BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Words such as the N-word and other words aren't offensive

1) Use-Mention Distinction"In that case I am an African American myself and I am not offended by this debate at all even though we are discussing the n-word."There is a difference between using and mentinoing a word. In this conversation we have only ever been refering to a word not using it's meaning as part of a sentence. Since we are only refering to the meaning these types of usages can't be used to understand or define the words. It is only when the word is used in a sentence that it's meaning matters.2) Used in Generic Ways it is almost always offensive The only people who can use the n-word without risking being offensive are african american's. Only a very small proportion of gennerally young african american's do in fact use the word in it's non-racist form with any remote frequency.Whenever a white, asian... uses the n-word to refer to someone they are likley to insult that person or group. Which is fair considering the connotation of the word is that the speaker believes the subject is contemtible, ignorant... or some other horrible thing. Also even if they don't insult the subject it can be fairly taken as an insult by any african american as it is a reference to the race as well. So for most context's the word is going to be offensive. 3) Usage not always offensive does not mean it is not an offensive wordOf course it can be used without insulting people. That does not mean it is not an offensive word. To explain this I'll use an example of the word 'hate'. I think most people would agree 'hate' is a negative word. But, it is not used every time in a negative way. For example, recently went up to a co-worker of mine said "I hate you" then walked away. Now in the particular context where I'm known to be a joking person who dosen't hate almost anybody so it was not taken in a negative or offensive way. But that dosen't mean you wouldn't say 'hate' is a negative word. It is a negative word that sometimes happens to get used in other ways. 4) TraditionThe word has been used less as society has moved forward. The word's definition is very much associated with the time it was used more often. A strong and long history of a word like this as a word of oppression does not allow the word's primary meaning to change. When most people read, hear or think the n-word they hear the more offensive version of the word primarily. Even if they understand in context that it does not mean that in this case. It will take much more time and usages for the history of the word to be forgotten and not to be an offensive word.
Words such as the N-word and other words aren't offensive

The strongest most prevalent definition of the word is offensive. From this statement, you have to determine what the "traditional usage" is. (I'm going to use the n-word as example). Back during the civil rights movement, the n-word was used in order to degrade the African American community, but as time moved on, the n-word was adopted by the African American community to mean something else. The n-word today has become a substitute for friend (mainly African American friend) and can be compared to words such as "dude" or "bruh. " The n-word can defiantly be used as a verbal weapon to hurt someone, but keep in mind that pretty much any word can. Used in a generic ways it is almost always offensive. By generic I'm going to assume that means when the word is not used directly to describe someone. In that case I am an African American myself and I am not offended by this debate at all even though we are discussing the n-word. However, I will admit that how offensive a word is depends on the person hearing the word and how they perceive it. To say that it is almost always offensive however is a claim that has yet to be proved. "
Words such as the N-word and other words aren't offensive

Thanks for the opportunity to debate this interesting topic. As agreed the first round is an argument round. So I’ll go first and outline my basic position. I will begin debate by setting out an essential linguistic concept we should all be able to agree upon. Words meanings are defined by society they have no inherent meaning. It does not make sense to think of a word’s definition without at least the context of the society it is in. I am going to use the n-word almost exclusively in my examples as it is a perfectly good example of what I would like to debate. This way I hope to avoid confusion or silly side-long arguments and can come to a real understanding of how and why this word is offensive.I do not mean to argue that the word is offensive always and everywhere, words are contextually and societally defined. I mean to argue that you cannot separate the word from its meaning of being offensive without totally ignoring the word’s societal definitions. Any reasonable route to understanding the word’s meaning will result in the word being called offensive. In particular I will be arguing that: The traditional usages of the word are offensive. Used in a generic ways it is almost always offensive. The strongest most prevalent definition of the word is offensive. Even the rare situations that it is used in a way that is not offensive the word is virtually exclusively referring to or playing off its traditional offensive meaning. As the debate continues I hope to develop further each of these arguments and I will try to use clear headers so that my arguments can be easily sorted.
Words such as the N-word and other words aren't offensive

I doubt there is any rule against admitting defeat in a debate. I'm also new to Debate.org so I can't tell you what the websites etiquette would recommend, or even if there is an answer. Regardless, it good to see you are still open minded enough to change your mind. I fear my own worldview will become stagnant and stop changing with learning new information or hearing new ideas. It is always great to see someone fighting this instinct. As a good practice I'll write up my debate summary anyway. Thanks for a good debate.First, I'd like to remind everyone that while the subject is n-word and other words aren't offensive we have both used only the n-word as an example. This simplfies the debate because since the resolution state "N-word and other words aren't offensive" to show this is false all I need to show is that the n-word is offensive.I think in this debate we both have agreed that:1) The n-word is used in ways that it offends people.2) There are circumstances that the n-word does not offend and was not meant to offend. But the debate is not about whether or not the can be offensive it is about whether or not in some generic sense the word is offensive. I used the example of the word hate which is a negative word to show that you can use descriptors on words even if not every instance of the word matches that descriptor. Then showed for most people to use this word they heavily risk being offensive. This is because with a long and powerful history as offensive slur against african american's the term has not and will not in the near future break from it's primary offensive meaning. Con attempted to contradict this statement by claiming that it was the word wasn't being offensive simiply the intention of the speaker. I showed that just because the speaker's preceived intention may be the cause of the offense taken it was also caused by the word itself. In many cases the use of the n-word indicates the speaker was racist causing the subject to be offended.
Words such as the N-word and other words aren't offensive

I don't know if your allowed to do this in a debate, but I have to admit when I am defeated. I have nothing else to say about this debate because I am starting to relate with my opponent's view instead of mine. After debating with my opponent, I realized that claiming that the n-word is offensive is bold of me to claim. I realized that people can hold ties to these words and can in fact be offended by them. I do, however, hold on to the belief that whether a word is offensive or not depends on the individual and how they have been exposed to that word.
abortion is not legal murder.

Your anecdotes however heart-warming and awe inspiring are not that of great diction. if you want to bring in anecdotal things then I will tell you about my family, my oldest brother during his incubation period suffered a stroke at around 18-20 weeks, this caused him to be born more than 3 months premature, in at the end of July rather than his original date at the start of October. the consequences of this problem forced him to live a life that is less than pleasurable for me to think of, he has Aspergers which I'm sure you will be aware of is a form of autism, a right sided heamiplegia that means he has a weakened right side thus causing him not being able to walk the same distances and being registered as a disabled person. You say that we should consider the possibility of a child growing up to be a future Steve Jobs but this is not a considerable argument to say that you should not choose to have an abortion that would be the right choice for the situation, to turn this point on its head you could say that abortions could have stopped people like Hitler, Joseph fritzl and many other terrible people but this is a completely ridiculous point to put forward as these are circumstances that we cannot know and therefore they can have no diction on the choice of a potential mother. When you talk about the possibility of an adoptive parent and that chance being taken away I turn you towards the fact that there are many more possible children to adopt than there are people adopting for if the numbers were the same if not more parents than kids then there would be no more children who are looking for adoptive parents. Finally and completely off topic I would like to take the time to thank you for your content, and you debate I have enjoyed this as my first debate on this website so thank you for all of your content in making this a very good looking debate with points that have been explained well for others to look upon so once again I say thank you
abortion is not legal murder.

I thank you for the debate and apologize in advance if I was rude or harsh in any way to you in Round I :). I will now post Round II Keep this in mind, there are many people that would want to adopt a child and accept them just as they are. If you do an abortion that chance is taken away. Also, if you abort, you need to think carefully beforehand, because you may abort someone who could grow up to be a future Steve Jobs or even a president, you never know. Thirdly, I want to bring this into the arguments because this is personal to me. My cousin Matthew Alex has many disabilities, it is hard for him to walk, speak, and eat among other things. My Aunt was told to have an abortion, they said he would not live to see his 5th birthday. My Aunt refused, and Matthew Alex became a miracle from God. He is now 9 years old and may still have defects, but he is energetic, bright, tall, and walking and smiling. Finally, I bring this in, I am autistic. Suppose I was marked for abortion, imagine the deep pain someone would feel if they wanted to adopt me in the future. In conclusion, I urge you to think on these stories respectfully :) and thank you for the debate :).
abortion is not legal murder.

Your view appears one of a catholic opinion which states that life starts at conception and therefore abortion is in your opinion murder. if this is true then you must be mistaken whatever the case. We in this world are governed by laws and these when around controversial topics like this one relates to science and it is dictated to be a functioning foetus at around 12 weeks and at this point they are no longer allowed to be changed by science to stop genetic modifications. however a life is something that can function as a sentient being, at this age a foetus is not sentient, it is only working off of impulses that cause reactions it is not in control of itself or its actions, this is like when an animal is killed using an electric bolt the way they are killed now there are still electrical impulses that cause actions because of the nerves that still cat after death. In the United Kingdom which is where I live there is no abortion after 24 weeks which is still before any cognitive function. If you are going to say that an abortion make someone no better than a member of ISIS or ISIL then you are putting down anyone who has ever had an abortion even for the correct reasons. It is not right to bring a child into a world where they will not be loved, catered for. if a child is a product of a rape it is not worth the traumatising pain for a mother to endure and have as a constant reminder of he torment. if a child will be born with horrible defects that will dramatically lower their chance of survival or the quality of their life is is worse to have them rather than abort them. An abortion can not be painful to a child as at the stage of development they can legally be aborted at they are a very simple organism that cannot feel pain or trauma it is incapable of knowledge around subjects such as this, for instance can you find anyone that can tell you what their life was like before they were born, then I would except the possibility of gathering knowledge but no-one has ever made this feat. ISIS or ISIL do not take what they believe are innocent lives they deem westerners as heathens that deserve death. however if you want to bring this into a biblical battle I will love to turn you in circles over the misconceptions of the bible but that is up to you to decide. I look forward to your content and good debate.
abortion is not legal murder.

Accepted and thank you for this debate :) Right, let's begin. In my views abortion is legal murder, life begins at fertilization when the sperm meets the egg. Something, a baby, is created there, NOT an embryo. Statistics have shown that the baby (keep in mind that is what I will call the created thing from the moment of conception) feels pain within 20 weeks. If you abort the baby, it will feel pain, it will know a little what is happening You are killing human life, and it makes me sick. Abortion kills a innocent baby, don't make the child suffer for something that you did. The child can be given up for adoption and not murdered, torn to pieces. This is not a embryo or a fetus this is a baby and I blatantly say that anyone who says otherwise is wrong. It IS murder, and we are no better than ISIS if we terminate innocent human lives. I rest my case for round 1, thank you for the debate.
smartness

Ur not even merican bruh, so sit down. 1. So phones can now think for themselves and decide whether a letter is a word or not? Wow. I know, thanks for agreeing! I also understand why your so flabbergasted, considering that your intelligence is too lacking. 2. So one's smartness is based on who has more knowledge of words used in youtube? Brilliant Yes, exactly! I spend all of my days on youtube, making me significantly smartrer than you! 3. This point is completely invalid. I'm not even going to waste my time to copy and paste it. Now to attack it... You're relying on Google translate. Nuff said. The math argument is completely false, this dummy gummy is assuming that every school across of my GREAT country has the same standards! Second, YER SCEWL PROVES MY POINT, you're 10 butt has a 3.7 GPA, THAT'S CRAZT! THE NUMBER 10 kid in my scewl has a 4.125 GPS! Also notice how I purposefully say GPS, because my scewl has GPS not GPS! In conclusion, I'm merican, so vote for me. Also his entire case is based on assumptions! Vote aff bruhskies
smartness

1) According to thousands of people's phones "u" is a word. So phones can now think for themselves and decide whether a letter is a word or not? Wow.2) According to youtube words such as "smatrer" have been used in the comments so it is therefore a word. So one's smartness is based on who has more knowledge of words used in youtube? Brilliant.3) Who said that was an English sentence? The language was detected to be English. The link reaffirms my argument. (. http://translate.google.co.in...)I am smarter than you because in my school I'm around 80th rank and I have a 3.3 GPS,Pro does not know the use of a comma. Therefore, he cannot be smart. But that is not my point. Pro says that he is ranked around 80. Let us take Pro's rank to be 80. There are 98,817 public schools in the U. S. (. http://nces.ed.gov...)In each school there are 80 students smarter than him, and 79 students in his school are smarter than him. The math : 98817*80 -1 = 7,905,359 Students. Thus about 7.9 million students are smarter than Pro. And mate, GPS? Seriously? Assuming that you meant GPA, your score is not something to be really proud about, it is just 88% or grade B. (. http://gpacalculator.net...)Also, using the word no as a sentence is not a complete sentence showing that I am smarter than you. Pro does not have the basic knowledge about sentences. Sentence - A sentence is a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that are grammatically linked. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...(linguistics))The sentence Pro has posted is grammatically incorrect. The correct sentence would be - Also, using the word no as a sentence is not a complete sentence, which shows that I am smarter than you. Thus Con has successfully managed to show that Con is smarter than Pro by exposing Pro's numerous grammatical errors, his lack of knowledge about punctuations, and by mathematically proving that Con who ranks 10th in his school and has a GPA of 3.7 is much more smarter than Pro. Thank you.
smartness

1. According to thousands of people's phones "u" is a word. 2. According to youtube words such as "smatrer" have been used in the comments so it is therefore a word. 3. Who said that was an English sentence? I am smarter than you because in my school I'm around 80th rank and I have a 3.3 GPS. Also, using the word no as a sentence is not a complete sentence showing that I am smarter than you.
smartness

No. You're not. Why?i'm smatrer than u.1) English sentences always begin with a capital letter. (http://www.britishcouncil.org...)2) The word 'smatrer' does not exist in the dictionary.(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)3) Definition of 'u' - the 21st letter of the English alphabet (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Needless to say, your sentence is full of errors. Therefore, you can't be smarter than me.Thank you. Vote for Con.P.S. Just a grammar lesson for you - Pro. The correct sentence would be - " I'm smarter than you " Use spell-check.
smartness

Pro does not understand sarcasm. Hence, Pro cannot be smart. Who says that i am not american. It does not even matter in this debate. There is no taboo on using google translate. across of my GREAT countryGrammatical error. The correct sentence would be : across my great country. THE NUMBER 10 kid in my scewl has a 4.125 GPSIt doesnt matter if the no. 10 in your school has 4.125 GPA or not because the debate is about who is smarter between Pro and Con. Hence, this argument is invalid. because my scewl has GPS not GPSPro is excited because he has found out that his school has GPS and thus he says something that makes little sense. Also, Pro might not know sophisticated words and so i shall give the gist of the above arguments in what he might be able to understand. Bruh, idc whether ur scewl has GPS or not but ur not smartrer than me and u shud ask ur scewl to teach u grammar and vocabulary english. i thnk ur "intelligence is too lacking" and therfore u cnt b smartrer than me. Thank you.
Jesus Sinned

Resolution The New Testament records instances in which Jesus sinned. ClarificationThis debate is NOT about whether or not Jesus existed, nor is this a debate about whether or not Jesus is Messiah; but this is a debate about whether or not Jesus sinned. Definitions You may disagree with these definitions and adopt your own, but the following definitions are offered to clarify the resolution as I have expressed it. "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is a proposed historical human being whose character began the myth of the character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The historical "Jesus" has a biographical profile roughly corresponding to the profile of the character of Jesus in the gospels (i.e. home town of Nazareth, baptism by John the Baptist, traveling preacher, twelve disciples and crucifixion in Jerusalem). [1] In Jewish theology, there are different types of sin [2]: Cheit: A Cheist is a missing of the mark (you tried to do something right but messed up). Avon (ovon): A leading astray, often by lust or uncontrollable urges. Pesha: To willfuly go against God. Also known as "intentional sin." Positions of Opposing ContenderMy contender must show that my arguments are false. I accept the entire burden of proof. Rules Round 1 is acceptance only. Absolutely no ad hominem attacks: This will result in an automatic loss. Do not introduce new arguments in the last round. If you wish to forfeit, then please post it; do not let the time run out! I wish my partner the best of luck. 1. ApostateAbe's definition: http://www.debate.org...; 2. https://apps.facebook.com...;
Should the world stop using Oil/gas

Due to the fact that fossil fuels are easily combustible and have a high calorific value, it's one of the most efficient energy sources in the world. [1] It has the highest energy output levels bIt's also the cheapest form of energy in the world as shown in the graph below. [2] Engines can be run on rather small amounts of gas. For example, cars can be taken tens of miles on a couple gallons, because the engine is powered by exploding gas farts in the cylinders. That's kind of a funny way of saying it, but really, gas ignites and powers machines very easily.2) Fossil fuels are highly reliable. This is what I mean. Every time you light a bucket of gas on fire, that thing ignites on fire. If you ignite gas in a cylinder, that gas will explode. If you put up a windmill Colorado Springs, you might get 1 kilowatt of energy per year. Since I'm using windmills as an example, I should point out that it's actually one of the least reliable forms of alternative energy known to man. You have to have the right wind speeds to operate with an 11 mile per gap to work with for effective energy production. [3] As far as other forms of energy go, we know solar energy would only work in the UK for three days out of the year, and Arizona would get nothing out of hydro energy. While it's possible that some of these alternative energies might work sometimes in these areas, it's impossible to say that we would have energy year round. Fossil fuels are the most reliable form of energy.3) Nuclear energy has large disadvantages. Nuclear energy is great as an energy substitute as far as energy output and cost go. However, it has a huge drawback, which is nuclear waste. Nuclear energy uses radioactive materials to boil water. But these radioactive materials eventually decay past the point of use. When this happens, we have to find a place to put it. If you start to use nuclear energy for everyone in the world, we would have plenty of power, but storing that waste would be a nightmare. If just a little plutonium leaks out of a storage tank due to natural wear on the storage unit and that plutonium gets into water, that piece of plutonium could easily poison a city. Just specks of plutonium can kill anyone who inhales or ingests them. [4]So the alternative energy sources so far are either deadly or unreliable and inefficient. Sources:[1] . http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...[2] . http://www.theenergycollective.com...[3] . http://www.wind-power-program.com...[4] . http://www.world-nuclear.org...