BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voting is based on preconceived bias rather than substantive debate

In the short time that I've been here, I see that there is one major problem with Debate.org. The issue that I see has to do with how votes are accrued, and how it is ambiguous as to what is being voted for. Lets make a hypothetical scenario so you might understand what I am talking about better. Let us say there is an argument on Capitalism. And let's say that the person against capitalism makes some great points. Lets say that she is eloquent, thorough, articulate, etc, and details all the reasons why capitalism is not in the best interests of any given society. On the opposite end, we have someone defending capitalism. But this guy sounds like a 3rd grader, makes no logical points beyond "cuz its so kewls! LoL! LOL!" Now, even though I might defend capitalism in my private life, should I vote on my own ideological preferences, or am I supposed to vote on the debate itself? I'll give you another for instance. Most avowed evolutionists can't stand Kent Hovind. But like it or not, the man came prepared to debates. His detractors sounded flustered, could not connect one point to the next, lacked any substance in the debate, etc, whereas Hovind carefully dismantled his opponent. But lets say that what Hovind was debating on is patently false, and even though his opponents didn't do a good job at explaining their position, lets say they are still nonetheless correct. Are we debating on the content or the debate skill itself? When the header reads, "Who won the debate," by what estimate are we voting on -- a preconceived allegiance to a particular ideology, or the skill of the debate? I submit that Debate.org should provide a way to vote for two different categories. One category deals with who won the debate, and the second on which ideology you find parity with.
Does 9+10=21

I actually never used " in math (or add math) so I dont really know what you trying to say but I'll guess. If 9 breaks to 3^3 it is wrong. 3^3=27. Then lets look another way, 9 breaks to 3x3, so you write the equation as (3x3)+(5x2)= you still get 19. Another way is completely wrong but lets say (3x3)(5x2)= you will get 90. I dont know any theory/concept to cross the equation like you shown. Just bonus, (3x3)+(5x2)=21 9+10=21 19=21 =21-19 =2 < you still need 2 more :)
The Death Penalty

I am for the death penalty. Yeah, someone that committed a horrible crime could live with their sins? But I don't believe that's good enough for people that had someone hurt in their families? I know it wouldn't be good enough for me, I would want justice to be served & just living with a sin would NOT be good enough for me. If someone killed or raped, etc.. Someone in my family, honestly I would want that person to take the death penalty. Sometimes you have to think, "What if I was in this situation?" I know it is wrong to murder in so many ways, but if someone does it, they're going to go to hell anyway. So, would you rather sit in a prison cell and rot, or have it just be over with? Either way there isn't going to be a good life in store for you. So, death penalty is the legitimate answer to some harsh crimes that people commit. Remember, it was their choice. Not yours. So, when someone gets the death penalty, they chose their own fate by committing the crime.
All have a moral obligation to purchase video games

I will be representing the negative for this debate. I will be negating the resolution, and arguing that all beings do NOT have a moral obligation to purchase video games. I accept that morality is absolute. My opponent offered the argument that the video game industry is pivotal to the economy, and therefore, we have a moral obligtion to support it. He also argued that if we were to stop funding it, then everyone would stop funding it, so as to have fair treatment. Without funding, it would collapse. I have three responding arguments. 1. Not all beings can afford to buy video games. If we are unable to do something, are we still obligated to? My opponent is arguing that if you have enough money to pay your fair share to supporting the gamin industry, but have no food, you must not buy food but instead video games. If you buy food instead, you are morally wrong. This is not a sound argument. 2. My opponent never stated how he was morally obligated to buy video games. This point is self-explanatory. I would ask my opponent to make the logical connection between the video game industry being pivotal to the economy, and his moral responsibility. Also, my opponent never showed how we can infer that people draw security from the gaming industry. 3. The economy thrives in a free market environment. I remind my opponent that without our free market, the economy would plummet. Free market has repeatedly been demonstrated as the most effective way to run an economy. If we are all obligated to buy something, this is not free market. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
All have a moral obligation to purchase video games

I shall be the affirmative for this debate, and argue that all have a moral obligation to purchase video games. Resolutional Analysis: The affirmative will be operating under the assumption that morality is absolute, and that what is right for one is right for another. With that said, let us proceed to the meat of my argumentation. Basically, the video game industry is massive. There are people who make the story, people who write the code, people who put on ads, people who sell it to stores, people who sell it in stores, and delivery truck men. Because this industry is so massive, we can infer two things. First, people depend upon video games for security, and second, video games contribute to the economy. Now, if I were to stop purchasing video games, it wouldn't make much difference. However, because morality is absolute, then if it is morally wrong for me, it is morally wrong for everyone, and therefore, everyone stops buying video games. Thus, if you side with the negative, you advocate the destruction of the video game industry. This means the global economy would be severely damaged, and everyone connected to the manufacturing and marketing of video games would lose their jobs. Without jobs, people don't get money; without money, people don't get food; and without food, people starve. Therefore, everyone is morally obligated to purchase video games and contribute the economic security of individuals, and thereby save lives. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing my opponents response!
The Lorax has had a negative impact on the environment

As my opponent has yet to make a founded argument, I will start. It is impossible to prove whether or not a single copy of The Lorax was ever produced from either source Pro claims, so until Pro offers a shred of evidence as to how The Lorax had a negative impact, Con will win by default. However, let's assume for the time being that what Pro said is true. This means nothing. First, The Lorax was written 1972 [1]. This was at the height of the environmental movement, between the hippies and the creation of the EPA in 1970, the book was likely a byproduct of this movement [2]. It is entirely reasonable to assume that this movement, of which The Lorax was a part, aided in the development of sustainable forests. After all, that is exactly what the book was advocating. Additionally, the book is recyclable. The other point Pro brings up is China's lax laws. If The Lorax is indeed being published in China, this brings in revenue to the nation. This revenue brings wealth over time. And with that wealth, China can, at some point, rein in its pollution. America did not care too much about the pollution during the Industrial Revolution, but after a while, when we had wealth, we, as a nation, decided we can take steps to improve the environment. However, this cannot occur until there is wealth. Is the destruction of the rainforest, that which is due to "slash-and-burn" farming, a political issue? No, it is one of survival. Individual families are destroying the environment to simply survive. Once survival is assured through obtaining wealth, then people can look at the big picture, and afford the changes that need to take place. So, if China is profiting from the destructive manufacturing of The Lorax, it is a step towards reversing any damage done. When Al Gore was flying around the world in a private jet, expanding his already large carbon footprint, he was forgiven by environmentalists because his message was more important than the extra damage he was causing. The same could be said about The Lorax, which tells the story of the consequences for not caring about the environment to both children and adults who read to them, over and over again. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.epa.gov...
The Lorax has had a negative impact on the environment

I would like to argue that despite the ecological message of Theodore Geisel's The Lorax, the book has overall had a negative impact on the environment because the paper involved to print all the copies sold of The Lorax have not all come from sustainable forests. In addition, much of the paper has come from China, and supports its economy. Granted China's lax laws on environmental standards, I believe that it is fair to say that purchases from China indirectly contribute to a worse environment because the money will go to build more and more ecologically unfriendly factories that will work under questional ethics, and will dump thousands of pollutants into the air and water of China. Would anyone like to say otherwise?
Pictures(most beautiful buildings in America)

Well I was going to use Stonehenge, but that would be better for most unique or most interesting structures.Second Building: Gresham PalaceThe site was once occupied by Nako House, a neo-classical palace built during 1827. During 1880, the London-based Gresham Life Assurance Company bought the property, at a time when it was illegal to invest money in stocks, but rental income was a wise investment. The company later decided to build its foreign headquarters on the site, and decided that they needed a grander setting for them. They commissioned local architect Zsigmond Quittner to design the new structure, and during 1904, they began construction of the Gresham Palace, which was completed during 1906.(http://t1.gstatic.com...)http://t1.gstatic.com...http://t1.gstatic.com...http://t1.gstatic.com...
Pictures(most beautiful buildings in America)

http://tinypic.com...http://tinypic.com...http://tinypic.com...http://tinypic.com...http://tinypic.com...The Salt Lake City Temple, announced July 1847, ground broken Feb 1853 and dedicated Apri 1893. This Temple was built in Salt Lake City after Latter-day Saints were exiled from their homes in the midwest and Prophet Joseph Smith was martyred. It truly is amazing to think that the Saints of God had so much faith to journey to the west and erect a Temple the size of this one. It took 40 years to build, which is not a surprise considering what they had to work with. They built the Temple with their hands and faith. The Temple is 222 feet high, which is amazing considering they had just their hands, it must have been faith. Their faith truly paid off, because as you can see, only with the help of God could such a beautiful building be built. Part of Dedicatory Prayer:O Lord, we regard with intense and indescribable feelings the completion of this sacred house. Deign to accept this the fourth temple which Thy covenant children have been assisted by Thee in erecting in these mountains. In past ages Thou didst inspire with Thy Holy Spirit Thy servants, the prophets, to speak of the time in the latter days when the mountain of the Lord's house should be established in the tops of the mountains, and should be exalted above the hills. We thank Thee that we have had the glorious opportunity of contributing to the fulfillment of these visions of Thine ancient seers, and that Thou hast condescended to permit us to take part in the great work. And as this portion of Thy servants' words has thus so marvelously been brought to pass, we pray Thee, with increased faith and renewed hope, that all their words with regard to Thy great work in gathering Thine Israel and building up Thy kingdom on earth in the last days may be as amply fulfilled, and that, O Lord, speedily.Salt Lake City Temple talk:http://lds.org...
Pictures(most beautiful buildings in America)

First Building: Empire State BuildingThe Empire State Building is a 102-story landmark skyscraper and American cultural icon in New York City at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and West 34th Street. It has a roof height of 1,250 feet (381 meters), and with its antenna spire included, it stands a total of 1,454 ft (443.2 m) high.[7] Its name is derived from thenickname for New York, the Empire State. It stood as the world's tallest building for 40 years, from its completion in 1931 until construction of the World Trade Center's North Tower was completed in 1972. Following the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, the Empire State Building once again became the tallest building in New York. Once the new World Trade Center is completed, it will be demoted to second tallest building in New York.( http://en.wikipedia.org...;)http://nyc-architecture.com...http://1.bp.blogspot.com...http://www.bestourism.com...
Pictures(most beautiful buildings in America)

http://tinypic.com...http://tinypic.com...http://tinypic.com...http://tinypic.com...http://tinypic.com...This is the San Diego Temple, God's house, a beacon to the world. The Temple was announced April 7, 1984, ground was broken in Feb, 1988 and the Temple was dedicated April 30, 1993. It is a Temple that was built by God's church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Temple is just off Interstate 5 in San Diego and is a major landmark if travelling on that highway, as you drive and go over a hill the Temple comes into clear sight, it is truly a work of art. The height of the building is 169 ft, so it is obviously hard to miss, that topped with its beauty makes it one of the most beautiful buildings in America. It is also topped by the Angel Moroni with a sounding trump, he is sounding the trump for all of God's children to hear. Part of Dedicatory Prayer:“We dedicate the ground on which it stands, and this magnificent structure, from the footings to the figure of Moroni which crowns its highest steeple. We dedicate the baptistry, all of the facilities for administering the various ordinances, including the sealing rooms with their sacred altars, the endowment rooms, and the beautiful celestial room, together with all fixtures and appurtenances appertaining thereto. We dedicate the ancillary structures and the grounds with their flowers, trees, shrubs, and lawns. May all aspects of this beautiful edifice come together to present a picture of the wonders of Thy creations and the majesty of Thy work and Thy glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Thy sons and daughters of all generations.Good Talk on Temple:http://lds.org...
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

My opponent does not understand my main argument. I am saying that the constitution depends on what is socially acceptable. Ex. Murder is not socially acceptable so none of us have the right to do so. I am saying that since gay marriage is not socially acceptable and was never acceptable in American (Mass) society, then it won't be in the constitution. Finally I just want to say that this debate wasn't the one I wanted to accept and I admit defeat. I thought your profile was Metz's not yours so, without looking I accepted. Sorry, if I wasted your time with my arguments.
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

It is fully constitutional. I negate I will take a more historical approach. Look at when the government and the constitution was formed. Homosexuality was completely unallowed and was a sign of disrespect and a abnormality. Since it was not socially acceptable at that time it would not be made for it to be acceptable in this time because it has not been changed. Contention 1 It cannot be possibly be made to accept homosexuality because while some may argue otherwise it was open to religion because of an oppression from England. America was not always an open country and in its beggings it was extremely biased. Racism and war riddled America. There was no clear perspective on homosexuality but most men were ashamed and hid themselves. Contention 2 Amendments may be your response. No, it is still not socially acceptable to be a homosexual and thus according to the earlier argument is still not acceptable. Contention 3 All of my opponents attacks are irrelevant, They offer no standard for why it is unconstitutional. Look at all the contentions convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective- Does not explain or mention the constitution Many people say that they are opposed to homosexual marriage, but find no problem with civil unions. - again no constitution homosexuality is sexual perversion- no constitution This proves that my opponent cannot win this debate because he has provided no points to show how it is unconstitutional, just how it is immoral.
A limitless god is impossible.

I would like to point out that the contender, yet again, regards to definitions in the epistemic sense; and not the metaphysical sense. Regarding 2) In his reply, the contender claims that God is defined in the bible, and brings up a number of examples to back his claims. However, because the bible was written in a natural language, and most definitely not in a formal one; none of these definitions are well-ordered or even close to being objective. Further on in his reply, the contender suggests that a natural language in not only adequate, but also necessary for defining God. The problem with this is obvious; that being, natural languages are subjective, as they are never defined using anything but themselves (which is a circular definition, which is never an objective definition). The reason it is necessary to use a formal language is because without a formal language, the definition can never be well-ordered, hence it can never be objective. (As for the specific formal language "I'm referring to", any one of them will do.) Regarding 3) The definition does not have to be in mathematical terms, it just has to be in objective terms. Coincidentally, every objective term can also be interpreted as a mathematical one (broad use of the term "mathematical"). In his reply, the contender states that metaphysical definitions cannot relate to God's existence, because God "is not a metaphysical being". This is obviously wrong, because anything that "exists" must, by definition, relate to metaphysics. That is the very purpose of metaphysics in general. Later on in his reply, the contender claims that I need to bring "evidence" to support my claims (or in his words, "opinions"); demonstrating his lack of knowledge regarding the difference between a logical proof and an evidence-based proof. My proof is the former, not the latter; making evidence both obsolete and useless. Regarding 5) Here; the contender expresses his confusion as to why I said that he would contradict himself later. In reply, I will quote what he had said in round one: "While your statement is true, what makes you think the God of the Bible is limitless? If He was we would not have a universe with life. What evidence do you have that God is only a notion and is limitless?" Regarding 8) Here, the contender states that a true god could not possibly be limited. Of course, this statement requires evidence; but even if it were true, it would only mean one thing: GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. If a limited god is impossible, and a god which isn't limited is impossible (as I have clearly proven), then there cannot be any god whatsoever. Also, I am a bit confused about which two questions the contender has posed before me; besides, I am quite certain that they are a subject for another debate, not this one. CONCLUSION Because my proof still holds, and because the contender has yet to pose a sound rebuttal for it; I can say with absolute certainty that I can rest my case. Whatever my opponent presents in the last round, I will ask him to keep it conclusive, as it's purpose is for closing remarks.
A limitless god is impossible.

Because his attempted refutation regards the steps one by one, I will present my counter-rebuttal in the same manner. Regarding 1) In his rebuttal, the contender mentions that the god of the bible must have to be more than just a notion, i. e. exists objectively; and because we both agree on this point, I will move on to his rebuttal of the next step of the proof. Regarding 2) In his rebuttal (it isn't entirely a rebuttal, he doesn't even openly disagree with anything I say; just adds something of his own), he states that the god of the bible is defined by the bible "in many ways". However, because the bible is written in a natural language, i. e. not a formal one; then the definitions brought up in the bible are subjective, and hence are not well-defined. Even though he pays regards to it, he does not at any stage attempt to refute the points presented in 2); so for the rest of this round, they will be treated as givens (unless he does attempt to refute them). Regarding 3) In his rebuttal, the contender states that a well-ordered definition does not have to be identical to those used in mathematics. It is clear that the contender is thinking of definitions in the epistemic sense, and not in the metaphysical/mathematical sense, i. e. definitions that we humans use to help identify terms and establish natural languages for communication. In my proof, the word "definition" is in the metaphysical sense, i. e. it IS the type of definition used in mathematics; or to be precise, the definitions used in mathematics are in fact the visual/informational manifestation of the more basal definitions, i. e. the connections which are what give meaning to concepts. The remainder of his rebuttal continues to regard to definitions in the epistemic sense, and hence is irrelevant to the proof. Regarding 4) The contender agrees with this step. Regarding 5) The contender agrees with this step, even though he will slightly contradict himself about this subject on his reply to step 8). Regarding 6) and 7) The contender explicitly agrees with these steps. Regarding 8) The contender ultimately agrees that a limitless god cannot exist; and instead suggests that if a god exists, it must be limited. Because this is the movement I was supporting all along, and because the contender not only brings no rebuttal to this, but even agrees with me; I can say with certainty that I can rest my case. Of course, if you believe that God is limited, i. e. not omnipotent yet still immensely powerful; this proof becomes irrelevant.