BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
then n-word is just as bad as any other swear word

thank you for repying and I do want to make it clear that I don't use this word nor intend to "But the n-word has so much history to it and was used in abuse." so was faggot but no one cares now in fact faggot was worse because they could be killed if someone knew that. bitch is another example of this. my main reason is though is that people want to not have racism but they give one word such power to do this. the word should be treated the same as faggot or bitch.
then n-word is just as bad as any other swear word

This word has power over society, as you said, because of the meaning and use of the word itself, not just because it is a swear word. This was used to treat and degrade black slaves down to nothing, to property basically. Those other curse words are just curse words. But the n-word has so much history to it and was used in abuse. That makes it more than a curse word, as it is used racistly. It also cant be racist toward white people because when they say it, they say it in a racist way. If you are a minority, would you want someone who is racist and will disregard your views to make decisions for you?
teacher pay should be raised

I'm waiting in my cold cell when the bell begins to chime Reflecting on my past life and it doesn't have much time 'Cause at 5 o'clock they take me to the Gallows Pole The sands of time for me are running low When the priest comes to read me the last rites I take a look through the bars at the last sights Of a world that has gone very wrong for me Can it be there's been some sort of an error Hard to stop the surmounting terror Is it really the end not some crazy dream Somebody please tell me that I'm dreaming It's not easy to stop from screaming But words escape me when I try to speak Tears they flow but why am I crying? After all am I not afraid of dying? Don't I believe that there never is an end? As the guards march me out to the courtyard Someone calls from a cell "God be with you" If there's a God then why has he let me die? As I walk all my life drifts before me And though the end is near I'm not sorry Catch my soul 'cause it's willing to fly away Mark my words believe my soul lives on Don't worry now that I have gone I've gone beyond to see the truth When you know that your time is close at hand Maybe then you'll begin to understand Life down there is just a strange illusion Yeah, yeah, yeah, Hallowed be Thy name Yeah, yeah, yeah, Hallowed be Thy name
teacher pay should be raised

With that said, I will explain why teachers pay should not be raised. But before I do that, let me say that the burden of proof belongs to my opponent. PRO must prove why teachers' pay should be raised, as she does not in R1. Contention 1: Pay is enough currently. Currently, teachers get an annual $47,602 (. http://www.aft.org...) The average salary for an American is $43,444 (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). As we can clearly see, teachers are earning more than the average person, so a pay raise would not be needed. Contention 2: Most teachers don't deserve it. Most teachers do not even earn the money they receive. 1/3 of Americans can not locate the US on a map, 3/4 can not locate Iraq on a map, and US high schoolers are the 2nd least educated (stupid, if you will) out of 13 major countries tested like Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and the UK. Indeed, certain teachers, like gym teachers, do not even put that much effort into their jobs and do not provide their students with the skills they need. Contention 3: Benefits. Teachers, in addition to the salary they receive, get multiple benefits. Most teachers get a guaranteed salary, summer break, free lunch, and a pension plan. Thank you, I now await my opponent's rebuttal.
Should English be the World Language

Making English a world language would not mean that people or other countries would have to give up their natural languages. It would just mean that it would be the language of business, and trade around the world. It would become the most known second language of people around the world, but they would no have to give up their native tongues. A primary world language would make business much easier around the world. English is becoming more and more popular throughout the years. It will become the first world language soon!
Should English be the World Language

All though english has certainly become one of the biggest languages around, (Mandarin Chinese is the only language with more speakers as a first language) but it is also a very weird, contorted language that is very hard to master, and words are hard to learn, especially when some have hundreds of different meanings- such as "set" and "run". Even languages that have been made for simplicity such as Esperanto failed to become the "universal language" that L.L. Zamenhof wanted it to be. And also, convincing every nation and most people to quit their ancestral language and learn english. We would also have to have well-trained instructors and simple and easy material to teach from. History has proven multiple times that even if a universal language is successful in spreading throughout the known world, it fades fairly quickly. Some include Greek (Alexander the Great and Rome) and Latin (Later in Rome and after Rome). Modern attempts, most notably Esperanto, have also failed. Ergo, I think that making english a truly world-wide language is almost impossible, and even harder if you were to keep it around. If it was possible, I think that latin would be a good choice. Although it is often considered "dead", many languages worldwide closely related. Even though few know it well, it is fairly easy to learn, especially if your native language is a Romance language. I do agree that it would be helpful to have a universal language, and it would be extra nice if it was english, but english is not a good choice of a language for the whole world, and it is very unlikely something like this could be achieved.
Should English be the World Language

English is already the primary language used in business, trade, and on the internet. A universal language it would make it easier for businesses and communication around the world. it make sense that the language should be english because a majority of the internet is in english, and is the third most commonly spoken language in the world. English is the language of business. Business is often completed in English, also the American economy is the largest economy in the world and is an english speaking country. The universal language of the world should be english.
the drug laws implemented in plan Colombia do more harm than good

Yes but they are entering the US and these drugs are run by very complex businesses related to mafia drug cartels lords fighting over territory causing violence in Colombia one and 2 causing violence ant the US by stealing free drugs by shooting rivals and recently started getting contacts with terrorists in the Middle East cause what could be another 9/11 and if we stop it in Colombia it will spread as bolvia as seen increased drug growth and also are you agreeing with of the resolution
the drug laws implemented in plan Colombia do more harm than good

ct 1 false positive scandal for all who did not know what the false positive scandal is it is basically Colombia government officials telling civilians on to join the police force the discigues them as rebel fighters and the police force shoots them in jungles then shows the bodies to the US and say look how many rebels we killed give us more funding to kill some more ct 2 crop eradication does mare harm than good crop considerations means to thither manually destroy plants or use herbicides in planes and copters to destroy plants this bad because using the element of surprise it will destroy all plants everything to coca which is used to make cocaine coffee banana and more like chocolate
Voldemort is worse then Darth Vader

When you truly look at their future selves, Vader killed the emperor to save his son. he brought balance to the force.In the end, after everything, he ended up being good again. Voldemort was strictly evil, and challenged anyone who says he isn't. Voldemort was essentially Hitler, he was xenophobic and believed anyone who wasn't a pureblood or didn't obey him, deserved to be tortured and slowly killed. Voldemort was xenophobic, Darth Vader may have been bigoted, but in the end he turned out to be good, whilst Voldemort died evil, and had people willing to get sent to Azkaban for him. He did have people who respected him, like, Bellatrix Lestrange or Barty Crouch Jr.
Voldemort is worse then Darth Vader

Vader tortured people himself (even before he became Vader) and ordered torture via probe droids. He also stood down as Alderaan was destroyed, both mentally damaging for Leia and horrid for the millions who died. Voldemort actually had a lot of power - at his highest, he captured the Ministry of Magic, which meant he could get away with murder despite my opponent's argument. While people were afraid of Voldemort, Vader's existence was more of a secret from ROTS to A New Hope. Even after the galaxy knew of him, very few actually knew he was a force-user and even fewer knew about his past. In terms of followers, my opponent is correct is that even Voldemort's 'cult members' feared him. That being said, imperials who knew of Vader truly respected him. In my opinion, admiration is greater than fear. Using another wizard's wand has nothing to do with power; there are instances of less powerful characters using other people's wands. Even so, Voldemort never truly mastered the elder wand.
Voldemort is worse then Darth Vader

Voldemort not only mass murdered, but tortured countless people. Including many of his devoted cult members. When Vader was in power, he could get away with simple things like murder. Voldemort never had power, he managed to get away with multiple accounts of murder, regardless. Even in Voldemorts 10 year hiatus, people were convinced he was dead; yet people were extremely paranoid of him, still. Wormtail, (devoted cult member), did not have to save Voldemort; yet he was so afraid of Voldemort, of being killed by him; he saved him sacrificing his hand, and getting caught by the ministry of magic. Vader had managed to terrify people enough, to have them make a code name for him. Voldemort was powerful enough to use Dumbledores wand.
Voldemort is worse then Darth Vader

My opponent suggests that Voldemort is more powerful (and 'worse') than Darth Vader. In this round, I shall respond to their arguments. 1. Behavior at a young age. My opponent argues that Voldemort was always evil whereas Vader was initially good. While Voldemort was always evil, Vader (as Anakin) occasionally succumbed to the dark side. In AOTC, Anakin slaughters a Tusken Raider clan, including the women and children. In ROTS, he kills Count Dooku even though he is unarmed and later allows his fear of Padme's death to control him. While Anakin was not fully evil before his transformation, some of his actions were far worse, especially what he did with the Tusken Raiders. 2. Mass murdering. My opponent argues that Voldemort is a mass murderer. It is worth noting that Vader did the same; he killed many Jedi, rebels, and even imperials. 3. Weapon Voldemort did not earn his wand; the wand chooses the wizard (and he bought it). He also stole (not earned) the elder wand from a dead man.
Voldemort is worse then Darth Vader

Let's start by looking back at them, at a younger age. Voldemort realized he was extremely powerful, when he was young. He had always been cruel; when he was in an orphanage he hung a young boys bunny from the rafters, for no apparent reason. Darth Vader was a slave, he was always good; until he got older. Voldemort had to work extremely hard, to get any sort of power. He had to mass murder, and gain himself followers. Lord Vader, on the other hand only had to kill the current Sith Lord to gain power. Vader did not earn his Lightsaber... He made it. Whilst Voldemort earned his wand. A wand, that only an extremely powerful wizard could use in order to get it to work to its full potential. Therefore, Voldemort, is more powerful, than Darth Vader.
Voldemort is worse then Darth Vader

Vader's actions in the end do not justify his crimes; he is still accountable for his actions and for the Empire which he allowed to form and thrive. I can see where you're going with Hitler, but just because Vader is not xenophobic, does not mean he is not as evil. Even if for different reasons, Vader murdered and tortured thousands, and stood by as millions more were killed. Some of Voldemort's servants were willing to be imprisoned, though not all were loyal and even fewer actually respected him. In Deathly Hallows, many of his followers retreat after Harry is revealed to be alive. Other than Bellatrix and Barty Crouch, it appeared most of his followers were 'loyal' out of fear or they were under the imperius curse. In fact, after he originally lost power, many followers claimed they were under the imperius curse to avoid prosecution. Vader's followers, on the other hand, went on to create the First Order, and his legacy inspired Kylo Ren.
Percy Jackson is better than Harry Potter

I don't like Harry Potter, but I hate Percy Jackson even more. Percy Jackson is devoid of imagination and the characters are all unlikable. Harry Potter, while it is a piece of tripe, still established the whole genre of magical kids and revived fantasy as a popular genre. It has likable characters, an original plot, and, while the magical, weird stuff is never quite explained, and there are plenty of plot holes, all seven books could be read through if I absolutely had to. J.K. Rowling was very imaginative in the way she wrote the stuff and the world she created is very cool. Percy Jackson, though, is beyond awful. In fifth grade, I was supposed to read the thing, it was an inch thick and I never got past the first monotonous chapter before kicking the thing into the trash can. Nothing about the series is original. The author shamelessly tries to cash in on the success of Harry Potter and implements Greek mythology to seem like a know it all. There's nothing intriguing about it. For one, I hate novels where a kid is the main character, because they're incapable of making good decisions when presented with a major dilemma, but I also hate kid novels because you can tell that they're written to appeal to kids and the author is a kid. I hate kid stuff. It's immature. Harry Potter at least is written by a mature person and has a relatively mature plot. Percy Jackson is the same old thing- a kid lives a normal life, finds that something about his life is cool, then does cool stuff and accepts his new identity as a superhero or whatever. The whole thing is ridiculous and the way the author pulled it off was dull. There's some kid, and he lives with his parent, or whatever, and then he finds out he's a Greek god or something, bla bla bla, he goes and meets some Greek mythical stuff, bla bla bla, something about his dad, and then he saves the day, and then Rick Riordian puts out another novel, and keeps putting out series about mythology that range from Egyptian mythology to Norse mythology. It's incredibly painful, and I don't know why the heck he deserves all that money just because he wrote about a kid and some Greek mythology. Ooh, boy, and the way you say that Percy Jackson is "REAL" makes me real mad. There's nothing in the book that's REAL. There's a guy with a horse head and stuff. You can't say that it's REAL. It incorporates the religion of some people who lived two thousand years ago, and you can't just put some kind of nutty gods who live on an invisible mountain into the real world. It can't be done. Percy Jackson is nothing but an absolute fantasy. On average, I'd say that both Percy Jackson and Harry Potter spend the same amount of time in each book in the real world. Harry Potter is with the evil fat family for the first chapter or so, Percy gets to be in the real world at the beginning and end. The whole thing is just tripe, but if I had to choose one magical kid, I'd go with Harry Potter, because Percy Jackson is a shameless ripoff and a disgrace to humanity. I await your next argument.
Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations

He has dropped his entire case so it must be shown that it is irrelevant. Once Again I will extend my definition as it is the only definition extended it must be the ONLY one used. Nation - territorial land mass My opponent claims, that my source is wrong however, I took the liberty of looking it up as well when I was writing my case and it defined it as a territoral land mass. He weakly attempts to attack my contentions on tectonic plate theory saying theories aren't real. If that is the case than gravity is a legitimate cause for why we are not floating right now. What is a fact is that the nations are moving slowly several inches per year. Since all nations are equal in moving and threat there is no greater threat. Even if you choose not to accept my definition we must realize it is the people living in these problem areas that are causing threats and terrorist groups that are the threats not the nations themselves. My c3 is essentially dropped in the final rebuttal. It showed how it was the terrorists groups like the Taliban or Al Qaeda who posed threats to the United States not Aghanistan or Iraq themselves. His case is dropped in the final rebuttal completely and must not be flowed across and he failed to acknowledge my arguments against his case so they must be flowed across. For the above reasons I urge a negative ballot
Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations

Shelly, thanks again! FINAL REBUTTAL: C-1 & C-2: A. Theories are not facts and cannot be reagrded as such (ie: tectonic plate theory) B. If the nations are indeed moving then they are not stable. Since unstable nations are unstable, they are able to collide into one another. These unstable nations do pose a greater threat because the non-existent stable nations cannot move. Thus, stable nations pose no threat. C. My opponent's definition of nations. I took the liberty of actually looking up the word "nation" in the World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 edition. My opponent's definition was NOT stated as quoted. The definition I found read, "A nation is a large group of people united by a common language, ancestry, history, or culture. International law means a group of people exercising self government within a defined territory with the recognition of other nations". (source: 2007 World Book Encyclopedia) Given the above information, my opponent's case is now full of holes, while my case remains undisputed through 3 1/2 rounds. Either way she goes, she is now in check mate! Further, I have provided the more credible sources as well as better spelling and grammar. VOTE PRO! Thank you!
Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations

I must contend the case though now. My definitions must snd as they were unrefuted Going off the own affs source of fundforpeace. com we can see that no nation is failed but rather listed in alert status. Meaning that they may fail or are a potential threat. Thus helping to ate the resolution. To attack the my opponents points. Point 1) my case has proven that there are no stable nations through tectonic plate theory point2) there own source shows how they are no failed nations only those listed as alert status and not failed. There source shows no failed nations. point3) even if there were stable nations (there aren't if we remember tectonic plate theory correctly) This point help shows that it is the terrorists inhabiting the nation which is defined as a landmass hat are posing the threat of hostility toward the U. S. actually helping my case The rebuttal of my points are completely dropped and said that if we accept my definitions they are rock solid arguments. We must accept my definitons as the aff has failed to extend theirs. I offer mine again Nation: a territorial land mass (world book encyclopedia) Stable: resistant to movement or change (world book encyclopedia). The rebuttal against my point 3 doesn't change the point. Ok, so its the Taliban thatpose the threat not Al Qaeda but that furthers my case because it is the people that make up the Taliban that pose the threat and not the land mass they reside in. Also, it obvisiouly was not implied as defining key terms as shown has become a very IMPORTANT FACTOR in this debate. we must see that my opponent did not extend his/her definitions and I have therefore we must use mine. Onto my case. My C1) land masses don't threaten each other Under my definition which must be upheld because it was the only definition extended shows that the region known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cannot physically attack another nation such as Nigeria because it cannot move. My C2) tectonic plates EVERY nation is moving and unstabe due to tectonic plate theory. So, in reality the only so called failed nation is Pangea because it broke apart. My C3) It's the people not the land mass See above points. Thank you and remember vote neg
Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations

I wish to compliment Shelly on a very creative negative constructive, but I fear she has wasted a round of competition. OBSERVATIONS: If we accept the CON/AFF's definitions, then her 1st & 2nd contentions are virtually rock solid. In Contention 3, I would correct her in that it is the Taliban (largely funded by al Qaeda) in Afghanistan, not al Qaeda itself. (source: public radio international) REBUTTAL: Going by what is obviously implied by the NFL committee (people of failed nations) not a geology technicality, my argument remains valid, intact, and completely unchallenged which means my opponent has wasted a round on a wild goose chase. SUMMARY: Given the above I stand by my original Affirmative Constructive.