BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The voting phase is too heavily moderated on Debate.org and should not be moderated

So you think that votes shouldn't be moderated because you get to many ties? You think that no moderators means less votes will be revoked? So you are blaming your tied debates on moderators revoking all your votes? You don't think that the lack of votes are just simply due to the debate just not being that engaging? Do you know what a moderators job is? There job is to makes sure that a debate remains respectful, intelligent and to make sure the votes are fair. the debates aren't about them, they are not the star of the debate nor are they trying to be. Btw "people who "won" a debate because people have a bias or some other reason." Do you know what sight you are on? It's a sight were you post your opinion and then discuss it with other people, when people click on your opinion, it's not because your opinion matters to them. people click on these opinions and debates because the topic interests them because they already have there own opinions. I'm not an artist, so do you think if I see a debate on digital vs canvass, that I would care at all about it? Of course not! People who vote on a debate ALWAYS have bios. If they didn't have Bios they wouldn't have taken the time out of there lives to vote on something as pointless as an online debate. Debates are inherently bios. When you are debating a topic it is your job to defend that topic whether you are right or wrong. So when I come along and see a debate that interests me because I already have an opinion I'm going to vote for the opinion I went in with. This is because if you are winning or loosing, as long as there is someone supporting your opinion you will justify there loss and vote for what makes you right. What your saying is that assuming that the only reason people don't vote on debates is because of the moderators, (and not just because your opinions don't matter to them.) That we would get people who win a debate based on bios. The reality of it is that people wouldn't JUST "win based on bios" the reality is that people would ONLY win based on bios, we need moderators because they act as the third part with no previous opinions. They take the votes into account but it is ultimately up to them just as it should be. they are the ones that you are truly trying to convince. They are important because without a moderation the world would be ruled by the people with the popular opinions, not the people with the right opinion.
The voting phase is too heavily moderated on Debate.org and should not be moderated

I have recently had one of my votes taken off for various reasons. One reason it was taken down was because I stated in my reasons for voting the way I did was that one person used sources and the other didn't, so they had the better sources. Is that not true? The one who provided sources clearly has better sources than the one who didn't. That's just a stupid reason to take down a vote. The other reasons seemed to be more convincing, but still, why should votes be moderated to begin with? If anything, the fact that votes are moderated discourages people from voting. Just look at how many debates are "tied" for me because no one voted: [1] 8/10 were never voted on, and it's true none of them were voted on if you click on the "tied" section, which will bring up this: [2], by clicking on each debate you will see that no one voted on them, and that's the only reason they are all tied. I'm sure you also have plenty of debates that were not voted on if you check. If votes weren't moderated to begin with, and you didn't have to provide reasons for your votes, there would be many more votes I imagine. Sure, you could argue that if we didn't have to provide reasons for voting and they weren't moderated, you would get people who "won" a debate because people have a bias or some other reason. However, I have more faith in people and think they would try to objectively look at the debate and vote honestly. Sometimes it just is not possible to state why someone had better arguments than another because it's just self-evident. People may not know how to articulate the reason why, and it's preventing those people from voting who are honest. So, while there may be some who are just biased and vote for no actual good reason, I would say they would be outnumbered by the people who are voting based on reasons, and that would still result in the person who should win winning the debate. That's all that is supposed to be accomplished through the voting anyways: to determine who won the debate. However, as it is now, pretty much just one person or two people decide who wins because that's all who is allowed to vote based on the moderation of votes. Wouldn't it be more reliable to have more people voting, instead of just getting the opinion of one or two people? Sources: [1] . http://www.debate.org... [2] . http://www.debate.org...
God is real

Ah well done comrade but i think we can all agree that i have won this one so i will now reply to you and sum up this debate. You-If you had read my statement properly, you would have noticed that I cited God's role in shaping MY life for the better. I am not speaking of "the average human being", I am speaking of my own personal experience and the works I see done by God every single day. Reply-so every good thing that happened to you is because of god? what about the people who do not believe in god, many successful scientists do not believe in god yet has had very succesful lives. Also remember GOD MADE YOUR LIFE BETTER is only your opinion, how do you know it is actually him? You do not have any evidence except the fact that you think God is making your life for the better. You- I never said God "does not live in our universe", but yes, He is very much exempt from what we call "scientific laws". God is greater than our universe and He(obviously) doesn't live by our rules However, you seem to have completely missed my point that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING....... Time, space, thought, matter, antimatter, reason, heaven, hell, all of these come from God. In other words, God IS existence; there is nothing that is outside of Him. Reply-now comrade i'm sorry to say but this is quite childish, where is your proof that he is outside of everything? He cannot be there unless you explain how he came to be there. i have already stated that our universe started from nothing which has a beginning. And how did he create everything? by magic? or some spell? your point has been completly defeated and been put out by my scientific proven facts (in rounds 1 and 2). I have said outside of the debate in order to stop you from building on those points in the future comrade. Now to sum, there is no such thing as god, there is pain in the world everyday, god said the wrold was created 5000 years ago, that is just bs we have carbon dating proof and even ancient cave painting that are older, dinosaur bones millions of years old. Science has won this debate, i have given up hard scientific evidence to back up my statements but all my opponent has given are assumptions and unrealistic view points. Thank you comrade for the debate and to my fellow comrades reading this, i am sure your decision is clear and the winner is obvious :-D
God is real

You Said: "Well comrade that is your first flaw there are so many gods with different ideologies with different beliefs thus you cannot say they are all one and the same." My Reply: But they are. There is one Creator, and that is the only "god" that i am ever going to refer to. You Said: "Is life really for the better? look at us, the average human being is only pleased with his life 90% of the time is that shaping life for the better? We are never pleased with what we have, look at all the crime going on everyday all over the news. Thus I fail to believe the fact that he is shaping your life or anyone's life for the better." My Reply: If you had read my statement properly, you would have noticed that I cited God's role in shaping MY life for the better. I am not speaking of "the average human being", I am speaking of my own personal experience and the works I see done by God every single day. You Said: "If he does not live in our universe it means that he does not oblige to our rules, if he does not follow the rules in our universe then what are the point of the ten commandments and all the rules he has set for us, if as you said he is from another universe then whatever he said is made up and fake. If he is from our universe than you will need to either prove what is before him or that he does not exist and science has taken us up to the point." My Reply: I never said God "does not live in our universe", but yes, He is very much exempt from what we call "scientific laws". God is greater than our universe and He(obviously) doesn't live by our rules However, you seem to have completely missed my point that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING....... Time, space, thought, matter, antimatter, reason, heaven, hell, all of these come from God. In other words, God IS existence; there is nothing that is outside of Him. In your reply, you seem to have assumed several things that I haven't said(me being a Christian for one) You are also making some logical connections that just aren't there (i.e. God's existing in another universe means he's fake????) We're having an educated debate here, so I would ask that you please refrain from doing these things in the future... Thank You.
God is real

Okay comrade i will say what i think of your points, and i must say they are well said. You-By God, I refer to a Being that is fully responsible for all of what we humans would call existence. I am talking about any and every version of God, as I believe they are all one and the same. Reply-Well comrade that is your first flaw there are so many gods with different ideologies with different beliefs thus you cannot say they are all one and the same, You-That does not necessarily mean that God does not exist. What constantly convinces me of God's existence is His undeniable role in shaping my life for the better( since you do not believe He is there, you wouldn't be interested in that) Reply- is life really for the better? look at us, the average human beening is only pleased with his life 90% of the time is that shapig life for the better? We are never pleased with what we have, look at all the crime going on everyday all over the news. Thus i fail to believe the fact that he is shaping your life or anyones life for the better. You- I actually think that the Big Bang is a pretty logical theory. However, I don't agree that we have enough proof to rely on it. In my opinion, humankind is not nearly advanced enough to presume to know how the cosmos originated. I don't care how many scientists theorize otherwise. Reply- i am sure the proof given is sufficient, also if you say there is not enough proof of the big bang then isn't there less proof of god? You-There is actually an easy answer for that; God exists outside of time. All of what we call dimensions(space, time etc...) were created by God for reasons unfathomable. This concept is nearly impossible for us humans to comprehend, as we are defined by the dimensions and can't exist in any other way. Reply-If he does not live in our universe it means that he does not ablige to our rules, if he does not follow the rules in our universe then what are the point of the ten condemments and all the rules he has set for us, if as you said he is from another universe then whatever he said is made up and fake. If he is from our universe than you will need to either proof what is before him or that he does not exist and science has taken us up to the point. Look forwards to hearing from you again comrade.
God is real

Hello, it is a very nice day for a debate. You have posted several interesting arguments against the existence of God, and I will now respond to each of them in turn. You Said: "Now god, what is god? Which god are you talking about? during what context are you reffering god to?" My Reply: By God, I refer to a Being that is fully responsible for all of what we humans would call existence. I am talking about any and every version of God, as I believe they are all one and the same. You Said: "My main problem with god is this, where is the proof? Many people search their whole lives to see him but they die trying, massive gathering to meet god has failed with no god coming down." My Reply: I agree that there is no "empirical" proof for the existence of God. That does not necessarily mean that God does not exist. What constantly convinces me of God's existence is His undeniable role in shaping my life for the better( since you do not believe He is there, you wouldn't be interested in that) You Said: "And if you decide to ask me, where did that anomaly come from, all i can say is that in the vast time of emptiness this was bound to happen sometime." My Reply: I actually think that the Big Bang is a pretty logical theory. However, I don't agree that we have enough proof to rely on it. In my opinion, humankind is not nearly advanced enough to presume to know how the cosmos originated. I don't care how many scientists theorize otherwise. You Said: "But if you do not agree with that and persists that something HAD to be before that then i will simply ask you the question that no one is able to yet answer, what was before god?" My Reply: There is actually an easy answer for that; God exists outside of time. All of what we call dimensions(space, time etc...) were created by God for reasons unfathomable. This concept is nearly impossible for us humans to comprehend, as we are defined by the dimensions and can't exist in any other way.
God is real

Hello comrade a nice day to debate, Now god, what is god? Which god are you talking about? during what context are you reffering god to? My main problem with god is this, where is the proof? Many people search their whole lives to see him but they die trying, massive gathering to meet god has failed with no god comming down. Now i can guess you will start asking well where did you come from? which will eventually evolve into where did the earth come from? ending with where did the big bang come from? my answer to you is that is big bang was an anomoly, it was a tear in our universe thus gving it density which as Mr Hawkings has said is anti matter, thus it can also be seen as anti energy. The gravity was so big that to balance our original neutral universe massive amounts of the energy must be emmitted. So in math it can be seen like this, 5=5, -10000=-10000 or 5000=5000, when canceled out it is all zero. In the end it can all be put back to the original sate of nothing. And if you decide to ask me, where did that anomely come from, all i can say is that in the vast time of emptiness this was bound to happen sometime. But if you do not agree with that and persists that something HAD to be before that then i will simply ask you the question that no one is able to yet answer, what was before god? So i hope i see your reply soon comrade,
Convicted felons should be barred from gun ownership in the United States

My opponent has implied that this gun control law would be ineffective. The truth is, laws are only as such. The effects of a law are not to put an end to something entirely, but lower the chances of the problem continuing. Laws, while they may not magically prevent something, provide a consequence for a person who violates them. While what my opponent is saying is true, I remind my opponent that the gun law has significantly decreased the violence since the Brady Law was signed. While a person with a clean record may purchase guns and sell them illegally, the gun law would make it more of a challenge than before. And, if the person is caught selling guns illegally, he or she could be prosecuted. I will clarify what I was talking about regarding felons. By felon, I was really implying those of which have a history of using guns against people, so I apologize if I used the wrong words. Prohibiting guns from convicted abusers nationwide would be a solution to my opponent's concern. However, even if gun laws are left to the states, prohibiting the sale of guns to known offenders would still lessen the problem of gun violence. I restate that laws are meant to lower the problem, not necessarily abolish it entirely, as this would be impossible. The logic to having the gun law would be, if someone can't be trusted with guns, why should they be trusted to use guns for only protective reasons? The problem with guaranteeing full gun rights for safety/hunting reasons is that they are not always used for such. Furthermore, the type of gun is important because if one is capable of committing murder with a handgun, then such will be the same with any gun. All gun types should be restricted for this. Even with the difficulty of bringing and hiding different firearms in banks, there are still many ways to use other guns for harming people. For example, shooting a person across the street with a different gun could happen. All gun types should be restricted from known abusers, in order to ensure that the person has the lowest chance of killing someone with a gun. Again, I apologize for my misuse of wording. By felon, I imply anyone who has misused guns for reasons other than safety/hunting.
Convicted felons should be barred from gun ownership in the United States

First, stopping these violent criminals from legally owning guns hardly stops them from owning guns. 55% of those arrested for gun-related homicides said they could easily obtain a gun illegally. 25% of high school children said they could buy a gun for less than $50.[1] All that laws 'controlling' the sale of guns do is force potential killers to purchase their guns illegally. Rather than stopping the firearms that go into the hands of criminals, these laws simply make it so that we can no longer monitor them. Second, my opponent's resolution draws the distinction at gun ownership at felony. I find this to be a common problem with the United States justice system. Being designated a felon means absolutely nothing except that one has committed a crime. The severity of a crime necessary to classify it as a felony (as opposed to a misdemeanor) varies greatly from state to state. Oftentimes the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is arbitrary, such that one who steals a $249 TV has no penalty incurred whereas one who steals a $250 TV is barred from owning any guns. Banning convicted felons from owning guns simply reifies this arbitrary distinction. Consider this also: I could commit a crime in Alabame and be banned from owning guns, but commit the same crime in Mississippi without such consequence because the crimes considered felonies vary between states. Third, such a law would limit felons in many ways. They could no longer hunt or use guns for self-defense. One might argue that this is a sacrifice a felon makes upon committing a felony, but why? Why is it necessary to implement a total ban on guns? 11,198 of all 13,673 murders committed with a firearm are committed with a handgun, a staggering 82%. If some sort of ban is necessary, I would suggest that we only bar felons from owning handguns. This would prevent a large majority of murders, while still allowing felons the liberty of owning a gun, such as a rifle, for self-defense or leisure use. You can't easily hide a rifle in your pocket to rob a bank. Fourth, the purpose of the law my opponent proposes is to keep guns out of the hands of those who might do violence with them. Why, then, does this resolution specifically target felons? A far better solution would be to bar those who commit violent or gun-related crimes (whether felon or misdemeanant) from owning guns, while allowing all other felons (such as white-collar criminals or perjurers) to retain their liberty, as limiting their freedom accomplishes nothing productive. With that, I turn the floor over to PRO. [1] http://www.pbs.org... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.pbs.org...
Convicted felons should be barred from gun ownership in the United States

==OPENING STATEMENTS== The issue this debate brings up covers the question of gun ownership. Should we legislate to restrict Second Amendment privileges from convicted felons? I will begin my argument by defining words, after which, I will present my contentions. ==DEFINITIONS== Privilege: a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all (1) Weapon: any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting (2) ==ARGUMENT== Gun ownership being guaranteed as a right to all Americans would provoke more violence and more fear. The form of gun control which I am defending today is one of the safest measures we as a country can take. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was signed into law. This bill was designed to implement a background check process in order to help ensure that the person in question was clear of foul play or other felonies, which would make him or her seem potentially dangerous to society. If a person was found to have had a confirmed history of foul play involving weapons, he or she would be denied the privilege to own a firearm. Since the time this law was signed, there has been a significant drop in gun violence in the United States. (3) Because of this fact, it is plain to see how imposing this form of gun control has been effective is keeping people safer. I conclude my start of round one. ==SOURCES== (1) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (2) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (3) http://www.americanthinker.com...
Convicted felons should be barred from gun ownership in the United States

::Effectieness:: My opponent simply claims that, because they are correlated, there must be a causal relationship. He has ignored ALL of my main arguments. 1. There are other possible causes of reduced gun violence, such as reduced gun-ownership of nonfelons. 2. This was a study, not an experiment. There is no way to determine that the Brady law is the best possible option. 3. The drop that PRO refers to started PRIOR to the Brady Law. This would clearly suggest that Brady wasn't the cause. ::Felony:: I think PRO has misunderstood my argument here. My argument in this point is not that punishing felons won't effectively catch all dangerous gun-owners (I make that argument in the 4th point; why would I make it here? ) My point is that the binary classification of misdemeanor/felony arbitrarily punishes criminals in different states without reason, and that this system should be done away with (as it has been in New York. ) PRO hasn't responded to this argument, he's made a rebuttal to a point that I made later on, while not giving any response to this point. This is the second argument that he's dropped. If you haven't already voted CON off of these first two points, though, you can keep reading. ::Total Ban:: "'The DC Sniper' used a rifle to murder a number of people. " Snipers, though deadly, aren't all that common. As I referenced above, 80% of all gun violence is done with handguns alone. PRO has provided an example of one killer (of the over 110,000 gun deaths this decade) to support his point. ::Misdemeanants:: Um, PRO didn't even try to address this section. I'm not sure how he plans to win when he doesn't address my main argument. That would make 3/4 arguments effectively dropped by PRO.