BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The UN should give Iran an atomic weapons-backed guarantee against a pre-emptive strike by Israel.

In exchange for complying with her obligations as a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Tehran should receive the assurance that any unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel will be met with an appropriate and immediate military response from UN members, including the use of nuclear weapons if necessary, with no further reference to, or agreement of, the UN Security Council required. I suspect that the knowledge that Israel (a non-signatory to the NPT) already possesses nuclear weapons capable of obliterating Iran and that Israel's politicians have been adopting an increasingly bellicose and aggressive attitude towards Tehran has prompted the Iranian regime to explore the possibility of developing a nuclear deterrent to the threat Israel poses. The nuclear deterrent prevented war between the USSR and the West for decades during the Cold War and the same principle could apply in the Middle East. However, under my proposed agreement, the nuclear weapons should remain in the control of the five UN Security Council Permanent Members, namely China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of which are, of course, nuclear powers. If this proposal was adopted, Iran would have no legitimate reason to seek a nuclear capability and Israel would have no legitimate reason to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran.
Debate.org voting protocols

I agree with what you said pro to the extent that there needs to be a way to ensure people can not "votebomb" debates, and that one way to address the loophole is to increase the requirements. For my rebuttal I will suggest a solution. I believe that no matter what policies are put in place that if someone wants to "votebomb" a debate that they will find a way. What I suggest is to make it not worth it. I suggest that a system of staggered influence be put into place. That using some kind of ranking system that takes the value of a users arguments, the difficulty of the topic and opponent into place not just the wins and losses, to increase or decrease the amount of votes a user has. For example pro is ranked in the 97 percentile in DDO. Between his statistics and briefly examining his debates I think when he votes he puts time and effort into it and therefore his votes can be deemed "good". Therefore when he fills out the form and clicks cast my vote instead of just putting one point towards a debater he puts multiple points in. Not only would this counter act the "votebombing" but it would be a more effective way of determining a winner. This would counter "votebombing" because pretending that I created four accounts purely for the reason of voting for my friends, according to my system unless I worked on them for weeks I would only have a maximum of eight to ten votes at my disposal and allocating those votes would take a lot of effort. Pro however would have much much more then ten votes, therefore he would not only counter act my votebombing but assumingly give the points to the rightful winner of the debate. This system would help progress voting as well because it gives more power to those who are better debaters. For example lets say I get the three debates done and can vote on a topic. I put one vote for con because I misread or misinterpreted what he said. Now con is going to win even though he had a worse argument. But progressivedem22 comes along and votes on the debate as well. He decided correctly that pro had the better argument and votes for him. In the current system that would mean that it is tied and now because of my stupidity and his lack of influence a good debater is going to tie on instead of win a debate which is a big deal. In my proposed system progressivedem22 would be able to not only negate my wrong but right it. As I continue on in my debates I can eventually gain that power as well. Not only does this properly allocate power but it will give me something to strive for and give me a reason to put my best into every debate. Conclusion: My proposed new policy for voting would render the current policy of three votes therefore making it unproductive. I hope it was ok to use you personally in my examples, if not then I am sorry and apologize. I want to thank you for accepting my debate and putting time and effort into it. Have a nice day!
Debate.org voting protocols

I support DDO's requirement that one complete three debates prior to gaining voting capabilities. In fact, I believe Con himself is an argument for such a stipulation. He admitted in his first argument that his intention in introducing a two-round, twenty-four-hour debate is to quickly gain his voting privileges. Had this requirement not been in place, he could simply begin voting whenever he chooses -- perhaps as soon as he joins the site, before he is acclimatized; before he has participated in a debate, and thus understands the rules, the conventions, and the parameters by which we gauge quality, and so forth. His debating skills would never have been put to the test by the other members of this site. Therefore, why should he be allowed, merely on the grounds of fairness, to gauge the quality of other's skills? Is it not possible that, without the firsthand experience that engaging in three debates would provide, that he would not understand how to properly and objectively evaluate a debate based on the selected criteria? Please understand that I am merely posting these as problems with Con's logic. I am not suggesting that he, or anyone else, will have these problems, nor should this be seen as an attack on him. The case is simply that, in principle, these problems will exist, and DDO intends to have a policy broad enough to account for them beforehand. So, my first argument is that the experience is quite valuable. My next argument is in response to Con's case that this policy allows debaters to "do what [he] is doing and create and complete three debates quickly and thus pass the requirements. " In practice, this is actually an argument for more strenuous, rather than laxer, requirements -- he should not be arguing, as he is, that this policy is annoying and contrary to the aim of producing proficient voters, but that it is not strict enough at accomplishing this end. If voting requirements were made laxer than they are, he would need not complete three debates; he, once again, could simply sign-up and vote: vote for his friends, his relatives, his cousins, neighbors, what have you. He could even create several multi-accounts in order to votebomb -- and I say votebomb in the sense that the votes would at least appear real -- his own debates, and thus gain an unfair advantage. Without a mechanism in place to require that someone be committed and dedicated enough to the site -- to see that they cared enough about debating and voting that they fulfilled the modest requirement of three finished debates -- it would simply be possible, in principle, to gain the upper hand by deceptive, illegal means. I submit that, though a loophole exists -- one, in fact, that he is admitting to utilizing at this very moment -- there is an even larger loophole in not having this requirement, and thus the case he is describing becomes exacerbated. Without any requirements whatsoever, multi-accounts would spiral out of control, placing a burden on the moderators of this site, the server, and other dedicated members. Therefore, there are more benefits to having a three-debate requirement than not having it, and it should remain.
Debate.org voting protocols

Although I believe this topic is a good one I am trying to get my voting privileges quickly which is why I am only hosting two rounds and setting the argument time to 24 hours. My goal is to finish this debate and others to achieve voting privileges. If you want to discuss the topic in more detail please by all means create a longer debate or in the future I may bring up the topic again in more detail. I believe that the protocol of debate.org requiring one to complete three debates in order to vote is not a productive policy. I believe the idea of forcing future voters to get experience is a good idea however the action taken is poor. I believe this because debaters can do what I am doing and create and complete three debates quickly and thus pass the requirements. With a loophole as large as this I believe that it renders the whole policy only an annoyance and not a effective means of only having proficient voters.
Cute Animals

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252 {\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 .HelveticaNeueInterface-Regular;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;} \deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720\qc\partightenfactor0 \f0\fs26 \cf0 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 } http://www.debate.org... {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252 {\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 .HelveticaNeueInterface-Regular;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;} \deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720\qc\partightenfactor0 \f0\fs26 \cf0 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 } http://www.debate.org... {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252 {\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 .HelveticaNeueInterface-Regular;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;} \deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720\qc\partightenfactor0 \f0\fs26 \cf0 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 } http://www.debate.org... {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252 {\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 .HelveticaNeueInterface-Regular;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;} \deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720\qc\partightenfactor0 \f0\fs26 \cf0 \expnd0\expndtw0\kerning0 \outl0\strokewidth0 \strokec2 } http://www.debate.org...
Abolish all holidays

I think evrything goes to personal preferances and since participating in holiday traditions has never been obligatory these preferances can be reflected by the amount of people participating and enjoying which is the majority, we can not tell the people that they do not enjoy the holidays and thus we are canceling them! Also some people are too busy throughout the year for social connection, or do not find an opportunity to show their appreciation (by exchanging gifts for example). Moreover, the holidays are good opportunities to help the unfortunates and to givaway stuff. As for the bad habbits (ex. unhealthy food), it is an extention of the bad habbits of people in the US throughout the year, while other countries that eat healthy for example the whole year will not have this problem during the holidays, so we should focus on solving the main problem instead of covering it. It will be like banning TV because people will waste their time, act lazy and consume junk food during whatching it, or banning sport events because people will get drunk and engage in violent acts.
Abolish all holidays

Well for instance , as an example,I am not into holiday like I said it is like a broken record playing over and over every year. I do have a great life and incredible lifestyle activities that are extremely healthy and fun and I am able to take part in this stuff almost every day of the year which makes well over 300 days of the year very enjoyable ,satisfying and equally important.I get so much out of everyday life that I cherish the most normal days and the way people act around the holidays creeps me out and a lot of people weather they admit it or not have a lot of difficulties and much more negative stress than normal with the holidays,its a fact. Then there is all the unhealthy eating and indulgence that is encouraged with the holidays, In the U.S. it is just a reason for people to indulge even more than the ridiculous amount they already do.
Abolish all holidays

My opponent has based his argument for abolishing holidays on two things: 1- They force make-beliefs and falsehoods upon people. 2- They make life life stale and unbearable. My response to the first one is that holidays over time have lost their connections to religion and their origins and now they became like festivals that have specific dates and fun traditions (clothes and parties etc.) like any festival around the world . Had not these holidays did not exist people would have created other special days with arbitrary dates to celebrate on and it would have been the same. As for the second point I believe people find holidays fun and exciting rather than boring and stale. They are actually the days in the year where people (religious and not) break their routine and engage in entertaining social gatherings.
What should you get first in minecraft survival wood,food,home or food,wood,home

If you are in a "mega desert" then good luck finding wood anyway. With food you can get a full hunger bar which will constantly regenerate your health so even if you are taking damage if you manage to escape the fight your health with go all the way back up. With food you can guarantee yourself a way to constantly be regaining health so that you can survive almost every single situation. Gaining enough food to survive for your first night will also only take a small amount of time if you have animals nearby and then the rest of your first day you could build your shelter without the worry of starving throughout the night. Even with a full arsenal of weapons you could manage to drop down to one heart and having no food to heal it you would die your next blow, or from a medium fall.
What should you get first in minecraft survival wood,food,home or food,wood,home

but if you have no wood and say you are in a mega desert and it is night if you no shelter mobs will and will be able to get to you. Even with food you will eventually die from damage. And with a wood first you can build a house and then hopefully you can get a apple from a tree and even them most places there are trees there is grass and if you break the grass you get seeds and so on. and with wood first you could find a spider and kill 2 or 3 to get string and then make a fishing rod and fish. only way i see food first is if you are in a extreme ice biome because of the lack of trees.
What should you get first in minecraft survival wood,food,home or food,wood,home

This question is pretty much a straight manner of opinion and personal preference. I will try to debate this subject with you. The food, wood, home option is a good solution as you are almost always able to find trees in the world but food can sometimes be more scarce. So if you manage to get some food to last your first few days right off the bat then you will have less chances of starving to death and losing all of you hard work. You could simply get enough food for the first few days, then get wood and build into the side of a hill therefore using none of your wood to build a home (you'll have plenty of spare wood to use for tools then), having food to keep you alive, and having a hidden home (Great idea if playing on an online server). Wouldn't be too fun if you spent an hour getting wood, and then starved to death and lost all that wood.
I'm always right

"true or correct as fact" I will stick with this definition. I do not wish to imply anything else. I am not claiming to always have rights, be in the right, or be right of something that is to the left and rightfully so. I believe this may be difficult for the Con to pull off (but I'm not Con), because I do not have to be right in every way, but only always right. It does not matter how right I am, or by who's definition I am right. It matters only that I am right, by whatever means necessary, and that may be the only reason that I can wield the very strong and difficult word "always". I am not right at everything which has been proven, but I am always right. At every instance the world around me is ultimately what I make of it. In other words, the truth in your mind, is only what you accept as factual. We don't normally think about it this way, but fact is just undisputed belief, or more accurately, something you believe to be indisputable. Anything that I sincerely claim to be factual is therefore right in my mind at the time. It does not matter how insane or asinine an answer sounds from your end, as long as it is truth in mine or anyone else's. As long as I maintain honesty with myself, I am always right, even if I was wrong. Now, for my next feat, I am going to build on my initial argument by showing that not only can I be right about being wrong, I have the ability to be both right and wrong at the same time, from 1 perspective. In being presented with the terrible task of finding the square root of 194735, I realize two things. 1)D@*! 2)I can figure this out. I may not know the answer to the problem, but I do know my mental capabilities. So while you may receive the wrong numerical answer, I'll be right when I tell you the verbal answer that you should have given me a calculator, or that I can and will figure it out. At the same time, I am both right and wrong. Of course, whether or not hypothetical you agrees with this is redundant since I know beyond a doubt that I'm right. Good luck. Looking forward to hearing your side.
I'm always right

I'd like to state right away that my opponent is correct it matters on perspective but at the same time you may think that you are always right but others may think the opposite, that you are wrong. Anyway I would like to start with right's definition of "true or correct as a fact". Which means that you are correct on every single question someone has given you. Like two plus two or the square root of the number 194735. This is where I assure you that you are wrong, there has to be a time where you are wrong. Another definition of right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way". So for example "you had every right to be mad". In this case it mean that you have the right reason to act based on your opinion. By this point you may have realized that this debate can go on almost forever so in the next round please state which definition you are referring to. Thank you.
I'm always right

Ahh, but what is right? It changes for us all, based on our perspective of what is right and what is wrong. If I believe my initial statement to be true, which I do, then I am indeed right, in always being right. You may perceive my notion as being in the wrong, but this does not change the fact that I am still right.You claim I may be lying and I consider that to be wrong. However, even if I was lying, which I am not, if I realized what I said was wrong, would I not be right in the fact that I was wrong, and therefor right all along? Although looking back on the event I could now realize that I was wrong, but am still right about having been wrong, because I am in an everlasting state of being right. Surely to be wrong in the present tense I must consider myself neither right nor wrong.
One's mind and one's brain are not identical

Hmm... well I don't think there is a way to refute this argument without trying to destroy the bedrock to some of the fundamental constructs of modern philosophy, such as modal fictionalism, which I believe is expertly employed here. I have to hand it to my opponent and Alvin Plantinga for the strength of this argument, and in my efforts to see if there was a way to undermine, I have failed.I concede to the resolution made by Pro, and thank him for a respectful and constructive debate.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman
One's mind and one's brain are not identical

Hi Rational_Thinker9119,Great rebuttal, and a huge mistake on my part for getting those principles mixed up, I concede the symmetical sphere argument as it does not apply and Secret Identity argument does only apply to relational attributes.However, I am not ready to concede just yet and will present my next round of arguments if you will permit me. I suspect you are wanting to test out the validity of this argument by having it challenged?Argument #3: Question Begging?In your defense of P2 you mention this, "Imagine you woke up tomorrow in a beetles body," this argument assumes from the onset that the mind is something separate from the body, and this separate quality can awake "in" something else. If physicalism is true, and the subjective experience of the "self" is merely an illusion then applying this argument to try and conceive of it being separate betrays the objective understanding in favor of the subjective and incorrect understanding. Therefore, because the framing of your argument assumes a dualistic understanding in order to support a dualistic conclusion, I believe the resolution should be rejected.Argument #4: Science versus PhilosophyThis kind of argument completely leaves the testimony of science about the mind out of the picture, it's trading reality for modal fictionalism. While it is a clever use of logic and philosophy, I believe it places too much merit in the ability of Modal fictionalism to let us know definitively about something as complicated as the mind. The problem with the setup of this particular kind of argument is that it is dependant on an author in order to be true.Without the existence of sentient beings, such as humans, modal fictions are impossible, unless of course that person posited the existence of a deity. However, if the mind is something that developed as an evolutionary biproduct of the anatomically modern humans, then that would inform that there isn't really any meaningful distinction between the brain and mind. This to me points to the idea that this argument would logically be held by a theist, as it's conclusion would point to the existence of a mind that has always existed apart from any physical entity. Else, I have a hard time seeing the usefulness of this logic if the person was not a theist attempting to argue for dualism.Going back to fact that this argument requires an author, it essentially entails that it requires the author's understanding of the terms provided. Which as I pointed out earlier, this argument seems to employ a dualistic understanding of the mind within the content of it's arguments and thus I do not believe puts it on the same standard for objective truth, like science is able to provide.I motion that we should prefer scientific inquiry on the subject of the mind over arguments built on modal fictions.Concluding Statements:Mostly I am just testing this contention myself to see if it really stands up to the test, so please forgive me if I don't have truly excellent rebuttals to your claim as my primary goal in this debate is to learn.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman