BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Anchor baby" term too misleading and insulting to use

The term "anchor baby" is misleading, insulting, and should not be used. Politicians and political commentators routinely use this word without defining it. In context, it can mean various things, including "first generation citizen", "any child of an immigrant", "any child of an undocumented immigrant", "citizen child of an undocumented immigrant". Therefore, it's misleading. It is insulting, because it is referring to a "baby" - an infant or young child - which did not choose the conditions of it's birth. Further, it is implying that that these children are born inferior to others. It should not be used for those reasons, possibly among others. For a definition of "anchor baby", since it should not be used, I will argue there is a lack of any standard definition. However, should a definition be required, I propose Oxford dictionary: "Used to refer to a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country which has birthright citizenship, especially when viewed as providing an advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal residency." Alternate definitions, especially if supported by actual usage, are welcome. I define "too [be used]" as meaning that it is meant to create it's own meaning, rather than convey objective meaning. In other words, the primary purpose of the choice in words is to create a plea to emotion. Obviously, any word of phrase that exists "can be used", and I won't debate otherwise. Pro is agreement that the word is excessively misleading or insulting to be used in absence of a plea to emotion. Con is that it is not misleading or insulting, and it's use is appropriate. Note: This is my first debate proposal.
Jocks Rule, All other groups of people are just wimps

"I'm just stating the fact that of all the groups in high school, Jocks were the best. " WERE being the operative word. "of all the groups in high school, Jocks were the best" WERE again. Thank you for acknowledging that all this best was in the past. I guess maybe the jocks are the best at something. Shower room hazing: https://abcnews. Go. Com/US/alleged-hazing-attack-high-school-football-team-caught/story? Id=54922062. Https://www. Google. Com/amp/s/idahostatejournal. Com/news/local/hazing-allegations-federal-investigation-underway-into-incidents-involving-high-school/article_3c853e01-a0c7-569f-9ffe-83b927a44141. Amp. Html. Https://www. Google. Com/amp/amp. Abc15. Com/2589003487/hamilton-high-school-hazing-case-lawsuit-filed-against-school-staff-members. Html. Https://www. Google. Com/amp/www. Capitalgazette. Com/news/schools/ac-cn-kent-island-hazing-20180530-story, Amp. Html. Https://www. Google. Com/amp/s/fox13now. Com/2018/01/24/police-investigating-alleged-hazing-incident-at-delta-high-school/amp/. Https://www. Good4utah. Com/news/local-news/high-school-student-faces-felony-accusations-after-hazing-turns-sexual-police-say/258544671. So go back to your shower room and show us what jocks rule.
Jocks Rule, All other groups of people are just wimps

Who said I loved high school? I hated high school, I just happen to play sports, But I hated all the cliques in high school. I'm just stating the fact that of all the groups in high school, Jocks were the best. You are just bitter because you got bullied by jocks because of your wimpy stature and being a nerd, So you were an easy target and that is why you resent jocks. And sure you can say you hate jocks and they are douchebags but in the end you will always be that nerd IT guy with the pocket protector even in the working world, While I will be in top physical shape as I focused on sports in school and so I guess I qualify as a jock. Physical prowess does not fade with age, Arnold Sewazenegger would still kick your azz at 78, And your mental state can fade with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurological diseases. Lets face it a nerd is always a nerd for life, You will always be that shy, Timid, Behind the scenes nipple that is socially awkward but can fix any computer and software issue. Those type of people are still required in the back room dungeon server area. Don't worry I respect the fact you ply D&D on Friday nights and LARP on the weekends and still love wearing your Iron Man pj's to bed. That's the future of the nerd from high school.
Jocks Rule, All other groups of people are just wimps

What does a former jock call a nerd? Boss. Most nerds leave high school behind them. 12 years later they are not bragging how in high school they had good grades. If the best time in their life was in high school, Now that's sad. You can put away your high school letterman jacket away this winter and start living life as if the best days are ahead of you. Physical prowess fades with age, Knowledge increases. A former jock can know with age that each passing day they will be slightly worse at the sport they practice, While a nerd can rest assured that each day they are smarter than the day before.
Jocks Rule, All other groups of people are just wimps

I appreciate you taking the time to debate this, So lets continue with round #2 of me proving I'm better than you. First of all I sense a form of jealousness at the fact that you were just a nerdy kid in high school who couldn't get a date because you couldn't even do 10 pushups. While I would have been running circles around you. Now you are all grown up as a staunch Christian and you believe in fairness in people, Unfortunately that's not how the world revolves. I can run a mile in under 7 minutes at 27, Can you? I can play any sport at a high competitive level. Can you? Obviously not because you were always useless at sports with two left feet, But now at your age you are just a washed up wannabe athlete with the big gut. I would destroy you at any sport competition as I have played sports my whole life, While you were in the library playing Oregon Trail on your lunch hour in high school. Jocks rule because they are physically fit, Talented and eventually they have kids who will become jocks like them. While the rest of society just looks at jocks with bewilderment, Amazement and jealousy, And this can all be proven by the fact that jocks who become pro athletes make millions because all other groups in society will pay thousands of dollars to see them play and buy their merchandise. Because people love jocks deep down but also hate them because they could not be like them because of lack of dedication, Hard work and talent. Therefore jocks are the best people and most talented. Now prove to me how you think jocks aren't the best? I'm all ears mic drop
Jocks Rule, All other groups of people are just wimps

Jocks Rule, They are physically more superior, They get all the cheerleaders and girls, They are the coolest in school and they are just the best Now lets look at the other groups and see why they are inferior to the jocks. Goths - Bunch of freaks who wear makeup and obsess about death and misery, And are a bunch of freaks with blue hair and piercings everywhere and their stomping boots, And they are always angry because the rest of the world doesn't get them or why the fvck you need blue or purple hair and a giant hole in your ear and tongue piercing WTF Nerds - These dweebs some day will be successful as IT people but in the mean time they are more comfortable making out with their hard drive than a girl. They are timid, Shy and just all around dorky. Nobody cares about the elements table or hypotenuse theory. Go back to the chess club or the math club Greasers - The greasers know everything about your car and how to fix it group of leather jacket and mullet wearing individuals are great on working on vehicles and repairs and can tell you about 1000 different carburetors and exhausts but have two left feet when it comes to any type of sports or physical activity and generally only can talk shop and have no other knowledge. Preps - These fashion style drama queens all focus on designer wear and their appearance but are completely useless when it coms to any type of intelligent conversation unless it involves news about Calvin Klein and Louis Vuitton. The Jocks are the best group of highly talented, Physically fit and best group of people in the school scene, All others are just degenerate losers Prove me wrong
The earth is at least one million years old

Thanks for accepting, 16kadams.There is a lot of evidence for an old Earth. I'll put some of them here.Radiometric DatingRadiometric dating has found rocks that are from about 3.8 billion years old on Earth. [1] Thus, we can know that our Earth is at least that old. However, it can only be true if the decay rate is constant. The decay rates are constant. [2,3]In fact, the only changes in decay rates are small and in isotopes not used for the type of radiometric dating my source is talking about. [2,3]Other Evidence Stalactites take extremely lengthy periods to form; the average growth rate is not much more than 0.1 mm per year (10 centimetres (4 inches!) per thousand years). With such a slow rate of formation, if the earth was less than ten thousand years old we would expect to see the largest stalactites being not much longer than one metre. [4][1]http://talkorigins.org...[2]ibid.[3]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.[4]http://rationalwiki.org...
Compatibilism

A note to those reading, this is an exercise of study for me. Much of my case and arguments will not be of my own making. I apologize for the large amount of this that will undoubtedly be quotes. Before I present my case against compatibilism, it seems prudent to frame this debate. By compatibilism is meant “The View that free will is compatible with determinism. ” (1) This is important to remember as this debate is not about whether “free will” is real or an illusion. Likewise, it is not about whether determinism is a correct worldview. Rather, it is if these two principles are compatible. In order to demonstrate these principles compatible or incompatible, it is important to have a basic understanding of both principles. Determinism: “A common characterization of determinism states that every event (except the first, if there is one) is causally necessitated by antecedent events…… that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. (2) Free Will: “For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have been hunting for is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct. ” (2) My Case: There are two main arguments used to illustrate the incompatibility of determinism and free will. 1: Determinism makes it impossible for us to “cause and control our actions in the right kind of way. ”(3) “Moral responsibility requires autonomy or self-determination: that our actions are caused and controlled by, and only by, our selves. To use a slogan popular in the literature: We act freely and are morally responsible only if we are the ultimate source of our actions. ” (3) The acceptance of determinism eliminates this kind autonomy. This is because acceptance of determinism accepts that we are not the ultimate source of our actions and that every event is “necessitated by antecedent events. ” (2) If we are not the Ultimate source of our actions we are not acting freely. 2: “Determinism deprives us of the power or ability to do or choose otherwise. ” (3) “determinism entails that what we do is the only thing we can do, and that because of this we never really have a choice about anything. ”(3) It seems reasonable that a person is only acting freely if they could have acted in some other way. To accept determinism is to reject this possibility. Actions are merely the “facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. ”(2) Summary of arguments: It seems clear to me that these two principles of free will and determinism are incompatible. One may subscribe to free will, or determinism, to accept both would be to accept opposing thoughts. This is fickle, and would be inconsistent. Sources: (1) . https://www3.nd.edu... (2) . http://plato.stanford.edu... (3) . http://plato.stanford.edu...
New Member Tournament: Gun Rights Debate

Full Resolution:The benefits of the right to carry (guns) outweigh the harms. Outline of the Debate: *Standard debating rules/ethics will apply, with 72 hours of argumentation where the maximum character limit is 8K, also each debater has 4 rounds to argue then we proceed to voting, where the RFD voting style will take effect and voting will last 2 weeks. R1- Acceptance of Debate/Terms/Definitions R2- Openings R3- Clash R4- Closings Definitions: Benefit/s {1}- something that is advantageous or good; an advantage right to carry (guns) {2}- . .. is the assertion that people have a personal right to firearms for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. outweigh {3}- to exceed in value, importance, influence, etc. harm/s {4}- something that is disadvantageous or bad, a disadvantage. Burden of Proof: PRO will argue that the benefits of said right outweigh the harms. CON will argue that the harms of said right outweigh the benefits. Notes: {1} . http://bitURL.net... {2} . http://bitURL.net... {3} . http://bitURL.net...
Abortion is wrong

Ok, I will assume you are taking the stance the only good reasons to have an abortion, are only when the mother's life is at risk, or if the child was conceived in rape or incest. If this is wrong please correct me. I first like to start out by discussing whether or not the baby inside the womb is human. I start with this because if it is not, my whole argument would fall apart. Human beings have rights, specifically the right to life, so if it's not human, it doesn't have that right and we could justify killing it. Scientifically, we have proven that the fetus from the moment of conception, is in fact human. This is because at the precise moment when the sperm meets the egg, the living organism now has all 46 chromosomes needed to be classified as a homo sapien sapien (human). Secondly, at that same moment, the fetus now has a complete set of DNA that is 100% unique and different from every other human on the planet. So this means the baby is not the mother's body, but rather its own separate person and has its own rights. Now to tackle directly the issue of abortion in cases of rape. If I had a toddler in front of me who was conceived in rape, does anyone have the right to end his life due to the fact his mom remembers the rape when she sees him? We say no to this situation because the toddler is already born and sub-consciously, in our minds, we give him more value than a child in the womb. Yet there is no significant difference between a child in the womb and a newborn out of the womb. There is only a difference of abilities that have yet to be developed. For example, the ability to think and be self-aware. This is an ability developed through time just like the ability to reproduce develops through time in a little girl. But if you say that the fetus is not as valuable due to its lack of development, you say that the 6 year-old girl is less valuable than the 14 year-old girl due to her lack of development. There is no good justification to end a human life- one that was conceived in rape or not- even if that means the mother will have to go through therapy or something else to help relinquish the memory of the rape. In a nutshell, keeping a human being alive is more important than a human being's feelings or emotions, no matter how difficult the emotions may be. And suppose the mother realizes what happens when she has an abortion? What will happen to her conscience when she realizes that the baby inside of her has been torn to shreds inside of her? How will she handle knowing she may have just ended the life of a boy or girl she could have watched grown up and play baseball or soccer? How much worse would it be for the mother to deal with a murder and a rape?
Abortion is wrong

Pro states Abortion is wrong in all cases with the only exception being “when the mother’s life is in danger”. I agree, this is a solid reason for an abortion, however, it is too restrictive. In cases of rape or incest abortion should be allowed. To force a woman to carry a rapist or family member‘s unwanted baby in her body for 8-10 months might be construed as a form of mental torture. I look forward to Pro's argument and rebuttal.
torture is often justified

Michael Dunn commited murder over musical taste. The family of the victim would be well justified to expose him to that very same music during the trail, to throw him again into a murderous rage. Him trying to kill again in trail would prove to everyone what a danger he is, thus keep people safe from next time he decides to wage a one man war for musical snobbery. Further life in prison is torture instead of killing someone, yet it is often the humane option of choice. Our prison systems in fact are basically to torture people into not doing it again (rehabilitation would be a better system, but the current one is better than just putting them down like animals guilty of the same crimes).
Allowing gay marriage increases deadly std rates among gay men

It's unfortunate that Pro didn't cite a link to the actual study in question. I tried to find it, but could only find articles referencing the study without giving many details. It would be interesting to see what the actual study found. All the study seems to show (along with the majority of Pro's irrelevant sources) is that people in committed relationships are more likely to have unprotected sex, and that unprotected sex increases the risk of contracting STDs. Nothing groundbreaking there. The study followed 122 men, an extremely small sample size for a scientific study. Presumably, some of these men would form the control group (not in a committed relationship), and the rest would form the experimental group (in a committed relationship). How many men were in each group is not mentioned. Whether or not the men in the experimental group were in committed relationships throughout the duration of the experiment is not mentioned. Whether the STDs noted in the experimental group were acquired while in the relationship or simply discovered while in the relationship is not mentioned. As I mentioned, it would be interesting to see what the study actually found. Interesting, but not particularly helpful or relevant to Pro's argument. The resolution on the table is not that homosexual men in committed relationships have higher rates of STDs than homosexual men not in committed relationships. The resolution is that allowing same-sex marriage would increase the rate of STDs among homosexual men. Pro has not even begun to address the resolution on the table, instead arguing something completely different. Most people who get married, homosexual or not, are already in committed relationships. Those few who are not in committed relationships who get married on a whim are still not in committed relationships after acquiring a marriage licence. Therefore, allowing same sex marriage would not increase the number of homosexual men in committed relationships. So, even if homosexual men in committed relationships were 100 times more likely to acquire an STD than those not in committed relationships, allowing same-sex marriage would have no effect on the number of homosexual men who contract STDs. Pro has not met the burden of proof. Pro's sources are not relevant to the argument as not a single one of them supports the resolution nor has anything to do with same-sex marriage.
Allowing gay marriage increases deadly std rates among gay men

Gay marriage influences unsafe sex but it does not guarantee loyalty among a group that is already heavily infected Unprotected Sex More Likely In Serious Gay Relationships Study shows new prevention efforts need to address young gay couples June 1, 2011 | by Marla Paul CHICAGO --- Gay young men in serious relationships are six times more likely to have unprotected sex than those who hook up with casual partners, according to new Northwestern Medicine research. Gays rush to get married http://m.scmp.com... But there's no evidence showing that gays rush to get tested for stds as they rush to get married. Rise in Unprotected Sex by Gay Men Spurs H.I.V. Fears http://mobile.nytimes.com...= Study shows the majority of HIV infections among gays happen in committed relationships." Guess what? Committed relationships includes gay marriages. Here's a quote from the study. "You can copy and paste this "quote and Google it "The researchers noted that gay men account for nearly 70 percent of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses among adolescents and young adults in the United States. A recent study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also found that the majority of new HIV infections occur within committed relationships" http://health.usnews.com... Unprotected sex spurs hiv rates among gay men http://mobile.nytimes.com...; Gays in serious relationships are more likely to practice unsafe sex. http://www.sciencedaily.com...; Unprotected sex rising among gay men since 2005 http://www.hivandhepatitis.com... Gays in serious relationships 8 times more likely to practice unsafe sex http://mobile.aidsmap.com... In conclusion, 1. I proved that gay marriage influences unsafe sex 2. I proved that unsafe sex increases std risks 3. Since get marriage influences unsafe sex and unsafe sex increases std risks , gay marriage has to increase std risks 4. I quoted and Linked studies showing that the majority of HIV infections are happening among gay, serious relationships I. Which obviously includes gay marriages.
Allowing gay marriage increases deadly std rates among gay men

Go ahead, state your case. The burden of proof is solely yours. Since you have not provided any definitions, I'll do so now.Deadly: Causing or able to cause death [1]STD/STI: An infection that can be transferred from one person to another through sexual contact. In this context, sexual contact is more than just sexual intercourse (vaginal and anal) and also includes kissing, oral-genital contact, and the use of sexual "toys," such as vibrators. [2]1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2) http://www.medicinenet.com...
destiny or call of duty bo2

Not Advanced Warfare or Black Ops III against Destiny? That's strange... Anyways, in my opinion, Black Ops II is better. First, it's more realistic than Destiny even when it's set a little far into the future. Second, the graphics are so better. Third, you can't pick what you want to do or don't do in the game that can change the campaign's story, but BO2 can. Fourth, they use real life guns. That's it for now :P