BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prolly Should Be a Word

I'm pretty sure if you ran up to someone and shouted prolly, then yes you would be considered weird. If you did do that thought, then I would consider you pretty dumb because it is obvious that a normal person would use it in context. As far as probly goes, I do not think that it is normal, and it is definitely not as fun to say. People may say probly, but people also say prolly. Just because the people around you do not say it does not mean that nobody does. You are assuming things that you shouldn't. The word prolly is just as common in my community as probly may be in yours. As you said before, probly is not a different word than probably. By talking fast, someone may say this but saying prolly also means the same thing. You also said that the internet and text messaging are retarding the English language. This doesn't cause only trouble though. By learning to abbreviate things quickly, children/teenagers are learning how to take notes faster. By abbreviating words, they are learning skills that they can use in college. Prolly could be one of their abbreviations, but it should be a REAL WORD. I told you it was fun to say! ! :-D You said I was being hypocritical but when I said that people with accents will be given a break, I meant that people that already say prolly because that is how they learned to talk will not feel weird about saying fake words and having their friends bother them about it. Wow. That was a long sentence. ^ Technically prolly is not the same word as probably. It is different and easier to say. My friends already use it as if it is a real word, so why shouldn't we make it one?
Prolly Should Be a Word

Thank you starting this debate. It will *probably* be fun. I've *probably* never heard this term until now, but this is the urban dictionary's definition of prolly: "Web-slang abbreviation of ‘probably'. Used extensively in forums and instant messsaging worldwide." I will start by refuting your arguments in respect to their numbers… 1. You, fortunately for my case, spelled "probably" correctly. When large numbers of people are having trouble spelling the words of a language, we do not change the language, we change the people. People need to educate themselves more and learn how to spell words. It is essential for proper communication. We do not make the language dumber, we make the people smarter. Heck why don't we just grunt at each other, for that matter? 2. The difference between 2 syllables and 3 syllables isn't that great. If it takes too long for you to say a 3 syllable word, maybe you should stop hurrying. Furthermore, you can, while speaking, pronounce "probably" as "probly" (as people usually do) and only have 2 syllables. Pronouncing it this way does not make it a different word, but only occurs naturally when saying it fast. In effect, the word probably can be a 2 syllable word. 3. I have never, ever, heard the word "prolly". I will take your word for it, however. The internet and text messages and all types of instant messaging communication are retarding the English language. We can not encourage the over-simplification of man-made language. The more eloquent communication is, the better people communicate. People are being extremely lazy to the point of reducing sentences to acronyms. 4. I said it aloud, and it was actually pretty fun to say. I then realized that you kinda had me at that point, which made me unhappy, and so I did not smile. Thus, it did not make me happy, because it helped my opponent. I don't know if this is helping my case…whatever. I have not said "prolly" around anyone else to test your second hypothesis. My prediction, however, is that if I go up to a stranger, look them in the eye and yell "PROLLY!" it will not make them smile, but will instead either: -Make them look at me really funny, -Hurriedly walk away while avoiding eye-contact, -Embarrassedly say "I think you have the wrong person…I don't know anyone named Prolly", -Or beat me up. "Prolly should be made a word for people who have accents and say it already will be given a break" Ah, but now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier in this debate you stated "it will make other people smile." Which one is it?! It makes people smile…or makes people give you a hard time about it?! Make up your mind… Prolly doesn't need to be made a word, because there is already a word with the exactly same meaning: "probably". They sound the same and they mean the same. In fact, prolly simply started as a way to mean probably. Why bother then? We already have a word for that. PS Who ever said it's not a word? -Emperor Harlan
Prolly Should Be a Word

I think prolly should be a word because... 1. It is easier to spell. I'm not even sure how to spell probably. Is that right? 2. It is easier to say. Probably is three syllables, and makes you trip over your words. Prolly is only two syllables and makes life easier. 3. A lot of people say prolly already. It is used in text messaging, instant messaging, and in everyday talking. 4. Prolly is just a fun word to say. Say it to yourself now. It just makes you want to smile. If it doesn't, then at least it will make other people smile. In conclusion, prolly should be made a word because typing it over and over again with the little dotted red line underneath it is driving me crazy. No, I'm just kidding. ;-) Prolly should be made a word for people who have accents and say it already will be given a break. I just like the word prolly and I think that you should too. Saying prolly is just like people saying yal or ain't, except I don't know how to spell yal. Sorry! Thanks for listening to my silly debate! :-D
Peace through tyranny (pro) or a destructive war (con)

We are talking about keeping "peace" through tyranny. The main objective is keeping peace with methods no matter how immoral or cruel. There wouldn't be a destructive war so long as we keep the peace through tyranny and keep to the mission objective. On the other hand, a destructive war is a destructive war. Con hasn't shown how a destructive war is better than a peace through tyranny.
Peace through tyranny (pro) or a destructive war (con)

How would WW1 even started under a peaceful tyranny? Con says no history, but I think that would be good as there will be no old grudges from wars as well as more unity between countries. Plus, history is not only about wars and revolutions. Ancient systems could be studied and the different forms of society be known about. Furthermore, while a peaceful tyranny may not be good, isn't it better than a war? At least there will be no loss of life. And there are many forms of tyranny. If the government is motivated to develop the country, than tyrannical methods against obstructions of progress can be used. Or extreme crime control and strict taxation laws could be defined as tyranny against the population. As for inventions, while without war there will be lesser motivation, a tyrannical government would need power to maintain its hold, and therefore it would fund inventions of destructive devices so that they can intimidate the population through its display. The art of tyranny includes not pushing the population too far to cause a revolution, therefore devices such as jets, nuclear bombs would rarely be used but be required for occasional display and testing. The only problem is a tyrannical peace always leads to a devastating war. But that can be avoided by doing some good deeds for development of the country, such as improving roads and basic facilities. You have to be tyrannical, but not destroy your country and its people in the process. Fear is a great motivation, but constant fear of consequences can make the person braver, as it would become something normal for them, and would give them the courage needed for revolution.
Peace through tyranny (pro) or a destructive war (con)

But how would WW2 ended if the Americans didn't nuke Japan, TOTAL DOMINATION to Japan and the British had to bomb some old buildings to stop the Nazis from achieving what Hitler wanted, GLOBAL DOMINATION. Think about it, what would've happened if the Americans didn't invent the Nuclear bomb or the Nazis didn't invent the jet, yeah, no history for historians to discover, no Cold War, no Migs, no Hawker Hurricanes, that is what destructive wars can create.
Kids should be able to play football under 12 years old

My opponent has said with the right amount of protection football will not do harm to the brain, well that is incorrect the brain damage can also come with very well protection.For example, multiple peoples in the NFL have gotten brain damage from playing with protection.Also what if you are not on a team and like to play. Another reason why Kids should not play football while younger than twelve is it could disappoint them inside in a variety of ways. On sway is being discriminated i have personal experience with this when I play football during recess sometimes I am not aloud to play because I am a girl and that hurts my feelings very much. Also you could be very sad if you lose a game or let down your teammates. My opponent has also said that if you play on asphalt you will only get a couple scrapes this is incorrect because one time my friend was playing and hit his head on a rock while falling and had his head cracked open in one area this is serious and not a little scratch. I hope my opponent responds well
Kids should be able to play football under 12 years old

Yes, it may cause damage, but if the kids dream is to become a football player, he should start at his dream early. Also, if the kid has the right amount of padding, he will not take as much damage. And yes opponent, I have felt the pain of tripping and falling while playing asphault football, but the worst you can get on the asphault is a few scratches. Let me explain. If the kid has a dream of making it to NFL level, I think that the kid should try to reach that goal, because theres nothing stopping them. If they play the game right then they evolve and will be able to make to NFL level. All the kid should remember is to play the game right and always have fun. If the coaches give the kids the right amount of padding to go out on the field to get hit, the kid should not get hurt as easily. The average kid should be wearing a helmet, shoulder pads and padded pants for protection for the hits they can take. It may cause brain damage, however thats where a helmet does it job. Thank you and I hope my opponent answers well.
Kids should be able to play football under 12 years old

kids should not play football under the age of 12 because it may cause serious injury. have you seen the news in the past year it is saying it is bad to play football because you can get serious brain injury. Also the what if you played on asphalt and fell. If you are under 12 you are most likely in school and you could become almost obsessed with football and it could de rail your academic carrier. Also you could hope when you grow up you get on an NFL team with an imagination of a 12 year old and it could break your heart to find out that it is unrealistic.
The Bible is true, the Book of Mormon is not.

Pro, in a bad mood already, I accepted this debate because I wanted to teach you a lesson. But the truth is, if you really are 10 years older than me and still don't know what a fable is, you are in trouble. You actually completely ignored my first argument-- which utterly defeated your resolution --and moved on to state why you believe the Bible which is NOT evidence that it is entirely true. You put a BoP on us both. Proving the book of mormon to be true would be impossible, and so is proving the bible. It is a jerry-rigged debate that will rely mostly on the preconceptions of the voters.
The Bible is true, the Book of Mormon is not.

"Tell us why we should trust the book of Mormon." Con has failed to to do this. "I will tell you why we should trust the Bible". I trust the Bible because it is reasonable to do so. Historically, it is correct, and we can check the History books to verify this. The same can not be said for the Book of Mormon. Jesus Christ the man walked this earth, and even Richard Dawkins has admitted that Historians agree on this fact, retracting his own statements made to the contrary, in a recent debate with Dr. John Lennox. Furthermore, The beginning of the Bible states "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth". This is in agreement with what is accepted by modern science and quantum mechanics - time, space, energy and matter HAD to all come into existence at the same time. The Bible has made several prophecies that have come to pass, such as the city of Tyrus ( see the account of Alexander the great, and the city of Tyre ) the scattering of the Jews, and the rebirth of Israel, just to name a few. The Bible is logical as it can provide a reason for the human conscience and universal morality that we all hold to as humans ( thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc ). Without God, we would make up our own rules, rather than hold to universal ones like these. These are a few reasons that it is worth the time to investigate the Bible, and its claims. I did investigate, and found the evidence of truth to be persuasive. When I investigated the Book of Mormon, I found a book about people who know one has ever heard of, and cant be found in history. The places mentioned can not be found on a map. The book starts by declaring that ALL of Christianity is an Abomination. I am answering that accusation, and declaring the Bible to be our source of truth. I believe the Bible because I can find evidence that it is true. The Book of Mormon makes a different appeal, as it has no evidence at all. Instead, it asks you to read the Book and pray to see if you get a special feeling. If you get this special feeling, that is what they say is the truth. God gives us evidence, I will take that over trusting my own special feelings; they can be deceptive. Con, you would do well to find a debate in your field of interest, instead of intruding on a legitimate debate in an area that you are ignorant of, and hostile towards. I forgive you for your bad conduct, but you have offended many others as well. I hope you gain some clarity on this issue. Thank you for your time, and your votes. I trust I have won already, as this wasn't a "real" debate. I will look for a worthy opponent on this same topic again.
The Bible is true, the Book of Mormon is not.

Since con has stated two premises as one complete argument, I only need to disprove one of them, (particularly since proving the book of Mormon or any ancient book to be true is impossible). Con's conclusion that "the Bible is true" indicates that he believes in the truth of the entire Bible, not just certain parts of it. Therefore, I only need to disprove one thing in the Bible to discredit his argument. "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" --Matthew 7:7 --Go on and ask god to explode my computer, like he did for Elijah in front of Baal's prophets (in the STORY). Watch me still reply. "For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." --Matthew 17:20 --Doesn't work. Trust me, I tried last time I was up on the Appalachian. Luke 10:27 (YLT) "And he answering said, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of all thy soul, and out of all thy strength, and out of all thy understanding, and thy neighbour as thyself." Luke 12:5 (YLT) "but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the gehenna; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him." 1 John 4:18 (YLT) "fear is not in the love, but the perfect love doth cast out the fear, because the fear hath punishment, and he who is fearing hath not been made perfect in the love"
The Bible is true, the Book of Mormon is not.

Terms: I am a Christian looking to debate a Mormon. If you are not a Mormon, this debate is not for you. The Bible has withstood the test of time. It is accurate in areas of History, Geology, Logic, Prophecy and Science. The Bible literally warns against Mormonism. A Christian who follows the Bible will not be able to then also follow the Book of Mormon, because they are in conflict with one and other. First round, accept challenge and introduce yourself. Second round make the case for your claim. Third round rebuttal and closing statement. Tell us why we should trust the book of Mormon. I will tell you why we should not, and why we should trust the Bible. I am not "anti-Mormon", but I am against Mormonism, and the attack it has brought on Christianity.
Women Should Be Able To Hold In Their Period Blood Like They Do With Pee

Okay, but it's gross. Like, if you can't control yourself or your blood just put a Band-Aid on it or something. Like, why don't they teach these girls how to take care of their bloody issues. I don't want to sit in a chair in class that a girl has been bleeding all over it's rude. If they can't control it, they should just not go out in public for the remainder of the week. Clean up, or stay home... that's my motto!
Gay Marriage

You are right when you say many people oppose gay marriage because of their religious views. I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is to let these people's creed get in the way of progress. Civil unions establish a second-class citizenship status for gay men and women. And if marriage is as you say it is (a religious institution) then why let anyone decide upon it? If you wish to remain consistent, then you probably should say that marriage should be left up to individual churches. However, marriage is not solely a religious institution. To address your point, laws on firearms should remain consistent throughout all fifty states. There are some issues (most specifically the issue of how people should be taxed and by what rate, etc.) that should be left up to the states, but not civil issues. You still have not explained why a gay couple in Massachusetts should have any more rights than if that same couple moved to Texas. Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, however, every American, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, political views, or income level, has three unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Banning same-sex marriage, or, at least, leaving it up to states (so the federal government does not look like it is discriminating, but rather, they're leaving that up to the more conservative states) undermines those unalienable rights. An issue of civil rights, perhaps not. But an issue of unalienable rights, same-sex marriage absolutely is.
Gay Marriage

Well I definitely agree with you on the fact that religion has a little too much sway in politics and I apologize if I sounded rude i just hate it when people try and change minds by telling stories. You are right that marriage precedes religion but without religion marriage would not exist as an institution and that is where the majority of the problems stem from. In my opinion something as simple as the term marriage causes a lot of problems, those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons do so, for the most part, because homosexuality is considered wrong in their religion and thus having a married homosexual couple is wrong to them. That is why changing everything from marriage to civil unions would help the situation to at least be able to be solved in a way that doesn't involve what every individual religion thinks about the term marriage. I have to flat out disagree with your argument about the Constitution, we must follow the Constitution as much as we can even though these days no one seems to remember or care. The rights of states to decide things for themselves is one of the main things that makes this country different from most in the world. If something isn't specifically in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states to decide for themselves, this should include a lot more things than it does today but unfortunately does not. The problem with your argument here is that while this sounds good in principal, there are many many examples of personal rights that are different between states. One good example is firearm laws, one cannot single out marriage to be the same in all fifty states and let other personal rights continue being unequal. The more things that are demanded to be exactly the same in all fifty states the more. Also marriage is not a civil right, it is an institution and like all institutions it has restrictions. This is a point that is often overlooked, but is very important. All institutions in our society have exclusions that define what the institution is, without exclusions it wouldn't be. Every person has the right to marry, there are certain exceptions that are the same across the board. No one can marry a child, a close blood relative, etc. there is no discrimination involved, the right to marry is the same for all people and it has the same exclusions for all people. It is simply not an issue of Civil Rights.
Gay Marriage

The biggest flaw in your argument is that marriage precedes religion. When a man and a woman go to city hall and apply to get married, they do exactly that. They apply for a marriage license, not a civil union license. I could not care less what partnerships churches want to bless, for that is irrelevant. I am talking about full, equal marriages. Furthermore, saying that because something is not in the Constitution that the states should decide upon it is just wavering between two sides of the argument. When states decide upon the issue nothing really gets done. We can see this in the Civil War, where South Carolina initially seceded due to states rights. There is something also very wrong with the idea that a gay couple living in Massachusetts should have more opportune marriage rights than a gay couple living in the state of Texas. Civil rights should be universal. Just think about this: what makes people in one state more deserving of better rights than in another state? People across the United States deserve the same, equal treatment as one another. And the little anecdote I told about my best friend was not to pull at your heart strings. It was to illustrate the stronghold that religion has on progressing.