BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Posting all of one's arguments in their opening round provides for a more fair debate.

More on my opponent's opening paragraph later. First, I'll refute his points. "Also let me cite a few cases where he debated someone and he presented his arguments in stages and didn't put them all in the first round." I will examine these debates. "Case 1- http://www.debate.org...; This debate has not concluded yet, but I can still bring something to your attention: The point I introduced in round 2 is merely a rebuttal of my opponent's points. These arguments are elaborations on my refutation. The same is true for all four of the given debates, except number 3: "Case 3- http://www.debate.org...; Examining my opponent's argument, you can see that he introduces more points as the debate progresses. For example, round 2 he brings up an argument about nuclear power and hybrid energy, and round 3 he brings up an argument about hydrogen power and how global warming is a giant scam, and finally brings up the predictions of scientists that could be cited in round 1. This gave me a slight problem in which I had to fully refute 3 rounds worth of arguments. "1. What fun is it to lay it all out there the first round and then for the rest of it just keep on saying, you're wrong, no you're wrong." There is a bigger chance of a forfeit, it lets you have more room and time to think over the resolution and your argument, and it lets you bring in more evidence, to name a few. Plus, I didn't say it was funner, I said it would be more fair. "2. You can't think of everything at once. One thing your opponent says might trigger something in your brain to say a certain thing. You can't expect someone to leave it all out." That was the case in the debates you showed. In addition, when you start a debate, you should have in mind all the evidence and arguments you have in order to support your claim. You may even want to anticipate your opponent's possible rebuttals. "Notice how he puts "Point 1". Is he only going to use 1 point for his entire argument. Just one point and the rest of it he'll be fighting what I say? He is being a non-believer in his own cause." Actually, I'm doing the opposite. Behold, point 2! *evil laugh* Using multiple rounds to post an argument (or multiple arguments) can alter the thinking of the opponent. It also gives less space to type a rebuttal. Continually piling arguments on top of one another can lead to a forced failure to post a decent rebuttal, if any. For example, if I recall, my opening argument was relatively short. However, as of this word, I have 5490 characters remaining. That's a little over 66%, which knocks away 1/3 of my argument. In order to expand upon this idea AND my previous one, I may take up to 2/3. Now consider an argument my opponent may introduce later, or one I may introduce, and I might exceed the character limit. This forces me to underdevelop my argument. Thus being unfair to me. Of course, the same may happen to my opponent, but either way, it is unfair.
Posting all of one's arguments in their opening round provides for a more fair debate.

Ladies and gentlemen, how can you listen to this man when he himself isn't following his own ideas? Notice how he puts "Point 1". Is he only going to use 1 point for his entire argument. Just one point and the rest of it he'll be fighting what I say? He is being a non-believer in his own cause. Also let me cite a few cases where he debated someone and he presented his arguments in stages and didn't put them all in the first round. Case 1- http://www.debate.org... Case 2- http://www.debate.org... Case 3- http://www.debate.org... Case 4- http://www.debate.org... I could go on, and I probably should, but I won't. I can always go back to those. Two more things and I'll wrap it up. I wouldn't want to present my whole argument in the first round... 1. What fun is it to lay it all out there the first round and then for the rest of it just keep on saying, you're wrong, no you're wrong. 2. You can't think of everything at once. One thing your opponent says might trigger something in your brain to say a certain thing. You can't expect someone to leave it all out.
Posting all of one's arguments in their opening round provides for a more fair debate.

Argument: A contention or point made as evidence for PRO or CON. Opening Round: The round where a debater's first argument is made. Fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice; without irregularity or unevenness (from dictionary.com) Point 1: When a contender accepts a debate, it is instinct to assume that the arguments provided by instigator in his opening round are all the evidence that is being used to either be in support or disapproval of the resolution. If this is true, both debaters have the rest of the debate to argue over those set points. This lets both debaters better elaborate and expand their arguments, among other things. However, if the instigator were to spread his arguments over multiple rounds, the contender would have less time to elaborate on his original point, because the more rounds there are, the more elaboration there will be on later points.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding, enhance the national security of the U.S.

I am in favor of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding, as they enhance the national security of the U.S. My opponent will be against Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, such as waterboarding, as they compromise the national security of the U.S. I will allow my opponent to begin the debate. Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate. To my opponent, please accept the definitions before starting the debate. -----DEFINITIONS----- (1) Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) - ...also referred to as "rough interrogation", "harsh interrogation",and "alternative set of procedures" are terms adopted by the George W. Bush administration in the United States to describe methods used by US military intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to extract information from captives as part of the "War on Terror"... (2) Waterboarding - In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth… During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths… The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout… You have… informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application. -----SOURCES----- (1) Wikipedia --- Enhanced interrogation techniques http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel --- 2002 Bybee Memo (Page 3-4) http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
Canada- Clean Air, Filthy People

First of all, you have previosly called me a nonsensical, violent person. You must be freakin kidding me. For that statement right there, I should hunt you down and give you a beating. But first, let me enlighten you about the "nice and peaceful" Canadians. You may ask, why are Canadians filthy, I will tell you why. They are filthy literally and hypothetically. First off, Canadians don't actually have the greatest hygiene of all time. If anything, they have the worst. They are constantly dirty and reek of B.O. They bathe in their own semen and filth. They lived in shacks in the middle of their everlastintg tundra and forests, making them very hard to attack, much like the Ewoks. They breed with their cousins, daughters and mothers. If any of you guys ever saw Deliverance, that is Canada. Everyone of it's citizens are hillbillies and rednecks and their finest. Now hypothetically, Canadians have no morals. They are a godless country that masturbate daily, watch pornographic movies instead of O'Reilly and have sex with family members( as I said before. Baseball is America's pasttime. Guess what Canada's is. Beastialty. Canada is a country filled with sick morals. In terms of not having a communist dictator as their head state, they have raised the bar. Leading Canada is a caribou. Yeah, sure, lets have some dirty animal leading a nation. (This means Hilary Clinton, who happens to be a female dog). Canada has, behind the curtain, been planning out plots to destroy our country. John Wilkes Booth, a Canadian aristocrat. Meaning, he had first dibbs on roadkill. Lee Harvey Oswald, did not kill JFK. A Canadian mountie did on the grassy knoll. Pearl Harbor, not attacked by the Japanese but by those damn canucks. Their national sports are ice hockey, ice football, ice track and field, ice gymnastics, ice Nascar, and field hockey ( which is played on ice). During the winter, these backcountry men hibarnate. So if we were to plan out an attack, it should be during the months of September and April. My personal reasons why I despise Canadians. They are dirty. They have no morals. A Nazi gay caribou leads their nation. Their beer is terrible. And finally they are dirty. Please join my cause and we will nuke them out.
Canada- Clean Air, Filthy People

visionsofdylan, The accusations you make against Canadians lack information, reason, and overall your current argument is a fallacy, and a failure. You give no facts not personal experience to back up why you believe the "Canadian species" is filthy, and haven't convinced me a bit, which is why I took up this debate. Formally established in 1867 by three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion. Not a communist country, not a cruel land ruled by a dictator, but a self-government, an autonomous community. The word "Canada" is derived from the Iroquoian word "kanata," meaning settlement or village. Canada comes off as a quiet, civilized country, meaning no harm whatsoever. Expecting a twist? Too bad. Canada has proved itself to be, over the years, a flourishing, beautiful country, without a harsh word from its people to our people. Actually, we do more of the insulting than they do of us, if any; why do some of us hate Canadians? I see no reason to. You state that if you were president of our "beautiful country", the first thing you would do is to declare war on Canada, and wipe out all Canadians. First of all, America has enough countries that hate us, about half the world right now (no thanks to you, George W. Bush), so why make waves with another country. One could argue about all the awful things Canada has done to us, the cruelty they've inflicted on our country, the lives they've ended. Of course, this argument wouldn't be valid, as the Canadians have yet to bring war to us, and I see no signs that they will in the close future. The plans you have made on Canada give off the vibe that you are a nonsensical, violent person. Can you clarify?
Canada- Clean Air, Filthy People

My opponent has forfeited his closing argument, which is arguably the most important round of all. He appears to believe he doesn't have a chance at finishing me off, and has instead done himself in. However, visionsofdylan was done in from the moment he started this debate. His arugments consisted of ridiculous fallacies and lies about Canada and its people, making them sound as if they come off as disgraceful, inhumane creatures. I think we all know they're not. Canada has clean air, and clean, wholesome people to breathe it in.
Jesus wanted a socialistic economy

Two problems, I need to use gospel verses to explain why I think Jesus wanted a socialistic economy. Secondly, as you click on the link and read why I say man's ego gets the way of interpreting what Jesus really wanted, maybe you can begin to realize that mankind doesn't have everything figured out. However, in order prove me wrong, then you essentially have to first prove my theorem wrong. Go ahead, by all means, prove it wrong. I argued this point anyway in another debate so just read it there, it'll save me time and effort. This whole sources thing really backfired on you guys. Everything that I say from my theorem's point of logic can't be proven wrong because my theorem needs to be proven wrong first. (Jesus might have said something like this too when he was talking to the Pharisees.) It's like i have an unlimited amount or words to express my point of view. You are basing every assumption you ever made on the predilection that Mankind has it right. Well if Mankind was right, then why do we have so many wars, why are we so divided? Are we not one species on this planet with a finite amount of resources? Are you telling me that we should give most of those resources to people who literally does not care about saving humanity? I am using money to represent all the resources one individual is capable of possessing. Did you know that they are sociopaths in which they are not morally obligated to share any of those resources? Should we then have an economic system to cap someone from obtaining most of the resources Humanity needs to survive?
Jesus wanted a socialistic economy

Yes you are right socialism isn"t a government it is an economic class, yes socialism can be a political stand point and the government can enforce socialism but at the core of the term socialism is an economic conduct. Economics is the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. Yes, OUR society and government are related however not all of them have a government and all of them have an economy so socialism isn"t inherently a government or political standpoint. Yes, morality is a principle concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, and yes it is right to fallow the sole meaning of life; however not everyone has the same outlook on life and in other countries and in different times, people have had very different views on what is moral and what is not. And yes, to you and me and probably most of the world, it would be great for humanity to survive; however, sometimes to ensure the survival of those you care about, you must eliminate the those who intend to do them harm, that is why we have war. We do the things that are morally wrong because we want to stop others from doing those things to us. So is it bad to do wrong to your fellow man? Morality is a little more complicated than write and wrong, there is also "more right" and "more wrong" there are good and bad things you can do and there are god and bad reasons for doing them, there are good and bad things to have and there are good and bad ways of getting those things. And yes in order for us to debate this, we will go ahead and assume that god is real and that Jesus is real, but since there are many interpretations of the bible we can"t just go with one. So I would suggest that you refrain from using bible reference since what it teaches us is completely subjective to your own beliefs, religion, study method, or translation. As for the actual theory of Jesus being a socialist, if god had intended for the world to be a socialist society he would not have given man greed, the reason socialism doesn"t work is because everyone wants to have more that someone else, the way people judge the quality of their lives is largely based on the stuff they have, and the judge the stuff they have by comparing it to the stuff their friends have. Humans are greedy and will always want more of something whether it is control, money, power, property, anything if god had intended for us to be socialists why did he make us so greedy. My reasoning is up for debate, but I would like to also hear your reasoning behind your opinion.
Jesus wanted a socialistic economy

My argument is that Jesus Christ was a socialist at heart. To debate me on this, you need to know the differences in the economic classifications and a knowledge of the Christ. I chose to classify this as Philosophy because ultimately I am always trying to find the truth. One of the key differences to know is that socialism is an economic class and communism is a government class. You should not assume that they are the same thing. Argue to whatever extent you would like, however, I am putting forth a theorem that has not been proven wrong, thus implies truth. If you can rebuke the theorem with reason and logic, then I am completely wrong. I will speak in pseudo occasionally, but it is still your responsibility to find meaning and create appropriate counter arguments. Be warn, if you interpret the Christ's words incorrectly, I will make note of it and attribute it to your ego which causes your bias. You either can this as an attack or you can assume that I'm doing this because I honestly want to change your way of thinking. Know yourself, do not be arrogant. I will not stand for arrogance. Assumption: Christ words are from the Gospel, or the books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the bible. You must concede to this. In addition, understand there is a difference between reason and assumption. I do take people's bias into account of my reason. However, if you can prove my reason to be wrong, then I have made an assumption in which I will admit when I am mistaken or wrong. I can be mistaken about how I identified a constant or variable, but that does not mean my logic and reason is wrong. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information or evidence based on reason and logic. May the truth be revealed. My theorem: The Objectivity of Morality What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do. "The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy It is right to follow the sole meaning of life. The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence. Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive. Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct. You should not maliciously or apathetically end Humanity. This theorem has been debated, so I recommend not wasting your time on now futile arguments. Read the comments as well. http://www.debate.org...
Progressive Income Tax

This debate is on the progressive tax on individual citizens. I am Pro. The rich should pay more of their share of income than the middle class and poor. You can make moral, economic, or other arguments. In this debate, I will focus on Pro - Progressive Income Tax that is fair and has no loopholes.Plus, do not introduce any new arguments in the third round. First round is acceptance. In my plan, the system would look like this:Income Tax .................... Applied To Rate 10%-------------------------Up to $15,00020%-------------------------Up to $70,00025%-------------------------Up to $250,00035%-------------------------Up to $1,000,00040%-------------------------Up to $1,000,000,00045%-------------------------$1,000,000,000+ The need for this plan is to get an idea of what the progressive tax rates should be instead of just thrown out there with no justification in this debate. Plus, in this progressive tax many deductions are cut or eliminated, that is why many people have lower rates in my plan instead.Good luck
Socialpinko's ELO tourney R1 TUF VS daytonanerd: Writers debate

I look to write, along with my opponent, a fun and engaging story that will be a joy for you, the voters, to judge on. I'd like to thank TUF for starting off the story. I will take the challenge of going up against a skilled writer. "I consider it a challenge before the whole human race, and I ain't gonna lose! -Freddie Mercury
Socialpinko's ELO tourney R1 TUF VS daytonanerd: Writers debate

Welcome to Round 1 of socialpinko's ELO tournament! Me and Daytonanerd have decided to get thing kicked off with a fun, yet challenging writers debate!The purpose of this debate will be to intellectually get around the challenges posed by your opponent with each plot twist. At the same time, both writers will focus their skills into making their prose interesting, legible, and well written. "Is this a debate?" some of you may ask. I personally believe a writers debate requires a great amount of skill as it shows a debaters confidence in their speech, and they have to overcome obstacles through the use of creativity, imagination, and wit. RULES: 1. Each debater will set a plot twist, or a problem for the protagonist to overcome at the end of each round. The opponent will continue off of the story that was instigated, and do their best to make it interesting, and smake sense with the rest of the story. At the end of their round, they too will pose a challenge for the instigator to overcome.2. This is a tournament debate, so a forfeit will conduct in the loss of the debate.3. There will be a maximum of 8,000 characters per round, with a minimum of 4,000, such that the story does not become detached, and detail-less. 4. Judging will be determined by the voters, however voting categories will be: S/G, writing style, Plot interest, and coagulation with the opponents writing.I ask that if my opponent has any discrepancies with the rules, to please PM me in our private message, or to leave a message in the comments of this debate prior to accepting to discuss the issue with me. First round will be acceptance, and I will begin the story in round 2.I look forward to a very exciting clash of words with my determined opponent!
Should illegal immigrants be allowed to stay in the U.S.

Illegal immigrants should all be deported. Just like the title states ILLEGAL means they entered the country unlawfully and broke the law. Laws are put in place to keep society in order. If everyone broke laws we would have complete anarchy in society. By entering the country illegally in the first place, the immigrants are using up valuable resources from ICE and border protection in now looking for these people, border security to enforce future illegals and are taking away chances for legitimate immigrants who in some cases have waited years through the legal immigration process to enter the country. Deport all the Mexican landscapers and laborers who are here illegally, deport the Caribbean nation illegals who are here for a free ride, deport all the illegals.!!! You want to come here, do it the proper way, apply for a vise from your countries embassy or consulate, follow the legal proceedings, not skip out on your visitors visa or run across the border. If you are here illegally, I will kick your azz and send you back packing and also put you in the ICE system if you try to come again. Like the title says Illegals are still illegal in this country, why should they stay???
The Republics Clone Army Is Far Superior To The Imperials Storm trooper Army

I still stand to my belief that if we were to strip a storm trooper of his guns and armour, then strip a clone of his guns and armour, the clone would destroy the storm trooper in all aspects.Well that's not really true either because some selected storm troopers -like Finn in EP VII and members of Palpatine's imperial guard- were shown in the lore to be force sensitive. The clones -by virtue of having their DNA manipulated- lacked in midiclorians and would thus be at a disadvantage in a bare bones fight. Plus we've already established that Dark Troopers beat clones.