BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Choose

Ok...then.... Reasons why Obama should not bleach his skin white, in order to get votes in the election: 1. Suggests that he is shameful of his race, therefore will lose a large majority of black supporters, as well as white Presidents and anyone for that matter, should be proud of their skin color. The president separating himself from his fellow African Americans would estrange them from him. Democrats get a vast majority of the black vote. Obama received an astounding 95% of the African American vote last election. [1] Estranging himself from the black community would be one of the stupidest and ilogical decisions he could make. African Americans are very proud that their president is black, and they should be. How would they react if Obama acted in a way that suggested he was not proud of being black? Politicians have to be very careful in the way they act and this would be a contender for the most reckless and loose thing an American president has done. 2. Puts a negative light on the way foreign countries look at America America, the nation who finally elected a black president, unfortunately he couldn't stay white. Yes the whole world would be squenching their eyebrows and scratching their head at the thought of the most powerful man in the world attempting to garner more election points by actually changing his skin color in the same fashion of a late pop idol. Getting the amount of states wrong in your own country is bad enough...but this? 3. Craziness of the idea would initiate a negative light on the way people think of him What are all the crazy things Obama has done? All of them set a negative light on him, and none of them would have as much of an impact as this would on the way people think of him. The president of the United States, often considered the most powerful position in the world, walking in the foot-steps of Michael Jackson and bleaching his skin white is indeed a crazy proposition and would only cause citizens, as well as government officials, and the rest of the world for that matter, to look on in disapproval. He'd probably use the tax-payers money too. 4. Being black is an advantage. Why take it away? President Obama will stand out for the rest of history as the first black president of the United States. It is a landmark, and a positive landmark. Whether you're liberal or conservative you'll agree. Many people are proud that we have a black president. Thus Obama is unique, and in a very good way. Taking away this advantage is nothing short of sillyness.______________________Thus, as the purposed tactic in gaining more election votes is an unsound one, the resolution has been afirmed. (That Obama should not bleach his skin.) I eagerly await cons response. [1] http://www.askkids.com...
Abortion

My response this round will be concise, though I will elaborate in further rounds if needed. Furthermore, I accept my opponent's definition of abortion - which probably was copy pasted from Wikipedia (you should cite that next time). Simply put, the reason why abortin is justified is because a fetus is not a human person -- it may be a human being, which is the biological definition, but it is not a human person, a philosophical definition. I will argue that a person must have a set of psychological characteristics to be one, such as consciousness, ability to communicate, rationality, etc. I will explain in further detail what my criteria consists of and why it's justified. Until then, I want to at least hear my opponent's defense of abolishing abortion.
We are all selfish

Everyone's different. You can't put everyone in the same box and you can't speak for everyone. There are people (such as myself) who would rather give than receive. Although it's nice to receive -- I, Nor some other people don't expect anything in return. I know many people like this. When I do something for my friends, I do it out of the kindness of my heart, Not to get something right back. I'm not the type to say "Well I did this for you so you need to do this. " It's good to give to others but you have to make sure you are good yourself. If you give too much into others and forget about yourself, That's not good. Because at the end of the day, You come first. Selfless. I take it that you think being selfless is wrong. It's good to give to others, And you deserve gratification from it. Gratification can simply be just feeling good afterwards. If one does a selfless act and feels gratification from it, How does that make them selfish? You did say "might not realize". This goes into the saying "What goes around comes around" When you do good to people, Good things happen to you. When you do bad things to people, Bad things happen to you. Parent. This doesn't even belong in this debate. It's a parent's job to take care of their children, They are supposed to be selfless. In my opinion, A child shouldn't even have to say thank you to the parent because that's the parent's job, It doesn't deserve a thank you. My parents once told me I don't have to thank them. Of course, This doesn't mean that the child should act like they are not thankful by disobeying the parent and things of that nature. By raising a child correctly and teaching them respect -- that's gratification enough to the parent. Back to the 'selfish' aspect, The parent shouldn't expect anything from the child as far as exchange. Would you mind elaborating what the exchange would be that the parent receives? "No matter what you do for others, There is something you are getting out of it. "Is that a bad thing? What if the person deserves it? For example, Jane does something good for Bill. Time passes. Bill decides to do something good for Jane back, Since she has done something good for him and she deserves it. Jane never asked Bill for anything though, Being the type of person Jane is -- she doesn't expect anything in return. Selfish. Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. Yes selfishness is bad. There's no such thing is good selfishness. Explain what good selfishness is since you brought it up. What is "everything else"?
We are all selfish

We are all selfish, Even when we are being "selfless". Because even when we are doing things that are selfless, We might not realize it but it gratifies us in some way or another. When a parent does something for their kids, It"s because the kid fulfills a sense of purpose for the parent. That is what the parent gets from the exchange. No matter what you do for others, There is something you are getting out of it whether it"s material or it"s fulfilling some emotional need. So the question then, As I see it, Is this: is selfishness bad then? I can"t give you a straight yes or no on this but rather a nuanced view. There is good selfishness and there is bad selfishness. Bad selfishness is when it comes at the expense of others. And good selfishness is everything else.
Chat speak is detrimental to your spelling skills.

You said: "The plain truth of the situation is that spelling is not only the memorization of a word, but a cognitive thinking process involving Phonetics and intuitiveness. Take a spelling bee." There is a difference between working out the spelling of a word based on contextual clues in a spelling bee as an intellectual exercise and knowing the correct spelling of a word for everyday use. Spelling is a largely practical skill, not an intellectual one, and for nearly all intents and purposes, I believe we can treat spelling as a practical skill, and not an intellectual exercise. You said: "But I have to say and Im sure you agree that Intelligent people DO use chatspeak." I do agree that intelligent people use chatspeak, because I said that the majority of people use chatspeak. I don't, however, see how this is relevant, since my arguments deal with the majority of the population, and primarily NOT with highly intelligent individuals. As far as the availability of a spell-checker on IM programs, it may now be more convenient to check spelling, but there is no automated process that will point out to the user an incorrect spelling, and there is still very little motivation in the context of a typical IM conversation in which an average American would partake to identify the correct spelling of a word. Therefore, there is still a danger of associating misspellings with words, because of the nature of an IM conversation. Chatspeak plays into this aspect of an IM conversation because it adds to the idea that it is not important to be "proper" when instant messaging, which includes abbreviating phrases using chatspeak, AND not worrying about the spelling of words.
Chat speak is detrimental to your spelling skills.

I just want to start off by dissecting your second part. You, (and I quote) said "The way words are spelled in the English language is largely a combination of often contradictory rules, and learning how to spell a particular word is almost always simply a matter of memorizing that spelling, however random it might be. That does not require intelligence, but rather the motivation to simply learn the spelling of the word." The plain truth of the situation is that spelling is not only the memorization of a word, but a cognitive thinking process involving Phonetics and intuitiveness. Take a spelling bee. If you are given the word, say ephemeral, and you werent sure whether it was an FF or a PH, you would ask for the origin of the word. The speaker would have said the word is from Greek, and you would immediately know that it was PH, becuase the greek language doesnt use the letter F. This is a mental process and something that is not merely the "Memerization" of a word. I know we are talking about the internet, and not a spelling bee, but I am only citing an example. You said that "Nearly everyone uses chatspeak, not only intelligent people." I agree with you on that. But I have to say and Im sure you agree that Intelligent people DO use chatspeak. I want to direct your attention to the fact that people come from all over the world to be students and work at what other countries call the "Place to learn:" America. Americans may have a few minorities that are not as smart as the rest, but overall, America is a very smart place. I will also agree that when writing an IM, you do not have as much motivation to check your spelling. There is, however, a choice now. If you look at an IM on today's IM screens, you will see a box that says ABC. This is a Spell Check box, showing the consideration of computer software creators today. You will proably find alot of things to pick up on, but I feel this is a conclusive debate statement that echoes my sentiment toward this topic quite nicely.
Chat speak is detrimental to your spelling skills.

Alright, a couple of things: 1. I will agree that most frequent web users - the kind that frequent sites like this one - are also frequent IM users, but that does not mean that all (or even most) frequent IM users are the kind of people who do things like write articles on correct spelling. Many, many Americans (particularly young Americans) use IM as their primary form of communication with their friends, regardless of their other web habits. 2. You said: "Americans are smart, as you know, and know how to read and write." I'd like to first point out that having good spelling skills has little to do with native intelligence. The way words are spelled in the English language is largely a combination of often contradictory rules, and learning how to spell a particular word is almost always simply a matter of memorizing that spelling, however random it might be. That does not require intelligence, but rather the motivation to simply learn the spelling of the word. My argument is that the average IM user does not have that motivation, and the setting of an IM window is not conducive to creating that motivation. 3. You said: "People who use chatspeak are usually smart, as well, and know what they are doing." This I will whole-heartedly disagree with. Chatspeak is part of the American lexicon regardless of the level of intelligence of the person using it - I doubt you could walk down the street and find more than one or two young people who couldn't tell you what "brb" meant, and not all of the people who could would be exceedingly smart. Nearly everyone uses chatspeak, not only intelligent people. 4. You seem to be under the impression that Americans as a group are smart. Unless we're comparing Americans to other first-world nations (which I don't think would be the best idea, because it would probably be detrimental to your argument,) there's no way Americans as a whole can be smart. Every group of people has to have a gradient of intelligence, making some individuals "intelligent," some "average," and some below average.
Chat speak is detrimental to your spelling skills.

Hello, KevinL75. I have a few points to make as well. I did spell "Detrimental" correct the second time I wrote it, lower in the passage. I also want to point out that most of the users of IM vary in their use of chatspeak, as you mentioned, but most of the people that use IM are students much like myself. They are also frequent web users. These chat speakers and web users post pages and write articles about the correct way to spell and the correct way to write. America is slowly emerging from a deep freeze of internet dictionary and internet encyclopedia use because they finally realize that most of the imformation on these sites is not right. Americans are smart, as you know, and know how to read and write. They will not fall ill to bad chat speak spelling becuase they are smart. Simple as that. People who use chatspeak are usually smart, as well, and know what they are doing. In fact, chat speak is becoming more and more obsolete. I am one of the people that likes to write everything out, in case of reading it back or sending it on. It also makes me feel better about my personal spelling skills. I trust that you are a qualified debater and I will learn alot.
Chat speak is detrimental to your spelling skills.

1. I couldn't help but notice the use of the misspelled word "deprimental" in your original argument. 2. I do not accept the premise that you are an accurate cross-section of typical individuals who use "chatspeak" in their IM conversations. I doubt anyone who voluntarily comes to an internet debating site to debate could be described as typical. 3. As far as the relationship between speaking in IM and a negative effect on spelling, I propose this causation: Since IM windows are rarely if ever equipped with a spell-checking mechanism, and the nature of an IM conversation is to generally ignore things like spelling and not point out misspellings unless they detract from the meaning of something that's said, IM users do not have an incentive to spell things correctly. If one is in doubt of the spelling of a word, an IM conversation does not encourage that person to check the spelling, and he or she will most likely spell that word incorrectly. Because he or she spells this word incorrectly in IM, that spelling will become mentally associated with that word, and the misspelling will stick. In other words, the environment of instant messaging creates a situation in which words can be easily associated with misspellings without the user noticing.
Chat speak is detrimental to your spelling skills.

Hello, Logical. I am a frequent user on this website and felt that It was time I stepped up my game and debated a true debater. I would like to debate with you the fact that "chat speak" is not deprimental to your future spelling skills. I have been using IM for years, and I have been the spelling bee chapion ofr my school last year and i have been very good at spelling for a very long time. This might be a factor of an intelligence level, but I just dont think that it can be detrimental. there were 34,100,691 IM's sent last hour. This is how big the magnitude of IM's sent are. Do we see a nationwide Spelling pandemic? I think not.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson should not be honored due to their acts against humanity.

Thank you for continuing this debate. You never addressed my "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have built America to what it is today" argument, you primarily attack my "Both Washington and Jefferson changed their views on slavery and wanted it abolished". Both Washington and Jefferson changed their views on slavery and wanted it abolished continued: For Washington, you fail to realize that Washington was by law not allowed to free his slaves. "Of the 318 slaves at Mount Vernon in 1799, 123 of the individuals were owned by George Washington and were eligible to be freed as per the terms of the will. However, these conditions did not apply to all slaves at Mount Vernon. By law, neither George nor Martha Washington could free the Custis dower slaves." The only defense I have for Jefferson however is the fact that he and Washington both fought against slavery, he ironically kept his slaves. Slavery became less acceptable as time went on obviously. Both men have taken steps to reduce the suffering slavery has started. Conclusion: My argument stays the same, both men have fought against slavery, created a strong country, etc. These men have both done bad and good things, however the good outweighs the bad by far. We now have a country that is strong, citizens have the right to free speech, arms, etc. Sources: http://www.mountvernon.org...
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson should not be honored due to their acts against humanity.

Actions speak louder than words. By the time of Washington's death over 300 slaves lived on his estate , 123 personally belonging to Washington him self. He spoke about wanting to end slavery yet continued to own and profit off of slave labor his entire life. How can one say Washington changed his views on slavery when he failed change his actions and free his own slaves? Thomas Jefferson also died owning slaves. How are we to seriously believe his views on slavory had changed when he continues to profit from the practice up until his death also? Jefferson raped several of his slaves some ending up having his children. It is common practice to excuse the monstrous acts of American slave owners of the past claiming "it was acceptable at the time". Many people morally opposed to slavory at those times refused to precipitate in the horrendous acts of slavery. Millions of enslaved people were opposed to their enslavement. I ask when one says slavery was an acceptable practice in those times, who are you referring it was acceptable to, the people profiting from it? Hitler committed many unthinkable acts against humanity many of which were legal none of which are acceptable simply due to them being legal. The right to not be enslaved is a basic human right that transcends time. It was never okay to own another human being forcing them into slave labor and other unthinkable acts of violence. Just because it was once legal does not make it okay and those who envolved should be heald accountable. A man should be judged by the content oh his character and a man who owns and tortures other humans is not someone who should be honored. As American we should learn about these men and the things they have done good and bad but due to their horrendous acts against humanity they have no place being honored in modern society
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson should not be honored due to their acts against humanity.

I accept. We can all look back on history and see many things done in certain time periods were humanely wrong and left many to suffer for some to succeed. I will explain why Thomas Jefferson and George Washington should be honored, and why their "Acts against humanity" are far more outweighed by what they have done as people. Both Washington and Jefferson changed their views on slavery and wanted it abolished: At a young age, both Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves. Both men saw this as natural and normal at their time, however they ultimately began to realize how morally wrong slavery was over time, and wanted it abolished. They were born into a mistake and learned from it, these men have both fought for the abolition of slavery. "There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." -Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper "I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery." -George Washington You should have came into this debate at least knowing that considering Jefferson and Washington are who you're attacking. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have built America to what it is today: George Washington helped win a war that seemed unlikely to win, he led an army poorly clothed, poorly trained, and led them to ultimately force the British to leave. He was the United States first president. Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of independence, which made the the eastern north american colonies a country in the first place. He was the United States third president. Conclusion: Both men have changed their views, fought against slavery, led their people to form a strong country, etc. I could list more reasons, yet it would simply be overkill. Overall these men have changed views against slavery and created a country that still endures to this day. These men should always be honored in American history. Good luck. Sources: http://www.poplarforest.org... http://www.mountvernon.org...
If everyone obeyed the laws of the KJV Bible the world would be a much better place

You said: Con The old Testament alone has enough horrible verses to destroy your argument. It condones: Rape, Slavery, Incest, Abortion(oh that's right), Genocide, Racism, And genocide (counts twice) Unless you can answer for these verses, Your argument falls flat on it's face. My response: Do you have any proof to back up your claims?
If everyone obeyed the laws of the KJV Bible the world would be a much better place

People often ridicule the Bible and more often than not it could actually help them in their day to day life. About being humble- 1Peter 5:5 Proverbs 29-25 Truthful - Ephesians 4:25 Deuteronomy 16:17 Romans 8:2 Being sincere: Joshua 24:14 Being Tolerant- 1 Thessalonians 5:14 Ect If anyone thinks that it could be detrimental to our society please accept the debate.