BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Actions Speak Louder than Words

O.K., now if you say I might have agreed with you even a little bit, then you might know you yourself also said, that _I am talking about the condition of actions in both the circumstances". Now I have said this before, actions do speak louder. *Message to voters Prior my argument* You all need to understand that we may be debating about the MORAL meaning this proverb may give, but know this, that if you decode each word of this proverb, it means absolutely the opposite of what it SHOULD mean. *My Second Argument* Now, if you might even agree with me a little, Actions speak louder, yes they do. But, if a person is moral enough to understand the meaning of the sentence, then the person is also moral enough to actually know when and how to use his/her actions. Also, using his/her mentality based upon what he/she have understood by the proverb, they should also know every possible outcome/circumstance of their actions. Also, circumstances may not even favour the person who is using this. The person might think that it is wise and intellectual to always use actions in every case possible (which is very much the reason why we are debating), but then the person will forget what he should have understood, and what he actually understood by the proverb. *A message to my opponent* I did not blatantly ignore the rules of the debate. Also, I believe that you are wrong, when you say I gave my main argument first, because I totally believe it was not my main argument. *Continuation to my main argument* You may always think that your actions, be it in goodwill or be it during playing bad samaritan, will probably result in favour. But that is just a state of mind. Words, if understood to their true potential, AND used properly, then they will be in the utmost honesty and no fear. Words, are very wise, but only if you believe them to be.
Actions Speak Louder than Words

Before I go into my main argument as to why "Actions Speak Louder than Words", I would like to point out voters that my opponent did not follow the structure of the debate, and just gave his main argument. For this reason, I will rebuttal some of my opponents statements and will state my main argument.Rebutal Towards my Opponent:To begin, i'm going to look at arguments my opponent has brought up, and will prove them void with common logic. The first thing my opponent brought up is the following quote: "You may take nice actions sometimes, but you see now matter how much good you do, mate, you can always find yourself in some sort of trouble you did not want or you were not part of. You gave the definition of the English Word : Actions. According to the statement "Actions speak louder than words", actions in this case are always deliberate, or forced. So you have no defence for yourself if you find yourself in any trouble". My opponent makes the assumption that I'm only talking about the benefits of actions speaking louder than words, when in fact I'm talking about both circumstances. My opponent claims that I make the argument that one is forced into doing something, when in fact the idea of action is voluntarily done. This is not forced by no means, especially if you as an individual voluntarily force yourself in doing the action.My Argument:The argument that I would like to take place during the debate is that actions speak louder than words because no matter what you always do, an action will always take place. A good example my opponent brought up is within the following quote, "Also, sometimes, words are very wise sometimes. You see, this statement, was also "said" by someone. So these wise words were said only". The word my opponent used, which I emphasized with a bolding, is "said". Said is a past tense version of the word "say", but is clearly an action. For words to be formed you have to say them, and before you say them; you need to think about them. No matter the circumstance, there is always an action above the words.Also, I ask my opponent this, how were words formed initially? Voters, no matter where you look or how it is done, an action needed to take place in the development of words. My opponent claims that words are stronger, but I will claim that actions are stronger for the fact of developing words and overtaking words in a technical aspect. Plus, my opponent said the following leaning to my statement: "Sure, actions do speak louder".
Actions Speak Louder than Words

I agree with you half, as half of what you said, I deem wrong. Here is my argument to what you think is right: You may take nice actions sometimes, but you see now matter how much good you do, mate, you can always find yourself in some sort of trouble you did not want or you were not part of. You gave the definition of the English Word : Actions. According to the statement "Actions speak louder than words", actions in this case are always deliberate, or forced. So you have no defence for yourself if you find yourself in any trouble. Also, this statements give many different meanings, but it depends on the interpretation of the person, so he shall get whatever meaning he may want to get. Now, one can think that if they get in a fight, they have to hit back, or I have to do more than i can actually say. In a wise meaning, it means that do not only say that you will achieve something, work hard for it. Now , as I said, different interpretations will lead the person to think different things about it. Also, sometimes, words are very wise sometimes. You see, this statement, was also "said" by someone. So these wise words were said only. Also, sometimes during any kind of problem, some good words will win you the situation. All you should have is : A good vocabulary, a polite tone of speech, and the highest kind of manners and the utmost respect (only when speaking to elders, for eg. Teachers). You wouldn't take action against an elder, would ya? Also, words may not be always good, but if a bad action is comitted of the same level as the words, it is considered a thousand times more worse by nearly everyone. Sure, actions do speak louder, they show what you can do. But what you can do, is someone no one will ever know. The person's original power should always stay inside. Respect gains Respect. Now if supposedly, you were losing this debate, you could force yourself to take action and post an argument. But again in that case, you will only be using the best kind of words you can and your own understanding of what i said, and what you think the topic is about, and about where and how i am wrong at points. I did this debate, because I was always quiet in school, but it was the biggest mistake of my life. I was made fun of, harassed, molested and beaten up by elder kids, so I did the same thing back. But what happened is that, I got in trouble for it. Then I decided, to use my words, my only other power. It helped me. I helped me. This statement is wise and sometimes right, but it is unwise and sometimes wrong. We cannot always take something for one way if it means many things.
Actions Speak Louder than Words

Been busy with school and work, so I decided to try to get back into debate again after the past few months of wanting to share my stances on certain issues. Well, here I am ready to debate a topic that I'm curious of responses. Which speak louder? Actions or Words?For this debate, I will be arguing that actions speak louder than words and my opponent will argue words speak louder than actions.Structure:1st Round: Acceptance and Any Questions within the Debate (Ask Questions in the comments)2nd Round: Opening Argument (Keep it short please)3rd Round: Rebuttals and Any New Arguments 4th Round: Rebuttals and ConclusionRules: No forfeits {If a forfeit does occur, the one who forfeited has lost the debate. But if both individuals forfeit the same amount of round(s), then it is fair game} Any time one makes an argument, it either needs to be an opinion or a fact (With a source). Sources have to be reliable, and cannot be from Wikipedia, Forums, or a ProCon website. As well as will be required to post sources at the end of each round. If a mistake does happen, like one forgot or did not have enough characters, they can post their sources in the next round. Just make sure to label which sources were used in which round. But if anyone forgets to post their source in the next round, that is a disqualification of the debate. Have fun and no harassment or harsh language against each other! Definitions: Actions: The fact or process of doing somethingSpeak: Saying something in a more meaningful way. (In this case, not a physical element of something speaking, but an analogy format)Louder: With a great deal of emphasisWords: A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.Good luck to whoever accepts the challenge!Also, if you were like more information of the definitions presented, or want a potential rephrase; please comment below to discuss that. Thanks!
Antarctic Exploitation

- Resources - Humanity has avoided Antarctica since the 19th century due to its hostile environment, lack of natural resources, and isolation, which means that not only is Antarctica devoid of resources, but that we've known about it since the 1800'sMy Opponent is basing most of his argument that there are "potentially" resources that can be mined in Antarctica, the same could be said for the Moon, Mars, Halley's Comet, and other things that are ridiculously far away from civilization so that moving those resources back towards civilization would be immensly expensive. - Desalination - Ive looked into it and yeah desalination plants can be harmful to the environment if the byproducts from the process are not carefully handled. But which do you think sounds worse Desalination of Ocean water - or - Melting Antarctica? Desalination does cause problems, but the scope of those problems affect a very small area whereas melting Antarctica literally affects an entire continent.
Antarctic Exploitation

1) my opposition fails to prove me wrong in his from his first point... this is a logical debate and not only has he fails to support his own evidence but doesn't understand my evidence and points. i want to inform the public/voters that my opposition clams im a fibber, he is the only lier in this debate!my wikipedia source said that The continent, however, remained largely neglected for the rest of the 19th century because of its hostile environment, lack of resources, and isolation. my opponate doesnt realize that potentally antartica is a land full of resources.Apart from water and biological resources, Antarctica is attaining great importance, as a possible sources for minerals, oil, coal etc. However, at the present moment, the amount of resources potential and economic values are less known because of the The Antarctic Treaty of 1959, but our technological advancements, will bring the days when mining is legal, off-shore oil drilling, towing of ice-bergs etc. may become a reality in Antarctica. desalination is harmful in two ways. Desalination plants kill marine organisms with its pumps thus endangering biodiversity. Also, waste products from the plant has to be carefully disposed off to prevent contamination and health risks. Desalination is Option and Distraction for a Thirsty World?"revealed that desalination of seawater is an expensive, energy-intensive activity that also contributes to the production of greenhouse gases that trap solar heat in the atmosphere. Impacts of desalination include brine build-up, increased greenhouse gas emissions, destruction of prized coastal areas and reduced emphasis on conservation of rivers and wetlands. Many of the areas of most intensive desalination activity also have a history of damaging natural water resources, particularly groundwater.quoted World Wildlife Fund.sure i tell you-1- currently no oil or primary serves business in antartica the E.P now bans all mineral resource activities in Antarctica (other than scientific research).The treaty on the other hand banned mining in Antarctica for limited period of minimum 50 years and designates the whole continent and its dependent marine ecosystem as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science16. After 50 years i.e. from the year 2040 the whole world will jump into Antarctica and say, "Mine, baby, mine"!17......NOTED!!! i predect in 40 years technology will be advanced enough to open a primary seves business in a safe effective way...in fact my source tell me that the russian federation has discivedrd a clean meathod of driil... called heat drill or hot water drilling other attacks are ireevivent attack.. if you please i will feather discuss them in the next round
Antarctic Exploitation

Ill use three arguments, 1) What we can get from Antarctica 2) Populations are still manageable and population growth is in areas that are too poor to exploit Antarctica 3) Preserving the environment - 1 - What resources could we get out of Antarctica that the world is in need of so badly? Ice??? There are few, if any, resources in Antarctica that the world could even use, and the ones that are in demand that are found in frickin Antarctica could probably be found somewhere else unless penguins are considered a resource that can be "mined" My point is, Antarctica doesnt have much resources to offer, and those we can use we can find somewhere much closer. - 2 - You claim that populations are expected to be 12 billion by 2020, which is an outrageous lie. World populations are only expected to reach 7.6 billion by 2020, not 12 billion. In fact we arent projected to reach 12 billion until at least 2050... http://www.worldometers.info... http://www.globalchange.umich.edu... You can see in the last link that most of the human population growth will occur in developing countries, a majority of them in Africa. But these countries are too poor to be able to open up mining operations in Antarctica to mine enough resources and bring such resources back to their own shores, meaning that the ban shouldn't be lifted for resource exploitation since the countries that would need those resources to support surging populations are too poor to open up such operations. - 3 - Most importantly, the reason those bans on mining are in place are to preserve the environment of the Antarctic continent, one of the largest unblemished parts of the world still in its natural state that the world had agreed would only be inhabited for scientific study. Lifting the ban would allow corporations to completely trash the environment to exploit a very small amount of resources that could be found elsewhere. Lets pretend the ban was lifted, oil was found, and a corporation started drilling it there. Well that oil could only head back to the country of origin by ship, and if an oil spill were to occur in an environment as vulnerable as Antarctica's and as far away from rescue groups and containment teams as possible, the risk for environmental damage and catastrophe skyrocket. The ban on mining in Antarctica should stay in place because there may not be any resources there to exploit, populations are not growing at an alarming rate, the places where populations are exploding are too poor to take advantage of Antarctic resources, and the mining operations would do a great deal of damage to the precious environment of Antarctica.
Antarctic Exploitation

humans are using resources faster than they can be obtained, banning on tapping Antarctic sources should be removed, its just unfair. The ban on exploiting the resources of the we Antarctic resource ban should be lifted immediately to fill the need for a world that is using natural resources much faster than they can be obtained. Because of increased populations resources are going fast, and until alternative sources are found humanity must utilize what is at hand maintain itself. by the year 2020 the world be 12 billion
THBT Debate.org should pay fifteen qualified judges to decide wins/losses instead of using votes

Hello all, There is nothing for me to rebut in this round as PRO has yet to post their closing argument, despite the 21 hours in addition to the 24 hours of my debating time that I have granted him/her to do so. I would like to reiterate the fact that PRO has failed to uphold his/her BOP. Take the example of the motion "This is a big red ball". As PRO, one is expected to justify all three points of contention: that the ball is red, the ball is big, and the ball is in fact a ball in the first place. If we apply that into the context of this debate, PRO will need to fulfil the following: a) why Debate. org needs qualified judges, which both sides have clashed upon, and b) why Debate. org needs to pay these judges, which I have raised substantives against but have been refused any discussion upon from PRO. Therefore, I have managed to refute at least one of the two BOP entries that PRO needs to justify, and have taken the debate. If PRO wishes to further the debate, he is more than welcome to do so in the comments section, and I ask all voters not to take forfeiture into consideration when voting should PRO choose to deliver his third round in the comments.
THBT Debate.org should pay fifteen qualified judges to decide wins/losses instead of using votes

Thank you to side proposition for instituting this debate. I would like to ask side proposition to fulfil their burden of proof down the bench of: a) justifying that there is a problem with Debate.org's voting system in the status quo; and b) that introducing qualified judges into the picture will bring more good than harm. I look forward to some action-packed discourse!
Most religions refer to the same God

My opponent can't even be bothered to write something against my original statement. I have refuted not one, but every single one of his false and teenage angst riddled statements, and concluded this rebuttal with an expansion of my original statement, which he has yet to even argue against. "All in all, I stress that I GREATLY agree with you in that religion has been used for control and power, but the essence on which corrupted religion was built was a common, universal truth that all religions share." This isn't a debate, it's babysitting, and I want money
Most religions refer to the same God

"First of all, anyone from a revealed religion has been brainwashed" I believe you are mistaking acceptance of dogma for appreciation. I certainly do not believe in dogma, in fact I believe religion is something that we can take valuable information from - not base our lives on. To the extent that people will sacrifice their critical thinking for the sake of dogma, i agree with you - they are brainwashed. To call someone who simply believes in the underlying truth BENEATH institutionalized religion brainwashed is purely based on opinion. "Second of all, "God" was originally used as essentially a Big Borther figure who doesn't really exist but is used as a fear mongering propaganda tool to keep everyone in submission. However, the universe was obviously designed, and so deists refer to this "intelligent design," as "God." Here you make vastly contradicting statements - something that is intelligent that designed this world CLEARLY came BEFORE the "God" that was originally used as a Big Brother figure. My understanding of God is much closer to yours than that of mainstream religion - but that doesn't take away the truth in all religion - that there is a Creative Force, that happens to either have sentience and/or intelligence. "Third of all, I have extensive knowledge of scripture" Fair enough, I underestimated you then. "Now in regards to my opponent claiming that religion has been sed to control mankind but wasn't invented for that purpose- this is false. Muhammad invented Islam to gain power an control, Constantine invented Christianity to gain power and control, and the Levi Priests invented Judaism to get power and control- this is universal in almost every sect." "Muhammad invented Islam to gain power and control" How did you arrive at this conclusion? Is this a belief or do you have proof to back it up? Or are you simply appealing to the majority - that bears aversion towards Islam. Don't get me wrong - Islam has CERTAINLY been corrupted through culture, but to assume that it was created in the first place as a form of manipulation - well, that is a leap. Basically - citation required. "Constantine invented Christianity to gain power and control" Christianity has been around since the actual days of Jesus - there have been various forms of it. To say Constantine CORRUPTED Christianity would be something I agree with, but invented it? Serious mistake. "the Levi Priests invented Judaism"? Judaism was built from Abraham to Moses, and only after was it corrupted. In all these cases you are mistaking the currently most widely accepted form of religions for their original forms. All in all, I stress that I GREATLY agree with you in that religion has been used for control and power, but the essence on which corrupted religion was built was a common, universal truth that all religions share. The truth of the Creative Force that we like to call "God", for which the definition implies non-definition. Which brings us back to the argument in question; if we could please not go off on a tangent again, I would appreciate it.
Most religions refer to the same God

First of all, anyone from a revealed religion has been brainwashed- what do you call it when you take someone and indoctrinate them as a little aby into a belief that he would never have otherwise accepted?Second of all, "God" was originally used as essentially a Big Borther figure who doesn't really exist but is used as a fear mongering propaganda tool to keep everyone in submission. However, the universe was obviously designed, and so deists refer to this "intelligent design," as "God."Third of all, I have extensive knowledge of scripture- I used to be a Christian and I even studied Talmudic/Rabbinic scriptures, the Qur'an, and the Guru Granth. Now in regards to my opponent claiming that religion has been sed to control mankind but wasn't invented for that purpose- this is false. Muhammad invented Islam to gain power an control, Constantine invented Christianity to gain power and control, and the Levi Priests invented Judaism to get power and control- this is universal in almost every sect.
Most religions refer to the same God

I agree so far as religions have been USED to manipulate mankind, but to dismiss them completely is a biased argument. Not only have you completely evaded my main point, you have made the clear implication that you are enlightened and everyone with a different opinion than yours is fundamentally brainwashed. Dogmatic religion has no place in modern society, but the essence of religion itself is non-dogmatic. This is because dogma, by definition, is man-made. To quote the Scripture of one of the most dogmatic religions. Quran 2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion" I will summarize in two points why you will lose this argument. - The question was not whether or not God exists. That is completely irrelevant, and whether God does exist or not will not change the validity of my original argument. - I predict you have close to no knowledge of any Scripture of any religion, and therefore you will find it hard to argue with someone that does.