BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Insane asylum patients should be given painting supplies as an outlet for their psychotic tendencies

Most of your arguments had to do with taking away a patients agency. Nowhere in the resolution does it state that they HAVE to paint. It just says that they should be given the stuff so they can if they want to. And who doesn't love to paint? It's a great way to express yourself. In the movie "Charly" about a mentally retarded man named Charlie who was given an operation to speed up his development and basically make him smarter, he was given many stimulating objects, including painting supplies. He painted a lot of pictures of his beautiful teacher, which freaked her out. True, paintings can be and have been misinterpreted, but still, paintings have always served as a window into the soul. Consider two paintings of the same subject: one a quiet, green meadow, painted in the morning, the other a dry brown meadow seemingly on fire in the sunset. They convey two very different feelings that aren't hard to decipher. You can put a lot of emotion into a painting, which can help control your emotions. Painting provides a creative and relaxing outlet. There are many illnesses where the ability to speak is lost. Painting and art can offer a way to express the thoughts and emotions that are trapped inside you, while making something beautiful. How is painting not productive? Who doesn't take pride in their accomplishments? Even in a hospital people should be able to create something of their own. Its also very constructive. Some people with mental handicaps may have violent natures or react violently to therapy. Instead of attacking their therapist, they can attack their canvas with paint. If paint wasn't calming, constructive, and beneficial, why would so many people throughout the ages willingly turn to that profession, instead of one more stable with a better regular paycheck? Painting is productive and soothing, and should be offered to all in special needs hospitals who seem as though they need a creative outlet to their inner frustration.
Insane asylum patients should be given painting supplies as an outlet for their psychotic tendencies

There are 4 reasons we should not look to painting to help mental patients. 1) It dehumanizes the patients. They would be treated with a treatment reserved for children. To say that this is their sole responsibilty is to force them to do something they may not even want to do. They are then looked at as incapable of doing anything on their own. 2) It reduces therapy to a meaningless practice. If the patients sole responsibility is to paint than they will do nothing else. I could just hand a mental patient crayons or paint. What is the point? 3) There is no actual evidence that this technique works. It could just be a waste of time. 4) The results they find are hard to read. Art is very hard to interpret and there is no clear answer. One therapist may think the art says something entirely different than another. There seems to be little relaxation in forcing someone to do something they would not choose to do. At the point in which there is little support of actual benefits and the difference in interpretation of the results we should look to forms of therapy that will produce change within the patients instead of reinforcing the facts we have already discovered.
Insane asylum patients should be given painting supplies as an outlet for their psychotic tendencies

Well, we can give them water colors. Those aren't poisonous. Or there are a variety of "little kid" paints that would prove non-toxic to asylum patients. They would have only one responsibility: to paint. Their artwork could also prove helpful for psychologists to study them and have an outlet into the mind of their patients. It's beneficial, and soothing. Plus, who doesn't like to splash pretty colors all over a blank white canvas?
Insane asylum patients should be given painting supplies as an outlet for their psychotic tendencies

Painting is great, but to allow asylum patients can be counterproductive for them. Look at Van Gogh he was a famous and it is said that the reason his paintings look the way they do was because of exposure to the paint. It actually affected his vision. He then later commited suicide. He as a later mentally challenged person could not handle the responsibility of paint. There is a correlation between his painting and his insanity.
Abortion shouldn't be legalized

Sorry if I sound a little harsh here :3 It doesn't matter who or what consents to the termination. What matters is, as i stated in my previous argument, that it's not possible to kill a fetus as it is not possible to kill a rock; the fetus is not "living." A rock doesn't know if it's about to be "terminated." So it won't matter if the fetus does. In addition, to counter your definition, note that the fetus can't live, develop, or do anything else mentioned in the definiton. P.S. The pls dont judge statement still applies here.
Abortion shouldn't be legalized

I see. A human fetus definitely isn't independent, as it relies on its mother to internally and consistently feed it and keep it in a decent state. It wouldn't be considered "murder" and illegal, as it is consented for it to be intentionally and deliberately terminated. HOWEVER: "Another person consented for the termination. Therefore, the human fetus did not anticipate it. Therefore, it is still unconsencial kill" TheAmazingAtheist1 It definitely belongs to the mother's stomach. But nonetheless, according to its definition (A fetus /G2;fiH0;təs/, also spelled foetus, f"tus, faetus, or f"tus, is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth), it is "someone else".
Abortion shouldn't be legalized

:) sorry for messing up the format of the debate. Also, please don't take any of my arguments personally or very seriously. I'm doing this for the sake of debate and fun, and my own opinions may vary a lot from what I'm writing down. Unfortunately, my opponent's arguments fail because he/she imposes upon me an extreme example of murder. First of all, the President is the "Number One man in the Nation." KiIlling him would obviously send me to a long sentence of prison or death. However, murders happen every day and not so many people are sentenced to death. You giving that example is the same as trying to counter an argument in such a way as "Killing a rat is legal, therefore killing the Endangered African Rhino should be legal." Life is defined as "the existence of an *individual* human being or animal." Since a fetus is not independent as it relies on it's mother to internally feed it and keep it in a decent state, you could not "kill" it; it would be like trying to kill a rock. Please reply soon; this is an interesting topic and I would like to read your views.
Abortion shouldn't be legalized

You disregard:"Round 1: Pro: RulesCon: Presentation & Acknowledging, often reluctantly, the position you are defending"So therefore, there is a major change for that. Round 1: Pro: RulesCon: AcceptanceRound 2: Pro: Presentation & ImplicationCon: Presentation & ImplicationRound 3: Pro: RebuttalsCon: RebuttalsRound 4: Pro: Arguments & ConclusionCon: Arguments & Conclusion _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ So, abortion is deliberate and intentional termination of a human fetus (An unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception), most often performed after 28 weeks of pregnancy. Point(s):1) (According to that mediocre (But not too vague) definition) The human fetus is already alive. There, it would be considered "murder". For instance:When you assasinate the president, massacre a whole family, etc. you will be convicted, and death penalty (Possibly) will be imposed on you. I eagerly await further arguments.
Abortion shouldn't be legalized

Rule(s):1) Please remain civil during the debate. Those subscribed to the debate and involved and opposing against each other in the debate don't condone that type of behaviour. They are counter-productive and get you nowhere.2) Please use feasible and reliable sources. It may be acceptable if you misinterpreted the specific argument that was presented (Whether it is he who instigated the debate or not) and is indeed, irrelevant.3) Remember:1) Presentations2) Rebuttals___________________________________________________________________________________________Round 1: Pro: RulesCon: Presentation & Acknowledging, often reluctantly, the position you are defendingRound 2: Pro: Presentation & ImplyingCon: RebuttalsRound 3: Pro: RebuttalsCon: ArgumentsRound 4: Pro: ArgumentsCon: No further arguments. Simply leave as blank Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. We shall use that mediocre and vague definition above to defend our positions.
Profanty should be socially acceptable

The baseness and colloquial qualities of cuss words are points you just haven't responded to. I'm aware this is a "should" debate rather than an "is" one, and my points remain unaddressed. Even by your own admission point 3 remains unaddressed. You've just basically asserted that there's nothing inherently wrong with cuss words, but I've shown examples in social settings where it is very apparent that these words are improper and should not be used for that reason that they are often provocative and out of place at a social function. Frick, shoot, and darn are not cuss words. You can't shift the goalposts like that. There's also a distinction between something being wrong and socially unacceptable. Regardless, facts and value judgments are not completely separate. If a word has a widespread potential to offend - as cuss words do - why would you ever use them in formal settings such as weddings and funerals? It's both improper and immoral to deliberately use language which is likely to offend a grieving spouse or the family of the bride or groom. In utilitarian terms, you would be conducting yourself in a way that is "negative utility" in basically choosing words with the large potential to offend an audience without conveying any strong message. The focus is clearly on the harm you are doing by deliberately choosing words that are likely to offend in situations where it is completely uncalled for.
Profanty should be socially acceptable

Thanks to Con for a well organized rebuttal. I do however have some issues with it. It seems to me that you are trying to prove that there are some social setting where profanity IS unacceptable....and i have no issue with that. My point of view is that these words SHOULDN'T be viewed that way. I I see this especially in points 1,2 and 4. For example when you talk about kids using these words in school, I question whether or not that should be actually a big deal, not whether or not it is. I would like to point out that we have come up with a close sounding substitute for almost every cuss word . Frick, shoot, darn, heck, etc. These words would be acceptable in the setting that you mentioned such as kids in school. This just goes to show that we don't really value the message being sent as much as the words chosen to convey said message. For the next round, let's focus on debating they issue of should rather than is
Profanty should be socially acceptable

I would like to welcome Pro to DDO as this appear to be his first debate. Pro argues that there is nothing inherently wrong with using profanity, and I would agree with this claim. However, the issue is not whether profanity is wrong or right but rather whether it should be proper. Pro seems to want to make the argument that profanity should always be proper regardless of circumstances. Clearly profanity already is considered proper in many social settings, so what I will do is defend the improperness of the use of profanity in settings where it is broadly considered improper. I believe as long as I defend the improperness of cuss words in at least one social setting my burden of proof is met. Lets consider a few points:1. Cuss words are colloquial. Colloquial words go well with colloquial settings - bars, being with friends, etc. However, when we try to take the colloquial qualities of these words into situations such as weddings and funerals which are considered socially important occasions the use of colloquial or improper anything is strongly discouraged. Again, don't confuse this with "wrongness" but it would be a widespread sign of disrespect and uncaring to use profanity in a wedding or a funeral speech. Both of these occasions are momentous social events centered around individuals reaching a milestone in their lives, and inappropriate behavior from even one guest can damage the day. 2. Improper around children.If the child is young they're going to repeat what they hear. The repeated use of profanity is going to manifest itself in the child and could lead him or leave to use the words in school. This could lead the child to get into trouble when it was no fault of his own, and it simply reflects poorly on the family. 3. The deeper meaning of cuss words.It was mentioned earlier that cuss words were colloquial, but in addition to that they are also considered base. There are situations where this laid-back attitude can be considered positive, but the effect of using those words essentially debases the social situation. Look at the meanings of these words - many of them refer to fecal matter and other bodily fluids. Why should it be considered proper for someone to mention these at the dinner table? It makes perfect sense that terms that crassly refer to bodily fluids should have limited social application. 4. The importance of the crowd.This point actually extends outside cuss words. Just as it would be improper for a liberal to break into a CPAC meeting and start yelling anti-Republican slogans, around individuals who clearly not interested in hearing these words and explicit use of them is questionable. Cuss words are one taboo out of money - politics, religion, and income are other examples. These are topics which are simply improper, and knowledge of the crowd becomes central here. In the case of cuss words, other terms can easily be used and the use of them appears to be a deliberate effort to offend or provoke.
Profanty should be socially acceptable

Just for a little bakground info, the idea for this debate was sparked by a series of recent observations that I have made suggesting that we, as a society or a culture, have lost touch (at least somewhat so) with the meaning of words and phrases. It seems to me that when classifying dialouge, text, or any other verbal communication, as suitable for a social setting, the message that we send isn't nearly as important as words that we are using to send the message. One can find numerous examples of this just by simply listening to the radio. Song lyrics can be centered around horrible topics, using graphic language to describe very unsavory and otherwise socially unacceptable actions/scenarios, whilst simple "curse/cuss" words are bleeped out or edited out of the song. This is just one example out of many. I disagree with this line of thinking totally. Now to the defined purpose of this debate : "to take a look at our standard "cuss words", and whether or not they should be deemed acceptable for use in a common social/public settings, ie. public schools, courts, daytime television, radio, etc. " I would like to make the argument that there is nothing wrong (socially that is, not speaking to personal morals) with using profanity in and of itself. As I can see, the main use of profain words is to add extra emphasis to a statement, and there is nothing inherently wrong with strong or extreme emphasis. Prohibited speech/text should be prohibited on the basis of what they mean and the message that they send. Whats so much worse about saying: that "two people have fucked" vs "two people have fornicated" or "had sexual relations" ? that "his house looks shitty" vs "his house looks crappy" or "junky" ? Obviusly these profain words are used to send messages that should be deemed innapropriate, but almost all other words could be used in the same fashion.
The gay people are NOT trying to take over the world.

"The fundamental idea of a representative government means that people can represent the issues of their constituents ... those vested in politics want to climb the political capital, even if they are gay. Therefore, they are trying to take over the world by gaining control - but this isn't a bad or amoral thing... Okay my opponent's case is just that it's not feasible. Okay, sure, why not? That doesn't mean they aren't trying ... so, just ignore his argument. " I will admit, our government has been over run by stupidity, and this includes the gay movement, everyone is going with it because they think it is some form of humanitarian cause, but it is not. It has also been proven that our brains have been shrinking since 20,000 years ago, in your face atheists, evolution is going backwards even though it does not exist! Anyway, I do not believe that the media being controlled by the whole politically correct idiocy in some form of highly calibrated coup, quite the opposite, I believe that the media is over run by stupidity, but this is decentralized.
The gay people are NOT trying to take over the world.

The fundamental idea of a representative government means that people can represent the issues of their constituents ... those vested in politics want to climb the political capital, even if they are gay. Therefore, they are trying to take over the world by gaining control - but this isn't a bad or amoral thing...Okay my opponent's case is just that it's not feasible. Okay, sure, why not? That doesn't mean they aren't trying ... so, just ignore his argument.
The gay people are NOT trying to take over the world.

In this debate, I will be arguing that the gay people are not trying to take over the world, so first off, why am I making this debate, well, some people actually think, or say, that the gay people are trying to take over the world, doesn't make sense to you? Good, that means you haven't drank the coolaid, yet. Let's get started. How are the gay people going to be United for one cause under a militia, I never heard of the gay militia, so who is going to organize this, how is this fantasy figure going to unify the gay people, how many gay people would go along with this? Who is going to finance something like this, won't people get suspicious with all these gay people buying guns, won't people notice if large sums of gay people all move to one area to rally, how do they get time off their jobs, how is the 1% of society that is gay going to over throw everyone else plus the military.
0.999...= 1 | Prove Me Wrong

"2/3 = 0.666..." No. 2/3=.6...7, not .666. Therefor, 3/3=1."x = 0.000...110 x = 00.000...1" No. 10x would be 0.0...10."10x - x = 00.000...1 - 0.000...1x = 0" You didn't even correcctly solve the problem here. THe problem's answer is 9x=.00...09.So, nothing is less then something.I await your response.
0.999...= 1 | Prove Me Wrong

0.999... = 1 x = 0.999... 10x = 9.999... 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... 9x = 9 x = 1 1/3 = 0.333... 2/3 = 0.666... 3/3 = 0.999... What number comes in between 0.999... and 1?
0.999...= 1 | Prove Me Wrong

While https://www.calculator.com... with you, It's because most calculators round in extreme situations like the one you presented. Calculators tend to round on 2^x because they have no other choice on huge exponents to this term and this is non disputed.1) The calculator says you were right on this one. However, it does not prove that .999......=1. It merely proves that the online calculator says that .333...*2=.666.... The calculator also said that when you multiply that number by 3, you get 1, not .999..., but 1.2) "You can't take out the ... from 0.999." I only took out the ... in order to be able to kindof solve the problem algebraically. Even though I changed the number this kindof applies to logs. You need to do some math to figure out those. Just like algebra, I took .999..., and I wanted to see if it would be greater then .999...5. In order to do this, I would have to subtract what would be in common with them. The relevant portion would be the ... since both numbers have them. Subtract them from each sides, it can't tell you if they are equal, but they can you which is the bigger number.
0.999...= 1 | Prove Me Wrong

First of all I forgot to mention a proof. No matter who you are you can't disprove this one. If you type in 0.99999999999999999999 into a calculator, and push = it says it equals 1. And I mean literally put 20 9's. Any less and it may not work. 1) How does 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.666...7? Put 0.3333333333 + 0.3333333333 into a calculator it gives you 0.666666... 2) You can't take out the ... from 0.999. This completely changes the number. ... represents that the number goes on infinitely. The difference between 0.999... and 0.999 is so big I couldn't possibly begin to explain it. A simple explanation is that 0.999 is finite, but 0.999... is infinite. As I have mentioned before you can take out the ... because it makes the number finite. Consequently it loses the power of infinity. So you admit that there is no number between 0.999... and 1, because you had to change the problem to answer it. So no this doesn't make sense.
0.999...= 1 | Prove Me Wrong

1) "Proof" 2 is wrong because if 1/3=.333.... then 2/3=.666....7 because it rounds at the end. 3/3 is therefore 1. The calculator says so. 2) "Proof" 3 is wrong because after infinite 9's, there could be a 5. If x is between .999.... and 1, it could be .999....5. .999....5 is more then .999.... because if you remove the repeating periods, .9995>.999. I hope this makes sense.
0.999...= 1 | Prove Me Wrong

Disprove these two proofs not the other one. Forget about the x = 0.999... thing. Try to disprove these two: Proof 2: 1/3 = 0.333... 2/3 = 0.666... 3/3 = 0.999... Proof 3: What number with a decimal comes in between 0.999... and 1. All numbers that have a difference have a number that comes in between. So what number comes in between 0.999... and 1?
0.999...= 1 | Prove Me Wrong

Your 2 "proofs" 1) "x = 0.999...10x = 9.999..."10x=9.99....0 because multiplying by 10 is (for lack of better terms) moves the number left one relative to the decimal point. This means that after the infinite run of nines, there is a 0 to fill the void. 2) A imilar thing exists for your 2nd proof.You said, "0 = 0.000...1" The number on the right is "infinetly small and not yet 0". This quote is so famous that there is an article about it.http://www.massline.org...
The Earth is round and you can't prove otherwise.

Attention all flat Earthers! You are hereby invited to try and prove your stupid theory about the Earth being flat! Normal people can't accept! I await to see how you try to prove something that's clearly impossible. I'm going to mash you to a pulp. I wonder if you can pull this off with good evidence and no flaws in logic. Oh, also, there's a neat website, where you confident weirdos can try and prove the flat Earth and if you can prove it to this guy, you win a million dollars. I'm not sure if it's a joke or not, but I think it might be a joke, but you might want to try and prove it to him, if you're so confident about your junk. Just a fun little online activity. tinyurl.com/flatmillion Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, let's have a knock down, drag-out, fight to the end and try to prove, once and for all, what shape the Earth is! Only flat Earthers can accept! I await hearing your insane garbage!