BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate is benefit

language is a way of imposing a dichotomistic logic on our world of experience. So each word is an attempt to fix some semantic dividing line that separates what is from what it is not. As I argued, the world also is dichotomous in this fashion - but in a way that is fundamentally open or vague. And that is why language often feels like it is over-precisifying or reifying the reality. We are lumpers and splitters, and our distinctions are arbitrarily sharp. This is the power of words/symbols/syntax. The word "goat" or "apple" is utterly unambiguous as a symbol string. But the world described by "goat" or "apple" is indeterminate on the microscale and still potentially ambiguous on the classical scale. Rocks are very different from goats, but sheep are pretty similar in all respects. You would have to be able to count the chromosomes to "see" that there had been some genetic divergence in the past. So we can plonk the word "goat" down on reality and see how it fits. If the word "goat" is defined within a hierarchy of dichotomous distinctions that mirror those of the world, then it will seem to fit pretty well. People's theories of language divide fairly sharply (funny that!) into those who believe that a word simply labels a sharply differentiated reality and those who believe the opposite, words are simply arbitrary conventions defineable only in their open-ended use. But I am arguing the middle path, the Peircean metaphysical view, where reality is fundamenally vague, and yet is also organising itself towards definiteness. Words are then fundamentally crisp, and we use them as a machinery of syntax, a hierarchy of constraint, to organise our vague perceptions of the world into concrete definiteness. So we are imposing a differentiation on our world of experience, but it is not just an arbitrary "meaning is use" interpretation.
Debate is benefit

What are you talking about? Of course I'm ready to take the debate! Why else would I accept? I asked you to state your case, yet you have not. I have told you in round 1 that I knew what you meant, yet you refuse to take my offer. If you really wanted to use semantics then fine! *According to your definition stated in round one, the term "debate" is obviously not equivilent to the term "benefit", therefore you contradicted yourself and proved yourself to be wrong.*According to your definition of the term "elephant" and "grey", it is also obvious that they are not the same thing. -->Your definition of the term "elephant" is a large mammal. -->Your definitions of the terrms "grey" and "pink" are a type of color.--->An elephant is not a type of color because an elephant is a large mammal. ---->Therefore, "elephant" and "grey" are not the same thing.*However, it is acceptable to say "The elephant is grey" because the term "grey" IS AN ADJECTIVE. However, the term "benefit" IS A NOUN. Because it is a noun, you cannot use it in the same way that you use an adjective.*Let me repeat that: YOU CANNOT USE A NOUN LIKE AN ADJECTIVE, excluding certain cases such as when you are using metaphors, which would not be an acceptable title due to the confusion it can cause. Furthermore, you did not specify that you were using a metaphor, therefore, I was under the implication that I had the freedom to interpret your claims however I desire.________________________________________________________________________________________I urge you to forget semantics and start the debate already! You have wasted 2 rounds already! If you, the instigator, will not instigate the debate, then I will. I will begin by providing a link to a debate on DDO. The debate's title is: Do You think I'm Hot. The contents of the debate is people criticizing and hating on each other. This is certainly not beneficial.http://www.debate.org...
Debate is benefit

If you agree of the define on my claim,u have to also agree that its not a completed sentence. based on History of the English language, or law of English. http://en.wikipedia.org... if you disagree with the define of my claim which equal please stat your define of it. -------------------------------------------- elephant is pink elephant define- A very large plant-eating mammal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large ears, native to Africa and southern Asia. It is the largest living land animal. pink define - a color varying from light crimson to pale reddish purple. elephant is grey elephant define- A very large plant-eating mammal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large ears, native to Africa and southern Asia. It is the largest living land animal. grey define- of a colour intermediate between black and white, as of ashes or lead. what the difference between elephant is grey or elephant is pink?
Debate is benefit

-Someone mentioned this in the comments:-You claimed in your title that "Debate is Benefit" which implies they are the same thing.-You provided definitions of the word "Debate" and "Benefit"-Your definitions clearly show that they are different things.***However, I will not be a jerk who uses semantics to my advantage, so I will interepret your claim to be "Debate is beneficial". ________________________________________________________________________________________Please state your case.
Abortion

Well please tell me what questions you want me to answer. So I will just give my statement. God does things that we don't understand because we can't understand. We are not perfect. What you said about the 15 year olds case. Well only god could really answer that because like I said god does things that we don't understand. God saved us by getting crucified on the cross. Which gave us all a chance to go to heaven. Also god gave us free will so we could have an arbortion or do anything else that's sinful. And he does do something which is sending is to hell. Gods vengeance is good but once again we can't understand. If god was completely fair we would all be in hell. We all sin and god didn't have to die on the cross. But he did because he loves us unconditionally. God doesn't do natural disasters. He allows them to happen to send us signs or sometimes they just happen. GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS MY BROTHER!!! :) Note : please explain what you mean by isolated people.
Abortion

Well I will clarify by what I'm mean by a individuals purpose. The purpose of a person who rapes a woman is not to rape. God gives each individual a purpose that has to do with his plan. And his plan is... well the second coming. Which is when god returns to earth the second time. Also god to,d Moses to kill the media items because it was vengeance. Gods vengeance is good vengeance. You won't understand if you don't have god. And it wasn't gods law that a Israelite soldier at war with an enemy could take a capture a attractive woman so they could get married. That was what the soldiers who looked away from god did. Also what god told Saul to do was also good vengeance. Now god doesn't kill. Back then I think Israel and all of those areas were a specific part in gods plan and I think god wants us to know what will happen to the people who reject or don't want to know about him. He won't kill us but he "allows" things to happen to us. Like maybe let us go through a "storm" so we realize that we need god. Unfortunately not everybody who's lived or is living now has believed in The Lord. Everybody coincides with their purpose even if they do is bad. They are probably the people who are going to be judged badly by god in the second coming which is also judgement day. God knows that abortion is wrong and will always say that abortion is wrong. My god bless you.
Abortion

I apologize for not responding but I was unable due to an unexpected emergency room visit. I was not allowed to use my lap top. Due to policy and other reasons. You have in no way offended me. I was just unable to reply. Let us continue. Now in my eyes the fetus is not alive until it is fully capable of living on its own energy for at least a day. And when I say own energy I am talking about if you cut the umbilical cord and it dies immediately then it is not alive it is simply leaching off of the mother, it is not independent, its sole being relies on the mother for existence. Now I'm implying that the fetus is protected, it is in a safe environment and is under no outside threat. it only has to survive without the umbilical cord for a day. Now this has to be said, you said that they all have a purpose. By that meaning it was meant for the woman to be raped. That to me is unacceptable that any one should be forced to be raped in the name of purpose. I do not understand why anyone would have the purpose to rape someone. And free will is not an excuse. if everyone has a purpose and everything happens for a reason. That is a pretty sick thing to think about in my eyes. If that is not what you meant please clarify because that is how I have interpreted what you said. Another thing you said "from the moment of birth". They haven't been born yet. Does that mean they don't have purpose? And if they do then how do we know what their purpose is? How would we know for 100% sure that any decision that the individual makes coincides with his purpose? As another point I would like to make, how is it wrong. There are so many accounts of murder and abortion in the bible. Don't just take my word look these up for yourself. NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." DEUTERONOMY 21:10-13 According to God"s law, if an Israelite soldier was at war with an enemy, and he saw a beautiful woman that he found attractive, he could capture her to be his wife. She must then shave her head, trim her nails and discard the clothing she was wearing when captured. She could mourn her father and mother for a month. If the soldier wasn't pleased with her for any reason, he could "let her go wherever she wishes." 1 SAMUEL 15:7-8 God commanded Saul to attack the Amalekites and "totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." These are only a few things that I have found to be incapable of a loving god. A merciful god. I don't see how it is wrong when most people don't even know about all the abortions god has demanded his people to carry out. If you could please answer my third point in my opening statement. I put the decision in your hands. Thank you for waiting and I am once again very sorry for not being able to respond. I shall wait for you next statement.
Abortion

Sorry for spelling yout name wrong but im glad it was funny(:I know that this is off topic and I mean no disrespect but what do you mean by "my god". He's everybody's god even if you don't believe in him and the bible is a valid source of information.Ok back to the topic. Ok first I'll say why I think abortion is wrong in "worldly" terms which means I give my statement in a way that a man without god would understand. I mean no disrespect by saying a man without god. Ok reason number one a women should not give a abortion: even if she does get raped, she shouldn't kill a human being. It's wrong and I know you might say a fetus is still underdeveloped for the first 6 weeks or something like that, but lets be honest it's still wrong. Every person from the moment of birth has a purpose(well at least I belive so) in life(even bums and homeless people).Getting a abortion is like stopping the person who is supposed to be born not to complete his or her purpose. Note: please give your next statement. (:
Abortion

Alright I will do my best. I would first like to say thank you for not coming at me in a hostel manner. Second you either misspelled my name or that was intentional but very humorous( I laughed pretty hard). The point of this debate is not to insult you or what you believe, I do not mean to offend, I will explain why I think what I think. And I would appreciate if you would simply do the same. A few things I want to clarify before I get to the meat of the subject. 1. This is not a religious debate, your god has no part in this. 2. The bible is not a valid source of information, and is incapable of proving anything. 3. I would not encourage someone to get an abortion, it is not my body and therefore not my decision to make. 4. I think that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases for it is hers and hers alone. 5. I am hoping for a mature conversation and a civil debate, which is free of senseless bashing on ones character or beliefs. Let the debate begin. First, you said that abortions is wrong....under what grounds. Could you explain why you think its wrong? Second, I am pro choice. If the woman wants to terminate the fetus, then that is her choice it is her body an no one has the right to tell her what she can and can not do with it. Third, consider this..... you have a wife for which you love to no end. She's pregnant. Your going to be a dad. As the pregnancy continues the unthinkable happens..... there's a complication with the fetus's development. Its terminal to the mothers health. You now have a choice, terminate the fetus and save your loving wife. Or you can not terminate and lose them both. You love your wife and don't want to lose her. which would you chose and why? Fourth, I am for abortion in cases of incest, rape, terminal to woman's health, etc.... Its not fair to the mother in the case of rape, why must she suffer the pain of birth for a child that she doesn't want, cant support and will never love, why must she keep the fetus. Why must she have a baby that she does not want? Fifth, I AM NOT FOR abortion in the case of "OK I got pregnant again time for my tenth abortion." That makes me rage when they don't learn that you don't go fooling around with sex unless you want a child. its plying with fire eventually your going to get pregnant fooling around like that. I absolutely can not stand women that do that. As a side note, I may not believe in any god, but I still do not believe that a man and a woman should have sex outside of marriage. Or you are undoubtedly going to marry your other, but must wait due to finances or other circumstances. That is my opening statement.
Abortion should not be a matter of the people's choice.

By your own source for the definition of murder, Murder is the “the crime of unlawfully killing a person”, however my opponent has only proved that the fetus is a life, not a person. While the fetus is alive, it is by no means a person, or a human being. “Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.” (1,2) Therefore, if the fetus is not a human being, or a person, then it is not murder to kill a fetus, just as it is not murder to kill a goldfish. Therefore to protect women’s health and rights, abortion should remain a matter of public choice (3,4). Sources 1. http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion should not be a matter of the people's choice.

Although I do not personally disagree with abortion, I will continue this matter as I do. As most should note, murder is obviously punishable by law. Webster's dictionary states that murder (1) is " to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice". Life is noted to begin at conception making the unborn fetus a "human being". Abortion (2), also defined by Webster's dictionary, "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". This process happens with the knowing of the mother, or carrier of the unborn fetus. With abortion killing the unborn child knowingly of the mother (fetus' carrier), it is clearly stated under the definition of murder that abortion is stated to be "unlawful", therefore clarifying the fact that the choice of whether an abortion should take place or not should be left to the choice of legislators or a grand jury, just as death penalties are decided. (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
You can take a savage out of South America but you can"t take the savage out of a South American

I thank Brian_Eggleston for his response and clarifications, as well as his integrity in asking the voters for me. Thus, on behalf of the final point, I encourage, but not demand, voters to at least award him the conduct points. Due to time constraints, and lack of a device to sufficiently type a reasonable reply (I am currently using a mobile phone to type this), I will leave this round rather short. Pro previously provided a succint response to the various arguments I provided in Round 1. Essentially, he is arguing that the South Americans did not find anything wrong with Suarez's (admittingly, quite disgraceful) behaviour on the pitch, and hence, it could be concluded that they still are savages. Such a reply falls short on three grounds, which I shall quickly state. First, as already noted in my opening arguments, cultural relativism - the belief that there is no objective standard of right and wrong, only different beliefs of right and wrong from different cultures, based on a variety of factors - can adequately explain this. Thus, notions of there being an objective standard in which to judge South Americans do not exist. Pro has not provided a response to this argument. Secondly, it simply may be that South Americans simply admire Suarez as a footballer, and feel obligations of solidarity towards him, in spite of his actions. Interestingly, Pro's 3rd source backs this up, with Suarez being described as a "national hero". Thus, it cannot be concluded that South Americans are "savages". Thirdly, Pro's sources only describes the reactions of Uruguayans towards the Suarez incident, rather than South Americans as a whole. Yet, Pro is using these statements from Uruguayans to make a generalization about South Americans as a whole, which is does not logically follow. In conclusion, none of Pro's arguments for the resolution are viable, and numerous criticisms could be provided at them.
You can take a savage out of South America but you can"t take the savage out of a South American

In response, all I can say, due to the extreme brevity of time I am unfortunately able to commit to this round, is that in the World Cup, Luis Suarez represented Uruguay, which is a country in South America and, therefore, Luis Suarez represented South America. Now, my opponent might try and argue that the South Americans disowned Suarez after his latest display of savagery but they didn't. Why? Because they don't think he did anything wrong. They think it is fine to go about munching other people when hungry. Why? Because they are savages just like Suarez. {1,2,3} Very sorry I didn't have time to elaborate but I hope you get my point. Many thanks to my opponent once again and I urge you to vote for him in consideration of his superior contribution. Thank you. [1] . http://www.sportsmole.co.uk... [2] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] . http://www.bbc.co.uk...
You can take a savage out of South America but you can"t take the savage out of a South American

Uruguayan international and Liverpool FC forward Luis Suarez is, yet again, facing a lengthy ban from football for biting another player, this time an Italian defender during the Uruguay v Italy World Cup match this week. In behavior reminiscent of a ravenous chimpanzee devouring a captured monkey, the famished South American footballer started chomping away at the shoulder of Giorgio Chiellini in order to satisfy his voracious appetite. [1,2] But we really shouldn't be surprised that Suarez once again resorted to consuming human flesh. That's because he is from South America where tribes of primitive hunter gathers still roam the forests, plains and jungles looking for food and where human sacrifice has long been a tradition of the resident natives. [4,5] It is foolish of us to believe that we can civilise these savages by bringing them to England to play football. Even when they are given proper houses to live in, Western consumer items to use and modern clothes to wear, when these socially-backward thugs are hungry they revert to type and bite chunks out of people's limbs. That said, South American savages can be very good footballers so we shouldn't try and prevent players like Luis Suarez coming to Europe to ply their trade, but we should take the necessary precautions to protect their fellow sportsmen from harm and that means forcing untamed South American wild men like Suarez to wear muzzles like dangerous dogs have to. That's because you can take a savage out of South America but you can't take the savage out of a South American. Thank you. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.newyorker.com... [4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [5} http://www.theguardian.com...