BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
95% of active men members on DDO would make terrible husbands if they ever got married

Reasons why 95% of male members on DDO would make terrible husbands should they get married1) Most guys on DDO are nerdsThis is just a general fact....2) Most guys on DDO dont do well with the ladies.... This is also a general fact.....3) To be in a successful marriage, the guy has to let the woman be right even when shes not. To be in a successful marriage, the husband has to let the woman win a large majority of the fights and arguments even when shes wrong otherwise the marriage wont last. This is the main evidence for why most men on DDO would make sh*tty husbands, BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYONE ON DDO IS STUBBORN AS HELL AND WILL FIGHT TO THE END OF THE EARTH TO WIN AN ARGUMENT RATHER THEN JUST LET IT GO, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY THINK THEY ARE RIGHT.Seriously, when was the last time you ever heard someone on DDO say 'Youre right, im wrong'? Lets face it, youve NEVER heard someone say that on here ever. Successful marriages require that the husband be willing to concede/give up several times in arguments even when the woman is wrong, but men on DDO are clearly incapable of conceding an argument when they know they are right! Therefore should guys on DDO get married, many of them will not be able to concede arguments to their wife which will sooner or later cause the marriage to failTherefore the resolution is affirmed.
Marijuana.

? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www. Debate. Org/debates/Marijuana/14/ All right then, I shall be Con in this debates and Con shall be Pro. Fine, Hmm. My first argument shall be to point out that marijuana is said to have an impact on cognitive function as well as short term memory. If a person positive toward marijuana was to accept a debate arguing the pros and cons of marijuana and then take the Con side while arguing Pro, Would people not suspect that they might be a user themselves and suffering from some slight cognitive difficulty? https://www. Pacerecoverycenter. Com/legalization-age-limits-marijuana/ Booze, A fine example. Booze for a time was being abused by citizens in America that a major movement was started for a time Prohibition. Prohibition, I imagine most now see as a failure since it is no longer in effect. But who knows, Perhaps the time it was in effect was time enough to change peoples excessively positive perception of booze to the point that a major movement was needed to fight against it's possible widespread abuse. However Marijuana is not booze in legality. At least not until recently and not yet fully across America. It is easier for a people to give up a freedom they never had than a freedom they have long had. Booze having been long allowed is a long had. Marijuana being not so long or never had is as I said. As marijuana is not fully accepted, It would be easier to ban marijuana than booze. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) Wikipedia surely unbiased, Notes it can be addictive. "The bad effects are no worse than the bad effects of any other drug. " " I shall leave this to the voters to be able to identify an incorrect statement.
Marijuana.

I don't really get what we are debating here, But, Like. . Marijuana is fine. . . Its just totally fine. You can't overdose on it, It's not physically addictive, The bad effects are no worse than the bad effects of any other drug. You are living in a country where alcohol is totally acceptable and whatever your arguments against weed are they could just as easily be applied to booze and whatever the detrimental effects of smoking weed are the detrimental effects of drinking alcohol are worse. Weed is fun, Lots of fun, For a lot of people - some people don't dig it, And that's cool, But for a lot of other people its just a nice enjoyable thing. . . What's there to debate?
Caitlyn Jenner is a He or an It

ResolutionResolved: Caitlyn Jenner is more accurately and objectively described by the pronouns "he" or "it" than by the pronoun "she". DefinitionsCaitlyn Jenner: Celebrity. Olympic athlete. On the cover of the June 2015 issue of "Vanity Fair". Born William Bruce Jenner on October 28,1949, in Mount Kisco, New York, to Esther R. and William Hugh Jenner. Accurate: (of information, measurements, statistics, etc. ) correct in all details; exact. Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. *This is, by nature, a semantic debate, but only in regard to the terms "he", "it", "she", and root terms used to define these terms, such as "male" and "female". Further semantics, such as discussions of the term "is", are not allowed. *
Morality is subjective

I'm sure my opponent is disappointed that I chose to present my arguments in such a manner, but I will now show exactly how I didn't breach the rules and how I deserve to win this debate. RULES My opponent claims that I have broken rule number 4 by breaching structure. Let's take a look at structure. First, my opponent stated this round will be in LD style. I have done this. Second, my opponent stated that there are character limitations. Whilst I did post pictures of my arguments so as to avoid the character limit, I still did not break character limit, the only structure specification. Despite the fact that this was an underhanded move, it is still one that is technically legal as per my opponent's rules. My opponent did not specify in any of his rules that using information from other parts of the site where not allowed. Because he did not mention this in either his rules or structure, I have broken neither. I completely understand why my opponent would be angry, as well as voters (Cliff.Stamp), however, I hope that the people of DDO will see that I am technically within the rules. Also, I hope they will see the move was not to hurt my opponent or be malicious in any way, but was to argue for the subject at hand. VOTERS Conduct: I admit, I don't deserve the conduct vote. My move was a clearly to avoid pack in more information than originally would be thought. Spelling/Grammar: I have consistently used correct capitalization, grammar, and spelling throughout. My opponent has not consistently done this and frequently has randomly capitalized words, left off important letter, and used incorrect grammar. Arguments: My arguments all have been technically within the character limit. My last arguments have not been responded to by my opponent. My opponent had ample space (infinite, in fact), to counter my arguments, and certainly his distaste for my presentation technique is no excuse not to present counter arguments. This clearly falls to me. Sources: Sources were not used by either side as this was a philosophically oriented debate. CONCLUSION Sometimes innovation is necessary in order to get things done in this world. It is important to be able to innovate, but to also be able to counter innovations made by the opponent. My opponent failed to react to my innovation, claiming that it was unfair. My opponent may feel that what I have done is wrong. But right and wrong, as I have shown, is quite subjective. The philosophically inclined voter will realize that votes can't be based off of personal feelings of right and wrong, but off of logic, and in this case technical adherence to the rules. I thank my opponent for this debate and am quite disappointed he did not post a combating argument to my previous arguments. I thank the voters for reading. May the better debater win.
Morality is subjective

MY opponent has tried to warrant his posting a link to his gallery as being the exact same thing as when I have done a video debate. While I feel like other forms of debating are fine, this was not something agreed upon before the round. Whenever I do a video debate, it is always specified prior to the round. Therefore refer back to rule 4 "A breach in round structure will be counted as a forfeit of the debate. " Also refer to the comments section where I explicitly deny my opponent in his request for more characters than where specified earlier in the debate. Had this been an actual LD round and my opponent simply handed a few pages of notes to the judge, the judge would not have accepted them as legitimate arguments; in the same way the character restrictions where put in place to mimic LD debate time frames.
Morality is subjective

It seems that the character limit has become a problem. At a shallow glance the character limit seems fair, however when put into position to follow it I find the problem within it. My opponent asks me to fit a response to a 7,100 character argument in only 4,100 characters. My opponent would have been better off allowing four rounds, the fourth being his own final rebuttal. However unreasonable, I did agree to these rules and I will follow them. My opponent himself often uses video in order to satiate his arguments for rounds. This shows that he, as a debater and competitor, considers arguments placed elsewhere to be allowable arguments so long as they are linked back into the site itself. This being said, it should be noted that pictures themselves are, by nature, unchangeable without editing software and cannot be rearranged. This makes them a character unto themselves. So each picture I present is only one character, as is the nature of pictures. Also, all of my pictures are located on the site themselves which makes it content posted directly to debate.org. MY ARGUMENT http://www.debate.org... I look forward to next round! Thank you.
Morality is subjective

=Rules= 1. No semantics; use your own common sense to know that this means. 2. No vulgarity; keep it clean 3. Arguments cannot be based solely on evidence. This is a philosophical debate, not an evidence debate. That said, evidence may be used so long as it is not the driving Factor 4. A breach in round structure will be counted as a forfeit of the debate. 5. Multiple breaches in character limitation beyond the grace area are grounds for a loss of conduct point. =Structure= This debate will take place in LD Style Round 1: NEG Clarifications; AFF Constructive arguments (6,000 Character Limit) Round 2: NEG Constructive and arguments against opponents s case (7,000 Character Limit); AFF Argument rebuttal, and defenses on own case (4,000 Character Limit) Round 3: Neg, Rebuttals, and Voters (6,000 Character Limit); Aff Voters (3,000 Character Limit) Each speech will have a 100 character Grace period.
Israel is justified in their invasion of Gaza

Well since this is your first time here, welcome to Debate.org, and good luck. My answer to your first point is that diplomacy is completely useless in this situation because the Palestinians have 0% interest living with the Israelis, and the Israelis have 0% interest in living with the Palestinians. Israel is in a position where they can say, with reasonable evidence to support them, "We must do everything in our power to survive because all of the people in the part of the world we inhabit want us dead." As far as I am concerned, proportion is no longer relevant because Israel is fighting an enemy that has no qualms about killing civilians to win, so Israel can't either. Now you mentioned how many Israelis died during the conflict period and how many Palestinians died as result. Don't blame Israel for bombing where the terrorists hide. Blame the terrorists for hiding in civilian populations. Also, they don't hide in random homes. They hide in homes loyal to them, making the people they hide with just as culpable as them. So don't act like they're just running into homes full of people daring Israel to bomb them. You used the example of the police blowing up a school full of children to kill a murderer inside. This is a misleading example, because that's not what is happening. You quoted AL JAZEERA as evidence, I hope you realize how horribly biased that news network is. Israel could've killed 10 militants, and it would've said on Al Jazeera that Israel killed 10 freedom fighters and 68 innocent civilians. What is happening is exactly what I said above - they are hiding in buildings with families and groups loyal to, and allied with them, and when the bombs fall the allies of the militants die with them. I see no problem with this. And then you said that Israel is to blame for the humanitarian crisis in the aftermath. This is yet another fallacy. All Palestine has to do is throw the people who keep trying to start wars with Israel out, and this will all be over. Money will pour in from Europe and America (like it always does), and the country can be rebuilt. But they refuse. They buy int o the propaganda fed to them by Islamic fascists and keep allowing the terrorists to attack Israel and force Israel's hand, which is very heavy. Palestinians have shot Israeli soldiers, blown up cafes FULL of innocent people, blown up buses FULL of innocent people, and launched rockets in apartment buildings killed dozens and wounding hundreds. Don't act like this is a one-sided conflict.
Israel is justified in their invasion of Gaza

Hello, my first debate here, so play nice. I believe that Israel is not justified in their recent invasion of Gaza. My definition of justified is a reasonable response for the actions taken against it. A few reasons are as follows. 1. Israel's response is massively disproportionate to the actions taken against it. I am not saying that I have the answers for the middle east conflict, although I do believe that diplomacy is the only realistic solution. This can be most clearly outlined in the death toll on both sides. 14 Israelis were killed during the conflict period and approximately 1200 Palestinians were killed in response. [1] To me, this is not a justifiable, proportionate response to the actions take against it. At the silly extreme example, a country would not be excused for killing a nations entire population in response to an attack on one of their citizens in the name of self defence. There is a reasonable response level. 2. The civilian casualties are not justifiable simply because Hamas based operations amounts civilian area's. This is especially true in regards to large scale weapons (hellfire rockets, tank shells, etc) amongst civilian areas. An example I would give is a hostage situation in a school in the USA. Public opinion would in no way support police blowing up the whole classroom to kill a murderer holding children hostage inside, the same principle should apply and there shouldn't be support for firing a hellfire rocket, blowing up a whole building to kill a militant inside. 3. Overall Israel's attack left hundreds of thousands of people in a humanitarian crisis. [2] The Palestinian citizens did not have basic necessities such as running water. There can be no reasonable justification based on the response to the actions of Hamas that the entire Palestinian population has to undergo such hardship, let alone the day to day oppression they face in their lives. As a result I believe that the Israeli invasion into Gaza was unjustified as was defined in the beginning of this argument. Heading off logical counter-argument. Israel has a right to defend itself. Yes any sovereign nation has the right to defend it's population from attacks and aggression. However in this defence the onus is on the defending force to ensure that a reasonable level of response is enacted. For an example, if I threw a stuffed teddy bear at a police officer, he would be unjustified in shooting me. Yes he may arrest me and take action against me, but it must be proportional to the "crime" to be justified. Because Israel in no way was proportional or took into account the situation of the Palestinian people, they were unjustified in this invasion. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://english.aljazeera.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Drug testing for state assistance!

It would cost a lot of money to drug test all the welfare applicants. And the tests are easily circumvented. Any way to effectively give drug tests would violate their civil rights by infringing on their privacy.A study done in Florida, who itself instituted a mandatory drug testing law, found that only about 3% of welfare applicants used drugs, less then the national average of 8%. http://www.miamiherald.com...A court in that region found that mandatory drug tests were possibly a violation of civil rights too as I have shown. ^
Should The U.S go to war in Ukraine

Although I agree with what you said about Granada, that military action was provoked. In fact, the Grenadian government bombed a American military base before the invasion! And even though Putin may not mindlessly murder all people who oppose him in Crimea, it would be very easy for him to take them out quietly without arousing the suspicion of anyone. Another reason that small military action in Crimea is justified is because is because of the cold war. Did the united states wait out 50 years in a stale mate with the soviet union so that there Russian descendants could take over the land they once lost? If the west and Europe do nothing but enact sanctions, then Russia might perceive a sense of weakness in the military and political forces of the EU and the US. They might be emboldened to take more territory or do something forbidden in international law, like build more nuclear weapons! My point being, even though we american may not be affected directly, Russia will be emboldened. If we do nothing when they take over part of Europe, very close to some of our allies, then they might feel free to take a little more land or resources. We need to act, even if we just blockade their harbor or send weapons to the Ukrainian troops outside Crimea. What you don't do as the leader of a country, is completely unprovoked take over someone else s country. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we crushed them. I don't see that it makes much of a difference that Russia is big and powerful. They did do something exactly like what Iraq did. Just because we cant completely crush their army doesn't mean we shouldn't get involved. If we don't act now, we may never act.
Should The U.S go to war in Ukraine

Okay. I should have been a bit more clear about the census affair. There were censuses taken before the invasion as well, and these also confirmed that over 50% of Ukrainians living in the Crimea were pro-Russian before any sort of invasion or military occupation. Also, why would a military occupation change anyone's vote on the census in the first place? It's not as if Putin is going to order a mass genocide of the citizens who support Ukraine anytime soon, because the one thing Russia wants to avoid is a war with other superpowers, and we would be forced to wage war on Putin if anything like this started to occur. It also wouldn't exactly give Russia a PR boost either. Also, I don't think the only reason that Putin is taking the Crimea is just to unite Russia. I believe that his main reasons are: #1: The Crimea has been the main base for all of Russia's naval military forces for decades now. It would be much more convenient for this land to be an actual Russian province. #2: This invasion also makes a geopolitical statement to the rest of the world, which says "Russia is back in business!". The rest of the world is now seeing how Russia is back on the rise to becoming the superpower it once was. #3: This invasion makes an even bigger statement to other small nations to the west of Russia, which gives them the indication that this could happen to them unless they stay in line. However, it would be hypocritical for our leaders to call Russia out on this one, because we have been doing the same thing for a long time. Take an example of Grenada. The leaders of this small nation were doing things we didn't approve of, so we crushed their military underfoot, and sent a message out to the rest of the world saying, "Don't mess with us or we'll come after you too." However, we are getting off topic. This is a debate about if we should or shouldn't try to take the Crimea back for Ukraine, not about what Putin's intentions are. Let us return to the original topic.
Should The U.S go to war in Ukraine

That is a very good point. But, if you had to vote wether or not your home would be annexed to another country, you might vote differently because of the military threat. There is a Russian occupation force in Ukraine. Would the people vote differently if there were not tanks in their yard and solders on the front steps? There was a political cartoon in a magazine I read called the economist, and it showed my point. It had a picture of Putin in a tank, that was pointed at the Ukrainian people. Putin is taking over a small peace of land with little value for one thing. He wants to unite Russia. And the most basic way to unite people is through war. Putin claims to be taking over crimea to protect the ethnic Russians there. But I don't believe they were ever in any danger. I think Putin is using this war as some kind of military campaign add, which is just wrong. You had very good point though.
Should The U.S go to war in Ukraine

Ah, a fight by proxy would definitely be a good strategy, except for the fact that the natives would not be willing to fight. A recent census reveals that over 50% of the population within the Crimea is actually pro-Russian! (Meaning that they want their region to be ruled by Russia.) For those people in the Crimea who would want to fight, it would be hard to stage guerrilla warfare amongst a populous which is ready to rat them out at the first sign of suspicious activity. This also lends most of the morality side of the debate to the US not interfering. I agree that we Americans are leaders of the free world, but if we are truly representing freedom, then why would we prevent the population of the Crimea from deciding which nation they want to side with? Would we really be doing justice, when under the terms of democracy (which America very much favors) the side of the population which wants to be with Russia wins?
Should The U.S go to war in Ukraine

We are the leaders of the free world. It is our duty to defend the rights of the person and help people in need. Although I agree about the loss of resources, I don't think that we would need to engage in such a big war. We could just send a very small number of troops and lots of supplies, and try to get Russia involved in some type of Guerrilla Vietnam type war.The soviets supplied the Vietcong with supplys and tanks and such, but didn't get directly involved. We could train the native Ukrainians to be able to resist by using hit and run tactics. A big war wouldn't be necessary.
George w. bush is a good president

George w. Bush is consistently blamed for the war on terror. Since you are young you might not remember, but when the attack happened people all wanted to declare war on terror. President Bush stated that the war would last more than his term in office. Farther more the American public has lost their patience and their patriotism. We are not fighting to just help these countries but to protect our own. War is not something that can be fixed over night it takes a long time.