BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Retard is not a hate word.

Your "point" is not arguing the topic, whether or not retard is a hate word - it"s arguing if it should be. This means that you aren"t arguing what you advertised the debate would be about and you are attempting to link in tenuously related arguments. You then talk about how people have changed the definition. This is totally irrelevant - languages change and evolve due to different uses. If you look at English throughout time, it"s had many internal and external influences(mostly the latter) that have made it change[1]. It is just as valid as any of the other influences. Languages evolve, and to reject a meaning because it wasn"t originally said meaning is intellectually dishonest. Okay, so I already defined it as the same, except I didn"t include the part about it being a term of abuse. Because it is "often used as a general term of abuse" it is a hate word. That is what we are referring to when we talk about "hate words". You then talk about how it"s a medical term to describe someone with mental disabilities. Due to the general consensus that it"s bad or wrong to have a mental disability[2], we can conclude that a term that refers to a mentally handicapped person will be used hatefully, therefore is a hate word. Then, again, you say about how schools teach that "the word is used to hurt". I would remind you that that we are not arguing if the term should be used derogatorily, rather whether it is or not. If what you say is true(you haven"t provided any evidence), that would prove that it is being used as a hate word and not otherwise. Now you are arguing that a different word is not a hate word which is dishonest because you aren"t arguing for the point - we have already established that it is "often used as a general term of abuse"(see your post on round two and my definition"s source). Hate is normally conveyed via abuse(verbal, physical, etc.) so it is a hate word. Also, look at source two again,it shows that in the UK(the homeland of the English language) that there is a general intolerance towards those less intellectually capable or mentally disabled. This means that they will use the word to conduct their hatred towards the group. Again, you make the school point. This is, as I have already said, not arguing the topic, rather if the word should be a hate word or not. I will reiterate for hopefully the final time that we are talking about if it is a hate word or not, not if it should be or not. Please stop debating other topics. Then you talk about how the word "retard" is used simply to describe mental illness, which is - again - ignoring that words change; words lose and gain meanings, derogatory and hateful or otherwise. Because the English language changes so frequently, the word "retarded" has gained a hateful meaning. It is, therefore, a hate word. Sources: 1. http://www.wordorigins.org... 2. Table 2.1, https://www.gov.uk...
Retard is not a hate word.

Thank you, Con, as you said in argument 2.) "I"ve never seen it used not to be as an insult. " yet you didn't address my third point that school really put it out that way. If you have taken the peer held or class ( I won't talk about specific students due to confidentially) then you should know they take a word used to describe a person with mental disorders by taking it and changed its definition. 1. "a mentally handicapped person (often used as a general term of abuse)." Is the real meaning of retard as a noun. This way of use is said,by doctors because that is the correct way to describe someone with mental disabilities, but schools take this and they teach them to think that the word is used to hurt oroutcast them when it truly just is another way to say mentally ill. "Intellectual disability, also (sometimes proscriptively) known as mental retardation, is defined as an IQ below 70 along with limitations in adaptive functioning and onset before the age of 18 years." this is the definition of intellectual disability where in the definition uses retardation a way of saying regard is used, but where is the hate.-(please note I loved working as a peer tutor and the students are super nice but I feel this is important for them to relize.)- schools take this word change its meaning and turn it into a hate word when by definition it is a word used simply to describe mentally illnesses.
Retard is not a hate word.

You aren"t using the definition of "retard" people generally use. While, yes, the first definition listed on google is what you write, but that"s the verb form. When people call someone a retard, they are referring to the noun, which is defined as "a person who has a mental disability"[1]. Now that we know what people mean, we can decide to what extent it is a hate word. A hate word is a word that conveys a hateful meaning. While it could be used to genuinely mean someone with a mental disability, it rarely is used so. In fact, I"ve never seen it used not to be as an insult. Insults are not a loving thing; they are used to hurt people"s feelings, which is hateful. It is, therefore, a hate word because it exhibits "extreme dislike"[2] towards disabled people. Thank you. Sources: 1. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... 2. . http://www.dictionary.com...
Should Civilians Be Able to Own Drones

Well, the human race has not always been known for it's concern for privacy and common health. Civilians will find very practical and useful ways to use their drones that may end up helping the entire human race but sadly there are very bad people out there. The whole drone situation would open up a whole new world of opportunity for cyber bullying and blackmail. They can be used to steal peoples personal information and record instances that some people would consider highly inappropriate. Think about it. It would be natural to be angry at your ex for dumping you. How would you deal with that? Well some people would record hours of sex and post it on the Internet to get revenge. In all honesty drones would be fantastic but it just opens a new world of pain that the human race is not advanced enough to deal with.
federal goverment bailouts are just

First off I will address his value. The very definition he provides you is flawed. Basically, he is saying that if something does not violate any rights, then it is just. OK, so smoking marijuana in your basement doesn't violate anyone else's rights, correct? So it is just? I would argue against this. We must look to justice as being the construction of something good, not the absence of wrong. For the sake of the debate I will also value Justice. I define Justice as being fair, equitable, and moral right. To decide the winner, we must look to which case batter upholds justice. His criterion is the government filling its obligations. I see this as valid, with one main problem: affirming does not fulfill the criterion. I will show you why as I attack his case. ==Contention 1== My opponent proposes that bailouts keep people in their jobs. He gives no sources, and no warrant. For all I know this is a made-up statistic. Please keep this in mind, that thus far there is no proof. He then says that we cannot allow people to lose their jobs. I would agree. However, my opponent does not show why this can only be achieved through the affirmative side. ==Contention 2== He says here that bailouts are just. OK, so he says that bailouts are just because they are justified. Circular reasoning? I would say so. He says they are just because they violate no one's rights. How about this: The AIG bonuses. Billions of taxpayer dollars went to throwing a grand party for some CEOs. Whoops, there went right to property! Did the money get used to build roads? To employ people to build them? To clean public areas? To employ people to clean? What you must realize is that bailouts actually violate rights. Therefore, even if you want to go by my opponent's definition of justice, he contradicts himself. Either way you look at it, you must see the need to negate. "federal goverment bailouts are just" Negated.
federal goverment bailouts are just

I must affirm the resolution, Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just. I would like to offer the following definition for the clarification of this debate round: Just –violating no right or obligation (1) My value will be that of justice, defined as the quality of being just (2). The criterion that I will be upholding my value with is that of government fulfilling its obligations. Observation 1: Government obligations are to establish justice, maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote the general welfare. (3) Contention 1: Bailing out large corporations promotes the common welfare by keeping people in their jobs. A: Without government intervention in the American auto industry, nearly 3 million people would be out of a job. (4, 5) B: Therefore, not bailing out large corporations would lead to substantial job losses and would violate government's obligation to promote general welfare and so would not be just. Contention 2: Bailouts of large corporations are just. A: Just is defined as not violating any right or obligation. B: The obligations of the government are to establish justice, maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote general welfare. C: Affirming does not violate any of these obligations and therefore is just. D: Therefore by not violating any rights or obligations, and so bailouts are just. Citations: 1 - Editorial Staff of the National Reporter System. JUDICIAL AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES Second Series, Vol II: Deposition-Lamp. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1914. 2 - "justice." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 28 February 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com......;. 3 - Lay, Vicheka. "The Four Basic Obligations of the Government." EzineArticles Submission - Submit Your Best Quality Original Articles For Massive Exposure, Ezine Publishers Get 25 Free Article Reprints. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://ezinearticles.com...
healthier food in schools

Healthy food, just like any other upgrade to a school, is a large investment. You need to either acquire more funding or cut other things out if you really think it is that worth it. Again, unhealthy habits aren't going to vanish just by changing lunch choices. If you really are that devoted to healthier lifestyles, you need to address the aspect of how parenting plays into this. 2 out of the 3 meals a student eats are usually served at home, so a person isn't going to be unhealthy solely because of what they have for lunch. I think the kids that prefer healthier options should bring their own lunches instead of imposing the cost on the already strained education budget.
healthier food in schools

I know that healthier food cost more $$$, but if it means that the students are healthy and energized; then it's TOTALLY worth it. And i'm not saying that we should force them to eat salad, but I don't li,e that we are given so many unhealthy, processed foods. I mean, we can have them now-and-then, but this is every day! I want somebody to put a stop to it and that is why i created this debate, people!
healthier food in schools

I'm a little unclear on what exactly you are arguing for. You should be a little more explicit with your opening argument. If you are saying that you would like the option of healthy foods to be available in schools, then I more or less agree with you personally. But because this is a debate, I will be playing devil's advocate. While healthier lunches are ideal, they are also inevitably more expensive than what would be considered "junk food." For example, it is definitely cheaper to produce 100 slices of pizza than it is to produce 100 bowls of fresh salad. Schools usually have a tight budget as it is. Some can barely afford to hire quality teachers, keep music/arts programs, or have updated textbooks. When it comes to schools providing lunches, the original purpose wasn't really to make kids healthier. The original intent was probably geared more towards making sure kids having something in their stomachs so that they aren't hungry during the rest of the day. Whatever that "something" in their stomach is seems to be a moot point, as long as it's not egregiously rotting/expired and carries some nutritional value. Keep in mind that this is only one meal of the day out of the usual three. If you are that worried about kids becoming obese or unhealthy solely based on their lunches, then you are ignoring breakfast and dinner. An occasional bag of chips, slice of pizza, or can of soda isn't going to make someone unhealthy if it is just an add-on to their usual healthy eating habits. However, if a kid is regularly eating crap for every meal of the day, including lunch, then that really isn't the school's fault. That's more of a parenting issue. If you are saying that you would like for the option of "junk food" to be entirely banned from schools altogether and replaced with only healthy food, then I actually have a personal disagreement here. Honestly, regulating the sale of junk food in schools is kind of a waste of time. It really isn't the school's obligation to make your child healthy. The school's only obligation is to provide a safe learning environment and the resources to do that. Kids don't become obese or unhealthy solely based on what they eat in schools, as I mentioned above. Most of the food they consume in a given day comes from somewhere outside of school, mainly the home. Even if schools did have the obligation to teach kids healthy eating habits, they can't force the healthy lunches down their throats. Banning all junk food would backfire, since all the kids that normally eat junk food would just bring more junk food from home, and the kids that eat in more or less healthy ways will keep doing so. Junk food isn't going to go away just because it stops being sold in schools. It's easily accessible through other means, such as a corner store on the way to/from school. The parents should be taking responsibility and teaching their kids early-on about healthy eating habits and ensuring they have healthy meals at home rather than blaming the schools.
The Christian God is real

Last argument: Since Im limited to only using the bible, here are a few links to confirm it: Archeology confirms new testament:https://www.premierchristianity.com... History confirming bible:https://amazingbibletimeline.com... Science confirming the bible:https://rationalwiki.org... Also I know Im breaking the rules a little in the following points of mine so I apologise in advance: heres a link to science confirming god"s existence:http://www.saintsandsceptics.org... Heres a link to most probrably a quite well known argument called the kalam cosmological argument:https://m.youtube.com... Another link prooving god"s existence:https://www.everystudent.com... Miracles of the church:http://catholicsay.com... Concluding statement: With the following points in all 3 rounds,I conclude that god exists as there have been events which has not been explicable by science which only occurs in the catholic church(which then prooves only jesus exists as by far he has been one of the historical figures with tons of evidence revolving around),science,history and archeology confirms the bible and also science and the kalam cosmological argument and that link I found plus science all confirms the existence of god. Rebuttals: "...likely worn by a person who had experienced repeated torture." But if that is the case,why does the face look so similar to Jesus"s? "How did they record into the history books a blood type that was not yet discovered? It makes no sense." Recorded events of the miracle in the 8th century. Miracle investigated in the 20th. "In addition there was no where near enough room to fit all the food required to feed all these animals." According to what source? Were you there when it happened? "In addition the animals could not have all reached Noah as quickly as the bible purports they did." According to what source? Were you there when it happened? "I'm going to list a few contradictions in the bible to show its unreliability........" Whatever the case it still says the same thing of sorts. For example whatever the case Aadam died. Or whatever the case the sun was made like how we experience it every day. Etc. "In the very same article he linked it said that it was impossible to confirm it was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth." No where in the article did it say so. I re read the article.
The Christian God is real

Argument two: Now con at this moment right now might think the bible is a fictional book but in this argument I"d like to take a look at the historical evidence behind bibical events: Noah"s ark:https://www.google.com.sg... Jesus"s tomb:https://www.google.com.sg... Burial cloth/shroud of turin:https://www.google.com.sg... Rebuttals: "Also im rather curious how did they determine blood type in the 8th century? After all blood types were discovered in the 20th century." Recorded into the history books in the 8th century and investigated in the 20th century. Apologies you couldnt get the link: https://www.catholiceducation.org... https://www.michaeljournal.org... Sorry I may have used different links as I couldnt find the ones I found earlier.
The Christian God is real

To start off the two sources you linked do not take me to anything mentioning the story you claimed happened. You will need to fix that. So already you have failed to provide any evidence. Also im rather curious how did they determine blood type in the 8th century? After all blood types were discovered in the 20th century. The next point im going to make is that you ignored the definition we were supposed to use for this debate. That there is an omniscient being and that it is the one described in the bible. You have provided no reason to believe this supposed event happened and even if it did that it required omniscience nor even that it was the christian god that did it. How do you know it was not Zeus, Allah, or the Jewish god? If all you have is this one supposed miracle i'm afraid this debate will not go far.
The Christian God is real

First argument: In the 8th century,during a mass,the bread and wine turned into actual flesh and blood. Years later,scientists investigated the miracle and came to the following conclusions: 1.The Flesh is striated muscular tissue of the myocardium (heart wall), having no trace whatsoever of any agents used for preservation. 2.The Blood and the Flesh were found to belong to the rare blood type AB. 3.The Blood of the Eucharistic miracle was found to contain the following minerals: chloride, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium, all normal components of blood. The protein components were normally fractionated with the same percentage ratio as those found in normal fresh blood. 4.All the scientists agreed that the Flesh and Blood would have rapidly decayed without effective preservatives. Professor Linoli, famous for anatomical studies, conclusively excluded the possibility of a fraud, affirming that no human hand could have made such an expert cut from the Heart, which was made tangentially, that is, a round cut, thick on the outer edges and lessening gradually and uniformly into the empty central area. Source:http://www.traditioninaction.org......... Oh and a little bit more about the miracle of lanciano,when scientists cut the piece of flesh,each piece was 15.85 grams. How is this special? Take a look: Original piece:15.85 grams Each cut piece:15.85 grams Source:https://www.michaeljournal.org......... If god does not exist, then how could this miracle have occured? Is it plausible to say that this can be explained by science when there is no scientific explanation for this? I"m open for explanations but the last I checked there was not a single explanation for this miracle. And if you"re wondering why there isnt an explanation for this(or at least one I could not find) from science,the definition of a miracle is an event which is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and hence attributed to divine agency.
Anarcho-Capitalism can work

I will argue that the citizen needs the government to survive. I will base my reasoning on several key elements on several things...A. The need for authority. B. The need for regulation.C. The need for organization.The definitions we will use will come from google..."a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." (Anarchy)"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." (Capitalism)
Anarcho-Capitalism can work

'1. They had kingdoms/tribal councils, which count as government.' Actually if you look at the Anglo-Saxons at some points they had a private court system and also Iceland was an Anarchy for a whileIceland didn't even have 1% of the population of most modern day countries. Anarchy on a large scale would be chaotic. Imagine we just started Anarchy and got rid of the government it REALLY is irrelevant how and when or if it will happen i am discussing if the system ALREADY in place would workIlogical. The whole resolution of the debate is that it can work, so you can't tell me pointing out a flaw in the system is illogical. at some points maybe people would try to set up nations however this would be hard with the majority of the population armed and defense agencies .It wouldn't be as hard as you think. There will always be new people to oppose the system, and they will take power unless stopped by an organized force. One neighborhood at a time. If two people belong to the same protection agency, will the agency pick sides. ' In what case give me a scenario ? .Pretty self explanotory. If these agencies are regional, many people will surely belong to them. Most cases they would take would be against a client. You see the problem. You can't trust a buissness to protect you. Imagine if the police had to be payed."Hey officer, 200$ to arrest that man.""Hey officer, I keep up with the monthly payments, so make sure you do a good job." Want to know what would happen if we gave money to a buissness to protect us? They would become thugs or abuse their power. Another hole, sure! What if you can't afford your payment, do you get turned down protection. You can't tell me they would get protected anyways, because you can't insure that that all agencies would accept that. I mean it's anarchy.Conclusion: Anarchy is a terrible idea and would lead to mass death and destruction. People need law and order to a certain extent, and all the work that would go into creating this system would be wasted.
Anarcho-Capitalism can work

'1. They had kingdoms/tribal councils, which count as government.' Actually if you look at the Anglo-Saxons at some points they had a private court system and also Iceland was an Anarchy for a while ' It is relevant. For it to work, you need to convince people that they don't need government. If this were to be created, many people would just start another government to rule over everyone.' Imagine we just started Anarchy and got rid of the government it REALLY is irrelevant how and when or if it will happen i am discussing if the system ALREADY in place would work , at some points maybe people would try to set up nations however this would be hard with the majority of the population armed and defense agencies . If someone want's to live in a community-like socialistic system they can do so in fact socialists and communists can get together buy themselves private territory and live like they want to there the important thing here is that they do not force their system onto anyone . ' If two people belong to the same protection agency, will the agency pick sides. ' In what case give me a scenario ? .