BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate.org should allow swears, personal/opinon attacks, and racial/sexual/religious slurs

1. No use of profanities or swear words. 2. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions. 3. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs. 4. No threats or implications thereof. Everyone one of these rules is justified. Debating is supposed to be a civil, organized arguments between two people of different points of view. It is not supposed to be an online fight. The first rule is obviously justified. Use of swear words and profanity is not encouraged anywhere, and there is a reason why it is considered extremely rude to use this type of language between anyone except close friends and relations. It only highlights the fact that the person lacks a sensible vocabulary, and can find no others words than rude language. The second rule, no personal attacks on a member or a member's opinions, is also easily justified. Why is there a need to attack someone you do not even know? Is it not also considered extremely rude to personally attack someone's views? Besides, if you stoop down to the level where you need to attack your opponent's, it is obvious you can find no other point, and have run out of constructive things to say. This rule ties in with the first. As easily justified as the others. In conclusion, these rules are needed so that the best can come out of each debater in each debate, rather than it falling into an uncivilized, dirty argument. I see no reason why you want these rules taken away from the site.
Debate.org should allow swears, personal/opinon attacks, and racial/sexual/religious slurs

The debate.org terms of service are: 1. No use of profanities or swear words. 2. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions. 3. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs. 4. No threats or implications thereof. I can only see justification for the 4th one. The others I find completely unfounded. If people want to debate using swears and personal attacks they should be able to do so. Not allowing people to use these things in their debates, inhibits their debating style. If someone is truly offended by what someone else has wrote, no one is forcing them to read it.
The USA should ban guns

Summary: --Lotts data John Lott is the founder of the more guns less crime debate in the modern era. His 1997 is the most comprehensive study on the issues on conceal carry. He found large decreases in violent crime with the passage of these laws. The study, however, didn't go without controversy. Many objections where raised about his results. He wrote extensive and comprehensive rebuttals to these points and to most scholars working on the issue is an acceptable reference. Every objection raised was either a lie, ad homeneim, false, or failed to depict a full picture. Many of the objections came from scholars, but the objections where purely political in many cases. The empirical questions where quickly dealt with. Both where refuted. And his overall thesis stands as the most authoritative data on the issue [1]. --Other studies Others have attempted to say Lotts study is unreplicated. This claim is scientific illiteracy. 16 studies replicate his studies, 11 say concesl carry has no effect on crime, 2 show increases [1]| the amount of research is astonishing. Many of the 11 studies show error. When they are fixed they show decreases in crime. The two studies fall into s graphical problem. The graph shows a curve, but they put a straight line. If I make a C lay on its side so it looks like a flipped bowl, we see we can make a trend. It would look like thus /\. We see a correct trend but a spike. The paper focuses on that spike. That ruins the results. The spike is not the actual data. A study attempting to replicate it in 2008 failed to do so, and said it was seriously flawed [1]. Based on this there is conclusive evidence. --Gun bans No gun ban has been seen to be effective. Fewer guns mean more crime. In almost every country prohibiting guns, the crime soars as based on the graphs and numerous studies [1]. --Gun ownership Lott has shown 1% changes in gun ownership can decrease the crime rate [1]. FBI stats show similar results. Gun ownership has been rising, and crime has also gone with it [2]. This is significant evidence. A. Guns kill! R. Guns are used in defense far more often therefore saving lives. A. Conceal carry kills ! R. It has been proven to save lives. A. Gun bans would serve the publics interest in safety R. Gun bans are either inneffective or are counter-productive. Vote Con [1] Lott, John R. "More Guns Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws," 3rd edition, University of Chicago Press, 2010 [2] http://www.unitedliberty.org...
There is no such thing as a bad influence

Some Responses: >> "Finally you get up to the counter and start to talk when someone says "Hey, this M&M blizzard is might tasty". You decide to order an M&M blizzard not oreo. To most that is an influence, but to me its something very different." How you personally regard influence is completely immaterial to this debate. >> "So in reality it wasn't an influence, it was you not being able to decide." Except that your decision was helped along to fruition by someone remarking about the M&M Blizzard... this is... INFLUENCE. >> "Social influence according to my opponent is "peer pressure" and "Premarital sex". " My opponent apparently missed where I actually said "This can be anything from a minor case of peer pressure to a negative action, such as TP'ing someone's house or egging a car to the influence of society writ large towards generally considered "bad" things like premarital sex, immodesty, drug use, criminal behavior, and the like." >> "Parental influence isn't even about there parents enrolling the kids in something they couldn't do." My opponent seems to have a bizarre understanding of influence if parents enrolling their children in something they don't wish to do is not exerting influence. Definition 1 of influence (in relevant part): "the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions... of others." This is obviously influence - BAD influence because the child does not want to enroll in these activities. >> "Hypnosis is yet another a way of your own being. 50 percent of the people that are hypnotized let themselves be hypnotized. The other 50 percent isn't hypnotized because they don't want to be and don't have the will to be." Thus, my opponent concedes that at least 50% of all hypnotized people are being influenced. If they do something they regret, like touching themselves onstage, the influence is negative. >> "What negative effects are there when your uti? "Umm yea I feel great and I can see things, this is the best feeling of my life". I'm pretty set on that not being a negative influence." I suggest my opponent ingest about 6 oz of nutmeg (perfectly legal) and see if being "UTI" is a positive influence then. >> "You also feel how you want to feel under drugs." This is completely false - hallucinogens like acid can give the user a trip that is nothing like what they want. >> "Also what if you get one hit off the blunt, will you get any influence? Not at all. Which would mean that you're... not under the influence. Duh. ************************************************* My opponent has provided no substantive argument, simply contending that "to me its [influence] something very different." This is not an argument at all. He has yet to show in any way that my above situations do not exert bad influence on people.
There is no such thing as a bad influence

I am the Pro for this argument. Let me start off with a quick example. Say you are going to Dairy Queen to get a Oreo blizzard. You get there and wait in like for a few minutes. Finally you get up to the counter and start to talk when someone says "Hey, this M&M blizzard is might tasty". You decide to order an M&M blizzard not oreo. To most that is an influence, but to me its something very different. As my first argument I would like to state that you were probably thinking about that M&M blizzard in the first place. So in reality it wasn't an influence, it was you not being able to decide. Now I will try to prove my opponents examples are not bad influences. Social influence according to my opponent is "peer pressure" and "Premarital sex". When can you say that peer pressure is a way of an influence. Say someone offers you a Drink of alcohol. You take it, once again that is you already thinking about taking that drink. If you done take it then you don't, it is your decision and no one can make you Decide or even help you decide. Parental influence isn't even about there parents enrolling the kids in something they couldn't do. Once again the kid at one point will say he didn't like it and quit, because of his own decision. Hypnosis is yet another a way of your own being. 50 percent of the people that are hypnotized let themselves be hypnotized. The other 50 percent isn't hypnotized because they don't want to be and don't have the will to be. Controlled Substance Influence isn't "obviously a negative effect of being under a drug". What negative effects are there when your uti? "Umm yea I feel great and I can see things, this is the best feeling of my life". I'm pretty set on that not being a negative influence. You also feel how you want to feel under drugs. If you let yourself get sucked in then you will feel more than usual. Also what if you get one hit off the blunt, will you get any influence? Not at all. I'm running out of time so I had to make this quick. I look forward to my opponents rebuttle. Good Luck Tarzan.
There is no such thing as a bad influence

This resolution seems a silly notion to me. There are many different types of bad influence, some far worse than others. In order to fulfill the burden of proof, PRO must show that each of my examples are NOT bad influences, a very high bar to meet indeed. ******************** Influence (Dictionary.com) -noun 1. the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others. 2. the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others. 3. a person or thing that exerts influence. ************************** Examples: 1. Social Influence This can be anything from a minor case of peer pressure to a negative action, such as TP'ing someone's house or egging a car to the influence of society writ large towards generally considered "bad" things like premarital sex, immodesty, drug use, criminal behavior, and the like. 2. Parental Influence How many times have people been their parent's failed dreams? This is fairly common - the parent wasn't able to be the ballerina or participate in the beauty pageant, or learn to play tennis like a professional, so they enroll their kids in all these activities, hoping to make their kids into a clone of their ideal version of themselves. This is of course psychologically damaging in that the kids are not able to structure their life as they see fit, and often breeds a sense of resentment in the children. 3. Hypnosis I have personally seen people under hypnosis do things they would have never done otherwise. For example, a group of people under hypnosis was told they were watching a movie on a plane. Then they were told the movie was rated X. One of the girls in the group began touching herself, something that she would have never done while not under hypnosis, and something that was highly embarrassing for her. 4. Controlled Substance Influence This includes the influence of drugs like alcohol, heroine, crystal meth, LSD, LSA, and other hallucinogens. Obviously there are negative effects of being under the influence of these substances. ********************************** I await my opponent's rebuttal concerning how these are not "bad influences." NEGATED.
A Proposition Is Logically Provable If and Only If It Is True

"It's self-evident that" is an argument. It's an argument that is used to justify some claims as unproven postulates instead of proven theorems. I think it's self-evident that if a proposition logically can be shown to be true by starting off with truth and invoking some truth preserving principals, then the proposition is true. If you start off right and follow all the rules, you will end right. Thus, if a proposition is logically provable, it is true.You say that "provable" doesn't mean "proven." You're right, in a sense. There is, however, another sense in which "provable" means "proven in theory" or "proven in some possible world." How you go from "provable doesn't mean proven" to "logically provable doesn't necessarily mean true" in your "2." rebuttal is unclear. If you're equating "proven in the actual world" and "true," I disagree with your equation. There may be, and it seems there are, propositions that are not proven in the actual world but are true.You say that an inductively proven proposition is not always true. I say there are no inductively proven propositions. A proof is more than a mere suggestion of the truth of a proposition. It is a certain assurance of the truth of a proposition. Proof is a part of deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning.I provided two arguments in support of my claim that if a proposition is true, then it's provable. You didn't rebut my second argument. My first argument is not a case of mere reiteration as you seem to think. It is a use of additional concepts and language to support my position.You seemed to attempt to propose a counterexample to my claim that if a proposition is true, then it's provable. But in the end, you awkwardly left off with a question when you could have instead advanced your own position. Whatever the truth is, it is logically provable. The concept of physical information, https://en.wikipedia.org..., and popular belief in science and evidence support my view.
A Proposition Is Logically Provable If and Only If It Is True

I thank Instigator for this debate.DEFINITIONSIf and only if (iff): "A iff B" means that 1- if A, then B, and 2- if B, then A.Provable: capable of being proven as true or real.[1]RESOLUTIONAssume that A and B were as follows:A: a/the proposition is logically provable, andB: the/a proposition is true.Then the resolution is: "A iff B" which means both of the followings:Res.1: If A, then B.Res.2: If B, then A.BOPBOP is fully on Pro, since the resolution is a positive fact claim. REBUTTALSRes.1: If A, then B.Pro barely asserts that Res.1 is "self-evident".1. Res.1 is the resolution of this debate (i.e., is under question) and needs arguments. "It's self-evident that" is not an argument.2. "Provable" doesn't mean "proven". So, logically provable doesn't necessarily mean true.3. Even "logically proven" doesn't necessarily mean "true". For instance, an inductively (logically) proven proposition is not always true (see [2]). E.g., you can compare the concepts of time and space in Classical and Modern physics.[3]Res.2: If B, then A.Pro asserts that if a proposition is supposed to be true (i.e., if B), then its truth is evidence that it is true (i.e., then B proves B) and "since evidence exists ... that the proposition is true (i.e., since B), the proposition is logically provable (i.e., then A)". Shortly, Pro barely asserts that if B, then A, without providing any argument for A.This is just repeating Res.2 of the resolution, and repeating a resolution in a debate doesn't prove the resolution under question.Consider the followings against Res.2.A man (M1) tells another man (M2) something (X) and nobody else hears it. There were no cameras etc. to record the event. M1 immediately dies after that. M2 then claims that X was "Take my car for free". Either M1 said so or didn't.Whatever the truth is, is it logically provable?What about what you dreamed last night?I wish Pro good luck in second round.REFERENCES[1] https://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] https://goo.gl...
A Proposition Is Logically Provable If and Only If It Is True

My claim and my opening argument are given in the ultimate, logical sense of "provability." A logically provable proposition is a proposition for which it is logically possible that some proof of the proposition exists. It's self-evident that if a proposition is logically provable, then it is true. The converse is also true. That is, if a proposition is true, then it is logically provable. The argument for the converse is as follows. Suppose a proposition is true. The true proposition's truth is itself evidence that implies the claim that the proposition is true. The true proposition's exhibition in the real world is further evidence that implies the claim that the proposition is true. Since evidence exists that implies the claim that the proposition is true, the proposition is logically provable. This concludes the argument for the converse. Thus, since the conditional statement "if a proposition is logically provable, then it is true" and its converse are true: A proposition is logically provable if and only if it is true.
girls to play boy sports

Yes I know that some schools already allow girls to play sports with boys but if you think about it the girls are the ones always getting hurt. My school had a girl as the kicker and she never got hit. They put her there just so she would not get hurt. I do not think girls should be able to play boy sports. This would not be good for the women. Also if the girl is the main part of the team and gets pregnant she would not be able to play for the rest of the season.
Abortion

Before i begin my argument i would like to remind my opponent that we are to put the sources at the bottom. Also i would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. To start off I would like to explain the long term affect of abortion: every day there is an average of 3,425 in america alone! If you multiply that by 365 you will get 1,250,125 abortions in america every year. Thats 1,250,125 babies killed a year because their parents did not want them. Number of the united states solders killed in the vietnam war (1964-1973) was 47,369 deaths. Number of abortions in the united states in 9 years (1984-1993) was 13,950,000. this data shows that their were more babies aborted then soilders killed in the vietnam war and by large margins. The ratio is 294.5 to 1. I think of the unborn as human life, because they eat, sleep and form just like any other person. Even if the unborn is unborn it still is able to become a human like any other. killing someone to prevent something is just as bad as killing one that is alive.
3rd wave fem ism in America

Sorry for my grammar, I assumed debate.org's spell check knew what I was trying to say so I didn't re-read it, my bad. "birth control to have a baby but your failed logic is that those women don't want an abortion" yes that's the point what if the father didn't want to have the stress of a baby. you act as if the dad is the bad guy here. if a girl tricks a guy into getting her pregnant he should have the right to leave. but to stop guys from leaving from consenting baby's they put a tax's on them to help pay the bills. if your assuming the man should be force to stay, I would have to disagree, as that is against his free will. "in a more simple way fighting for equality and basic rights for all genders" so by your logic it is impossible to be sexist if you consider your self a feminist. even if you hate men and wanna kill them, its not sexist because you think your a feminist. what I'm trying to say is that you can't jug a movement by its definition, but on them people in it.
3rd wave fem ism in America

Oh my. I think your grammar and spelling is quite laughable. Honestly, your response was annoying and hard to read. Debate.org provides with spell check you know. Yes, you are right that some women stop taking birth control to have a baby but your failed logic is that those women don't want an abortion, they want a baby. The men are free to leave but don't have to take care of the heavy lifting, just some tax. Child marriage is illegal, without parental consent. With parent's permission child as young as 13 can get legally married. Mostly girls are being given away as child brides against their own will, but not their parents who usually get money out of it. I will also explain feminism again in a more simple way: fighting for equality and basic rights for all genders. We need it in the United States but we also need to fight for others who can't in other countries.
3rd wave fem ism in America

my reasoning has nothing to do with the name. but on to how women are being oppressed - 'rights to having the power to choose what to do with our own bodies" I assume you mean abortion. this is not an oppressive or feminine issue, its a MORAL issue. no ones saying "women can't have abortion because there women" and although the man is not force to be there he still has to to help pay for the kid by law. but the reason they can walk away is because believe or not some women will try to force guys into having a baby by secretly stop taking birth control "many girls in the USA are being given away as child brides against their wills" as far as I could find out child marriage is illegal so I don't really see your point here is "suggests that feminism is not needed in America (which is false) is horribly rude because it also suggests that we don't need to support women's rights in other countries." this is just an ox moron how does saying we don't need feminism in arguable the most free country in the world translate to not needing it at all. and just because the moment definition is one thing doesn't mean its still that thing
3rd wave fem ism in America

First of all, it's feminism not fem ism. Second of all, feminism is for everyone. Many people don't believe so because in the name there is no references to males. But there is a good reason why. Feminism was created in the late 19th century. As you can imagine, women had little to no rights then. So it was obviously named something regarding female empowerment instead of male empowerment. The name has not changed due to the fact that the word holds significant value and historical references. So if one of your arguments was going to be about the name, find another one. Feminism is needed for men because it is about equality for ALL genders, not just females. We also need feminism in the modern day is because women are still oppressed. While it is true we aren't as oppressed as the 19th century we still don't have rights. Such as the rights to having the power to choose what to do with our own bodies. When a man and a women conceive a baby, the man has a choice whether to be present at all (you may be thinking at this point that there are options such as adoption if the women doesn't want a kid but wait) but the mother still has to go through a lot. A lot such as frequent doctors visits (which cost a lot of money), taking special pills and vitamins, morning sickness, and, of course, childbirth. Some states in America have restrictions against abortion. Also, many girls in the USA are being given away as child brides against their wills. Of course, in third world countries women have even less rights. Many girls are denied educations on no other matter other than their gender. But to say something that suggests that feminism is not needed in America (which is false) is horribly rude because it also suggests that we don't need to support women's rights in other countries. So feminism is needed in America, not just for us, but for other women (and men) around the world.