BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: I am hungry

There are three kinds of persuasion according to Aristotle. Ethos (plural: ethe) is an appeal to the authority or credibility of the presenter. It is how well the presenter convinces the audience that he or she is qualified to present (speak) on the particular subject. It can be done in many ways Pathos (plural: pathe) is an appeal to the audience"s emotions, and the terms pathetic and empathy are derived from it. It can be in the form of metaphor, simile, a passionate delivery, or even a simple claim that a matter is unjust. Pathos can be particularly powerful if used well, but most speeches do not solely rely on pathos. Pathos is most effective when the author or speaker demonstrates agreement with an underlying value of the reader or listener. Logos (plural: logoi) is logical appeal or the simulation of it, and the term logic is derived from it. It is normally used to describe facts and figures that support the speaker's claims or thesis. Having a logos appeal also enhances ethos (see above) because information makes the speaker look knowledgeable and prepared to his or her audience. However, the data can be confusing and thus confuse the audience. Logos can also be misleading or inaccurate, however meaningful it may seem to the subject at hand. In some cases, inaccurate, falsified, or miscontextualized data can even be used to enact a pathos effect. Such as is the case with casualty numbers, which while not necessarily falsified, may include minor casualties (injuries) that are equated with deaths in the mind of an audience and therefore can evoke the same effect as a death toll. No one will give you food because: 1) Any of these didn't imply on your statement. 2) You have started this in a most ridiculous manner. 3) Sympathy doesn't work on the internet. Notably that, you didn't use #1 and started this like #2 has stated. 4) Not all people will take things seriously. 5) The first stand was not too serious.
Resolved: I am hungry

Since my opponent has conceded victory, I stand by my resolution stating Resolved: I am hungry. As I have stated my contention that stated you should give me food, I will extend that argument. Giving me food will negate the impact of starvation. Killing this one person could be the cause of extinction of humanity as I could;ve been the Einstein of the generation. He has left this not attacked and cannot bring it back up during the rebuttal. Now onto his case Extend all cards relating to food waste because transportaton to expensive for rural areas. In our country we have enough food to feed the whole world. The problem is the price of the transportation. He has left this claim untouched so you have no choice but to vote in affirmation to this argument. He has not only lost on terminal impact now but also lack of logical analysis. My K is still untouched as well which states he is being racist for callling me an alien. He thought this was a joke but he has clearly given in, showing how I am the clear winner Now since I am a policy debater, let's go over SHITS Significance, I could've solved human extinction as well as helped many people throughout my life. Harms, The arms is the fact he wants to kill me Inherancy: I am hungry so this fact still stands Topicality: My claim abides to the resolution Solvency: Giving me food solves the resolution Therefore you have no choice but to vote in affirmation.
Resolved: I am hungry

The problem with what you are claiming is that 1. I am wasting food and 2. I am alien. Now that would be good claims if you had any proof of either but you not only don't but all of these can be solved and/or proven wrong. Starting with wasting food, transportation of food is actually the leading waste of food. Transportation of food actually accounts for 20% of lost food. This is due to the economic collapse of many countries. What you can see from this is that many countries not only can't afford the food but transporting the food costs lots of money that we don't have. Wasting food is defined as eating unnecessary amounts of food which I clearly am not because the world has a surplus of food. The problem is the transportation factor. Another point I would like to point out is that you claim I am wasting food yet I never specified in my original argument how much food I wanted. You cannot claim that I am wasting food if you don't know your information so you must vote in affirmation due to that. Your second claim was that I am an alien which is a awful claim based on the facts you have gathered. In my speech, I used clear English as that is derived from civilizations in the Latin root. The type of language I am using derived mostly from greek and latin from Rome and Greece. What you are basically claiming is that I know languages from Earth because I am an alien. Not only is that a bad claim, it is completely illogical and you cannot vote in negation based on that terrible claim. Now I will run a racism K on you. If you didn't know K is a critique retaining to the bigger issue. Alien can be defined as an outsider. Because I am not from where you are, you claim me as an alien which I take high offense to. You are singling me out from the rest of society just because you know nothing about me. The fact that you think shouldn't even deserve any food just shows the racism you have against these "aliens". Judges, if you are to vote in negation, you will be voting for a person who thinks someone who isn't like him shouldn't even get the basic necessity of life. My opponent thinks that just because I am different, I don't even deserve food to survive. This is why you must vote in affirmation as I have proven that me eating won't waste food as well as how him calling me an alien is not only false but racist. Thank you
The Proper Way to Eat String Cheese

I will begin by citing your opening argument, pro. As you said, "There's a *Theory* about the proper way to eat string cheese." And that is exactly what it is, a theory. This theory does not mean that this is the "proper" way to eat string cheese. String cheese can be eaten in any way, shape, or form that the eater decides upon. A person can take bites off the edge, bend into a U and eat, shove the entire thing into their mouth, or pull apart in any which way possible. If someone wants to dip their string cheese in buffalo sauce, ketchup, or even Hidden Valley Ranch, that is their decision. String cheese is up for interpretation, and this comes down to the fundamental principle of freedom. Each person is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with their cheese.
The Proper Way to Eat String Cheese

There's a Theory about the proper way to eat string cheese. I'm sure most of you are aware of that and for those who aren't here it is:So basically, your suppose to gently pinch the tip, pulling downwards, thus creating the string effect. The rest is simple, just eat it. I took the liberty of asking the Students and staff around my school if they thought there was a proper way to eat string cheese. 26 out of the 52 people i asked didn't believe that there was a proper way. Just thought you should know :) This is where i stand, I believe that there is a proper way to eat string cheese, it doesn't mean you have to eat it that way, but there is a way. But this is the real question: Do YOU believe that there is a proper way to eat string cheese?
Homosexuality is natural

Unfortunetly, Pro was unable to participate due to study-based reasons.Although no debate exists and I myself don't have much time, I shall post the argument I promised real quick.Imagine junkies calling someone who claimed he got clean a liar. Now compare it to "Ex-Gays".I pointed out that the idea of homosexuality gene is rejected. The reason no geneticist would be happy with the idea that genes dictate behaviour, is because there are no plausible means by which genes could inescapably force homosexuality or other behaviours on a person. Genes create proteins not preferences. A scan of the whole genome has not found any homosexual genes, unlike schizophrenia.Brain size:The experiment have never been reproduced, thus it's position as science is questionable.has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray.-William ByneThe nineteen people who happened to have a "Homosexual" brain happened to die by AIDS. And AIDS is known to decrees testoserone levels. So what does this indicate? AIDS makes you less male?Just listen to the man himself:It"s important to stress what I didn"t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn"t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.-Simon LeVayAs for the hormones thing, it is quite similar to the genetics case. Hormones don't affect sexual orientation, only sexual drive. In theory, tests and observation should have clear evidence, but it brought questionable results on females and no results on males.Dr Dean Hamer is the guy who pushed the x chromosome in the born gay theory in the mid 90s.But his research was reported to be selective thus bias, and other independent universities weren't able to reproduce anything close to what Hamer did.And if the X chromosome is the factor of the "Gay-Gene". Shouldn't all identical twins be homosexual? They have the same chromosome structure, right?And then there is the homosexual animals. First let me reply with thisA homosexual penguin flies straight:http://onenewsnow.com... ... o-straightI thought there is no such thing as ex-homosexual... Maybe we should wait for the black widows to stop killing and eating their spouse so we can stop man-wife homicide.Animals may have limited senses and means of expersion compared to us. And one of their ways to prove their dominanice is by "riding" other animals to make them submit, really. In fact, farmers do seperate animals who show such behaviour because this is a sign a fight may happen, especially if the two animals are males. As said before, it can also come from limited senses since there are cases of animals cannibalism because animals mistook the victim with a legitimate prey.http://www.messybeast.com...It can also come from a sexual stimulus being stuck to an animal of the same gender, it mostly happens in hot weather.http://www.narth.com...
Enact A Racist Ban On Burger King

Alright to start off, I don't generally feel sorry for laws that may be harsh on Corporations, but adding a security guard to the doors would cost a chain which has almost 13k restaurants insane amounts, significantly slashing their profits http://www.statista.com... Now, presuming you live in the US (which you may not) all those ethnic groups you listed make a very small dent of the population to the point where they are hardly noticeable, if existent at all in most parts (with the exception of 3rd or 4th generation immigrants) - http://www.dhs.gov... It would also lead to public outcry over the racist ban and less people would go and eat at burger kings, further slashing profits. There is also questionable legality to it Now as for security guards, This could possibly create cases of burger kings security guards Harassing people for no legitimate reasons or even possibly injuring/killing civilians. Banning people from burger king is idiotic and would severely damage burger king
Enact A Racist Ban On Burger King

Hello to all, I am known as provideoman123, Master Debater.During my few visits to the American restaurant chain and franchise known as Burger King, I have had mostly positive encounters. However there were some groups of people who always made the experience there unpleasant and uncomfortable. I am proposing adding a security guard to the door of such establishments, to prevent certain groups of people from entering. This is not done to offend the person, but rather to enhance the experience of the diners inside who are allowed. I would like to extend this ban to the people of the following nations:- Bosnia- Croatia- Albania- Kosovo Revolters- Montenegro- Romania- Hungary- Ukraine- Turkey- Turkmenistan- AzerbaijanI will allow American people to enter as they are the creator of the Burger King franchise.Rules: This is a friendly debate, so please accept my opinion as fact and we can have a discussion.
Zombies are possible.

NO, you cannot provide a definition that is too late. The general rule of thumb in debate is the first one to give the definitions, is the ones which will be followed for the rest of the debate. If any contradict later on then that is rejected. You should have elaborated in the beginnings with regards to your definition but now it is way too late. I have shown why there is not a shred of evidence for zombies based on the definitions and the explanation I gave in R2. My opponent's resolution has been refuted.
Zombies are possible.

You defined a zombie as:"Zombies- A reanimated corpse with an appetite for living flesh infected with a virus killing the host and reanimating the corpse." Since we are speaking about zombies here, the medical definition for reanimation is: Definition of REANIMATE : to restore to life : revive http://www.merriam-webster.com...The definition for life is since you haven't provided it:Definition of LIFE an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. human activitieshttp://www.merriam-webster.com...In short, to become reanimated medically (which is crucial in this case), the zombie would need to be able to have reaction to stimuli, breathe, experience growth, and be able to reproduce. Basically regular bodily functions.You have not met this heavy burden of proof which even gives us the slightest reasons to believe that zombies have existed. The source you provivded tells us that zombies are not able to breathe and their brains are not functioning which means they have not been reanimated. The article says:"This may seem absurd, but you won't think its funny when you are feasting on the corpses of your friends and fellow researchers, in fact, you won't be thinking at all.""it kills living beings and reanimates them into flesh eaters."Therefore, I have shown that there is not a shred of evidence for zombies (definition given by my opponent) because in my opponent's source they have not really been reanimated because they cannot perform human functions based on the definition of reanimation and life I gave. Since they have not been reanimated they are not zombies.
Zombies are possible.

My opponent has not met his heavy Burden of Proof. I provided the definitions for the debate first and even if he wants to challenge my definition he has not given any sufficient reasons why we should use his definitions where as on the other hand my definitions are proper and were not challenged and as such stand. I showed why the zombies are not reanimated since they don't meet the definition of reanimation and life. My opponent has provided literally no arguments and he has been rebutted. Same as my R4 response bascially.
Zombies are possible.

My opponent has made absolutely zero arguments for his case which I am suppose to negate. He has not met the heavy burden of proof on him and he wants me to refute his sources which I have already done according to his defintiion in R1 of zombies and my definition of reanimation and life in R2. The resolution has been refuted. To summarize1. Pro has presented no arguments only a source 2. His source has been rebutted and doesn't prove his case 3. He must use my definitions since I have provided them first (This other debator won because he provided definitions first and the DDO tutorial says the general rule is the person who gives definitions first)http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org..."To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first,"
That abortion should not be a crime

To open the debate:"That abortion should not be a crime", I will state the definition for the topic. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.* *https://www.google.com.au... the definition of a crime is an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.** **https://www.google.com.au... As a debater on the affirmative side, I believe that abortion SHOULD NOT be a crime. Abortion is not a crime, it is neither harmful to society nor the environment. I will represent my two main points on the social aspect regarding the topic: Firstly, we have to know why crime legislations were created. They were created to make sure our society functions orderly and to prevent as well as punish any act conducted by an individual or a group that may endanger the environment or society. Is abortion really that dangerous to other people for it to be called a crime? Really, what effect would it have on others that may endanger them? Does having an abortion will create an outbreak in crime or distort the order in the society? The answer is obviously NO. The reason behind the making of crime does not validate the reason for why abortion should be a crime. Secondly, this topic evokes a related uprising social issue: women's right. Women are bounded to so many ethnic beliefs and unfair standards in our current society compare to men. A few centuries ago, and of course in some countries up to this day, women were viewed only as a reproduction tool to carry out their husbands' genome. They were not given a choice in the matter, they HAD to do what their husbands and what their society told them to do, otherwise they would be punished. That is violating human's right and freedom. Punish a woman, in some cases: a girl, just because she did not want to have a child? The rights of humans, in short, is to have freedom and is able to pursue happiness. If having a child that is against a woman's wish and that makes her miserable, then she can LEGALLY have an abortion. Making abortion a crime is an act of gender injustice. And we do not want that. We have come so far now from that time when we stoned a girl to death because she was discovered to have sex before marriage, all the while her male lover walked away without a scratch. No, we are a civilisation now, and we believe in justice, in gender equality and in freedom for everyone. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rules: 3 rounds on each side. Round 1- Affirmative: Give the definition of the topic and state the first two main points. Negative: Give two rebuttals to the two points that were made by Affirmative debater in Round 1. Then give two points against the topic. Round 2- Affirmative- rebuttals then two points for his argument. Negative- Rebuttals then two points for his/her argument. Round 3- Affirmative: Give rebuttals to the four points that were made by the opposition. Then summarise the case of his/her argument. Negative- Give rebuttals to the four points that were made by the opposition. Then summarise the case for his/her argument.
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy Improves on the Book

I apologize, due to real-life constraints I am limited in time to draft my final response. I thank my opponent for the debate and his time, and wish him luck.The movies tell an entertaining story, and it is a great story. However, the books cause you to experience a greater story, where the characters are real, with histories, motivations, and struggles. The world of the books is alive, filled with music and poetry.As to the sway of the Ring, Gandalf wasn't as tempted by it in the books as in the movie. The movies present another problem here, where the power of the Ring is greater against men, Numenorean, and those great souls such as Gandalf. Some characters resist for days, weeks, months, or years, while others succumb almost instantly. For a message to be universal and to speak to the human spirit, it must be consistent, and this is one area where the movies fall short.In review:Faramir, rather than being a symbol of 'a giant among men', was reduced to an insecure, weak person in the films. In the books, he didn't fall victim to the ring after only a few hours, but him doing so in the movies shows immense contradiction among the power of the Ring.Aragorn, in the books, was troubled, but noble. He was already on a quest, working with Gandalf. We know his story, we know his struggles. He leads horses through the paths of the dead, defeats an army with their help, and rallies the men of South Gondor to save the day at Minas Tirith. He brought victory to men. In the movies, he clashes swords with a ghost, and the invincible army saves men at the last moment. A tremendous victory was turned into a Deus ex machina moment.Frodo and Sam, in the books, show unconditional love and trust. This is an important message to mankind. This kind of love still exists in our world, and adding drama in the movies by having Frodo send Sam away only destroys the strength of that message.