, as well as his apparent rationality and ability to discern, are proof that MTGandP is, indeed, existent." It is merely proof that my PROFILE exists. My opponent has attempted to prove that I exist with "cogito ergo sum", also known as "I think therefore I am". But this is not only invalid, but unsound. Invalidity Why does it follow that rational thoughts prove existence? I see no reason for this. Unsoundness It is entirely possible that I do not think, and that thought is merely an illusion, much like free will is an illusion [1]. We have no conclusive evidence that I do, in fact, think. Resolution negated. We do not know whether I exist or not. [1] http://www.debate.org...
My Opponent Exists.

My opponent is MTGandP; MTGandP exists, as evidenced by his ability to think critically, mentally distinguish, and perceive, and also by his profile; therefore, my opponent exists. My opponent has clearly shown a capacity for both sentient and sapient thought, and, quite frankly, cogito ergo sum. Also: http://www.debate.org... -- that link, as well as his apparent rationality and ability to discern, are proof that MTGandP is, indeed, existent. The resolution has been affirmed. MTGandP exists.
Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Round 2 is cases. Since the word limit is the same, this will be a little different than normal LD structure. No rebuttals in round 2. round 3 is rebuttals. round 4 is further rebuttals/defense. round 5 is summary/voter issues. cross examination is permitted in the comments section to ease the process. source links are not required, but naming the citation and providing further information if asked is required. good luck to my opponent and thank you for accepting this debate! If you have any further questions, please ask now via round 1, comments, or a message.
Hot Female Model Debate

Sorry, but I am having computer issues, and it is not letting me post model pictures. I have to post links to the intended pictures. I hope my opponent understands and forgives me. The voters may take off conduct off me. I predict that I will have these problems for the rest of the debate.Irina ShaykHeight: 5' 10"Weight: 119 poundsHotness Factors: Beautiful eyes, Great Face, Fantastic Body Type, Nice Tan, and Nice Chesthttp://wallbervation.com...http://www.myindianmovie.com...http://marool.com...http://i.dailymail.co.uk...https://usatsneakhype.files.wordpress.com...
Hot Female Model Debate

The original concept of the debate was done here (http://www.debate.org...), but I was so inspired by the original, and felt the urge to do it again. This is simply a tribute to the original.RulesNo using any of the models in the original debateNo using only blond hair modelsNo naked pictures No posting models in R1Only accepting the debate in R1Include the name of the model, weight, height, hotness factors, and how many pictures you want. Vote for whoever you think did an overall sexier job!
Hot Female Model Debate

Nice model, but I can do busty also!Finally got the pictures to work, but they're pretty small, so can you please zoom in?!?!?!? (P.S. They're on my profile in case you can't zoom in).Ewelina OlczakHeight: 5' 9"Weight: UnknownHotness Factors: Great Face, Does Legs, Impossibly Great Waist, Everything Mixes Together Very Well, and Natural 30G Breasts
Hot Female Model Debate

Nice model!Sorry about posting linksAdriana Lima Height: 5' 10" Weight: 132 pounds Hotness Factors: Victoria's Secret, Brazilian, Nice Legs, Nice Eyes, Great Face, Wavy Hair, Great Body, Nice Booty, Nice Chest, and Beautiful Eyes http://1.bp.blogspot.com...;http://s19.postimg.org...;http://4.bp.blogspot.com...;http://i4.mirror.co.uk...; http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com...;
Plants ought to have the right to vote

People could spam vote by writing down a vote for every single plant they own, since it's quite obvious that plants couldn't write something down a sheet of paper. A good president that may do much for a country could lose to another George Bush depending on the amount of people that have the most plants. Other than spamming, the fact that there would be no way to tell who they are voting for would waste people's time. We don't need to study plants so deeply and train them to vote, since humans voting is already enough. Plants have no reason to vote other than for spamming, which i believe is illegal. Plants lack the information and knowledge to know about if they are going to vote or not, so they wouldn't be upset about not having the right to vote. We have enough political issues with just humans, and we don't need plants to get in the picture. Also, by your logic, if plants should have rights, wouldn't killing them be murder? If yes, then you will get a bunch of pointless court cases on plant killings. If no, people can just kill plants to make sure they can't vote. Also, since plants can't technically do the voting, it is really just a decision made by humans. You are supporting the resolution of humans being allowed to vote multiple times, which is basically spamming and has no use.
Plants ought to have the right to vote

My opponent is negating the resolution because plants aren't smart enough to be able to vote. That is breaking the fundamental concept of democracy - only giving the right to vote to those that you feel are qualified enough to vote. Consider this - it was thought that black people were not smart enough to vote, so they were not given the right to. Is that a valid reason to deny access to suffrage that helps democracy flourish and for the people to prosper? No; democracy must be upheld no matter what.By negating my opponent is trying to limit democracy, and as I explained in R2, there are a lot of negative impacts when you limit democracy.Also, my opponent's argument comes from feasibility, something that if he read R1, he would know is not the core concept of this debate. We are arguing morality, not feasibility, so just throwing that out there.
Plants ought to have the right to vote

I apologize if this argument is rushed, I have been busy. Plants lack the proper intelligence to make good votes. A plant cannot restore enough knowledge to suddenly understand politics and know to make the right decisions. Consider this, there are some pretty stupid people out there, and I mean this in no offense to those people, and if plants are not even that smart, imagine the awful decisions they would make. They would be too dumb to vote for someone, and with thwireless maximum intelligence, they would break the rules and vote for global domination.
Plants ought to have the right to vote

This is a debate sent to KingofEverything.Resolved: Plants ought to have the right to vote. This resolution should focus on the United States.The Burden of Proof is split evenly.Definitions:plants - the group of organisms in the kingdom Plantaeright - legal guaranteevote - a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice.ought - have a moral obligation to**Actually read the definitions. I've had two debates that had to end abruptly because my opponents simply do not understand that this is a debate about the ethics or impacts of botanical suffrage, NOT the feasibility. I know it's not feasible, don't argue that, that's not the point of the debate.Rules:1. Follow structure2. You accept to the round structure and resolution, terms, etc. as provided in R1. These cannot be changed.3. No deconstruction semantics. plagiarism, trolling or forfeiture.Round structure:Round 1. Acceptance ("I accept" will do)Round 2. Constructive argumentsRound 3. RebuttalsRound 4. Defense
Plants ought to have the right to vote

My opponent doesn't rebut my case at all. This means that every argument of mine is left standing and at its full weight. I don't have anything to do in this round because it was solely defense against rebuttals. My opponent can only defend against rebuttals in this round - they cannot rebut. "Thanks for the debate" is a pleasantry that I feel has lost its value, much like "how are you? ". I am going against the current and I am not going to thank you for the debate becuase there wasn't one because of no real arguments.
Animal Rights

Pro's biggest flaw is on the maintenance of rights among other animals. Pro recognizes that we can't enforce rights among other animals, yet contends that they should have those right. If animals don't respect other animal's rights, they don't deserve rights themselves. Pro is arguing that people shouldn't do things that harm animals, but this is unfair. It assumes people are the only creatures who kill other animals, and it only gives animals rights when it's convenient. We can't live in a world where rights can be taken away subjectively, it undermines rights at a basic level. If we claim a dog has the right to life, we can't disregard it when a person's life is in danger. In short, Pro's arguments are all emotion with no application.
Animal Rights

I was never suggesting that rights be enforced between animals, I agree that it is absurd to think that you would tell an animal to value another animals rights. My basic argument is that animals should have rights in the sense that they deserve to live and breathe in peace just like any human. Animals should not be tortured, tested on, or abused.When I say "rights" I do not mean human rights, like the right to vote. Animals deserve the same amount of respect and the same basic freedoms/rights of all living creatures animal , plant or human. All living creatures should be given the same chance to live, and each should be respected because all living creatures are apart of the world we live in and do their part to "make the world go round".
Animal Rights

1. There will be no way to enforce rights among other animals. You can tell a snake all-day-long that a mouse has as much of a right to exist as he does, but if that snake gets hungry he's going to eat the mouse anyway. 2. It's hypocritical to only give animals rights when it's convenient. Where do we draw the line between an animal's right to property and a person's rights to the same property? Can I use a tree that a bird lives in? 3. What about plants? They're just as much alive as animals; if animals should have rights, so should plants. 4. Humane treatment isn't the same thing as having rights. I agree that people should take care of their animals, but you don't have to tag the word 'rights' onto an animal in order to do that
Animal Rights

I will keep my argument short and simple. Animals should have rights. Animals are not toys, servants or objects they are living and breathing organisms. Animals , despite popular belief, do feel pain and do have some emotions. Animals are tortured and killed every day. Yes, We do need some animals for use of food/products but at what cost ? Humans are destroying this planet, we can be very wasteful and destructive. Without animals none of us would be alive, they help us with many things and are all apart of the environment we live in. When we do need food and other things from animals it should be done in the most humane manner. Animals deserve to live and breathe just like anyone else does, therefore animals should have rights and be treated with care and respect.
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

They poll people, but this year is an anomoly. Trump's supporters actually vote in real life because they aren't meth smoking idiots. https://www.washingtonpost.com... Libtard (Video) http://youtu.be... * http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... http://youtu.be... * The decider? Moderates who have no allegiances. Media is Liberal. They make it fit their agenda and say what they need you to hear. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * George Carlin- (Video) http://youtu.be... * Just how full of sh*t is the media? Dear god... (Video) http://youtu.be... *the media is completely full of sh*t. (Video) http://youtu.be... * What is the media doing now? Wanting Trump voters to feel the majority is against them, there is no hope, and why vote? That's how it works.
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

Just so we're clear, I want to see Mr. Trump president more than anyone- maybe even more than he does. And that's why I'm especially angry: the guy is throwing away his chance to beat Hillary this year. Donald just doesn't seem to understand that his controversial off-the-cuff remarks hurt his chances, and before he knows it Mrs. Clinton will be in the Oval Office. In a few months, if I'm wrong about this, you automatically win. I hope you will.
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

"We know Benghazi was real. We even know she broke the law. No indictment. Why? 'She didn't have intent' according to the FBI who declared her handling of classified documents as wreckless." I'm glad you dropped this whole kill-list conspiracy, because it greatly discredits you. As for Benghazi and her private server, she won't be punished because the system is rigged. :( "We've intered a new era. Now there are news outlets other than tv where people go for 'real news'." The media is still vastly liberal, and very likely to hurt Donald. Even Donald Trump said most of the media doesn't cover him fairly. If the polls said Trump had 80%, I doubt you'd say the polls are irrelevant. In the swing states, Donald is trailing in every one. That's a fact. Hillary has even stopped advertising in some swing states because she's so far ahead. If you're right, and the Donald wins, I'll have to invite you to my house and I'll throw you a party. The voting for this debate lasts after November. ;)
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

"I'm not very into conspiracy theories. If this assassination list is real as you say, she'd have been behind bars a long time ago." We know Benghazi was real. We even know she broke the law. No indictment. Why? "She didn't have intent" according to the FBI who declared her handling of classified documents as wreckless. * "they will do everything they can to distort the whole picture to make Trump look bad." We've intered a new era. Now there are news outlets other than tv where people go for "real news". * "There is no denying that Donald Trump has suffered a massive dip in the polls" This has gone the other way since you posted. The polls are irrelevant. The polls could say Trump has 80%. It wouldn't matter. He's not getting California. Vica versa, Clinton is not getting Texas. It only matters what is happening in swing states. He's fine. http://www.politico.com...
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

"That could take a while, so I'll give you a few links in regards to the cell phone assassin." I'm not very into conspiracy theories. If this assassination list is real as you say, she'd have been behind bars a long time ago. "Good. This year the people are finally showing they are done with the status quo establishment." No, not good. The liberal-infested media is responsible for covering the presidential campaign, so they will do everything they can to distort the whole picture to make Trump look bad. And finally, this is the most important thing I'll post, so please look at the graph carefully. http://www.realclearpolitics.com... There is no denying that Donald Trump has suffered a massive dip in the polls among likely voters, and I stand by my claim that unless he changes his approach, he will have given the election to Crooked Hillary.