BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Society As A Whole Would Be Better Off Speaking Ebonics Rather Than Proper English

RuleCon must argue the opposite, that "Society As A Whole Is Better Off Because Proper English Is The Way It Is Instead of Being Ebonics". Con may not argue from the standpoint that the resolution is invalid because of them being "equal".People are often criticized when speaking ebonics for not speaking "proper English" but proper English itself must stand upon its own merits.ConjugationOne thing ebonics does that is innovative is it eliminates conjugation of verbs other than indicating the infinitive with "to". Instead of "I am", "You are", "they are", "he/she/it is" it's just all "I/you/they/he/she/it be". That's way simpler. If you think about it there is no practical functionality of verb conjugation in the English language. It's not like Spanish where dropping the Subject from the sentence is popular and so you need the conjugated verb to tell you the subject.Think of the mental energy that is saved from learning to speak this way. A small amount of brain space that doesn't go to remembering the differences in conjugation is then free to be used for something else. Although it seems triffling, imagine a generally intelligent child who has a learning disability that affects language learning. If he's at the right level the slightly easier learnability of the language could make the difference between giving up and persevering and hence future success.This is not to say that simplicity is the only virtue of what defines a good language. Complicated grammatical rules can be an asset to a language IF it helps people convey information better. But verbal conjugation is merely stylistic and adds nothing to the English language. It's decoration. Ebonics does away with it.Ain'tThis word is often given a bad rap, but it is used as a general negative indicator in Ebonics as opposed to having to use so many different ones: am not, isn't, aren't, haven't and hasn't, don't, doesn't, didn't. Speach is simpler when you just use "ain't". Typically context clearly indicates the sense "ain't" is being used in.Saving Time And Energy In Everyday SpeechIf a person doesn't have to conjugate and doesn't have to think of a specific negation that frees up some neurons to think about other things. Though small, this could in some cases push over the threshhold where someone has room to think to include more depth in the conversation.
Society As A Whole Would Be Better Off Speaking Ebonics Rather Than Proper English

If whites had always been speaking this way from the beginning then it wouldn't be racist.Comparatively, Ebonics is more expressive and efficient at expression, so we would be better off today if it had been used in the first place. We would probably be making slightly more in GDP and technology today had we used the language from the getgo. There would also probably be less problems with dyslexia.Now I'm not saying if we did this now it would work, just that had we done this from the very beginning it would've turned out better than it did.
Society As A Whole Would Be Better Off Speaking Ebonics Rather Than Proper English

Not about replacing. I'm saying that comparatively had we started with it we would be better off now.DifferentiationsAs it is Ebonics has more tenses than standard English. So it also differentiates certain things more. It's not all simplification.http://abagond.wordpress.com... Here are some of the ways you can talk about walking: He walk - an action without regard to time He is walkin’ - an action in the present He walkin’ - also an action in the present. Same as “he is walkin’”. The “is” can be dropped. He be walkin’ - an action that is done all the time or over and over again He been walkin’ – an action in the past that took some time He BEEN walkin’ – an action that has been going on a long time and is still going on. The “been” is stressed. He done walked – an action completed in the past He finna walk – an action in the near future He’ll be done walked - an action completed in the future Confusing"I won't go if you aren't going to come with me' but if we used aint it would read 'I aint going if you aint coming with me' this is somewhat confusing and impractical."Both "won't" and "aren't" use negative forms of "to be", future, and present 2nd person/plural respectively. "Ain't" encompasses negative forms of "to be". That wouldn't be hard at all if you had grown up with that. Notice that "you" already indicates the "2nd person" making the use of a specialized form "aren't" redundant. Similarly, "going" already indicates it is happening in the future. So specialization there is also redundant.DudeIf society used Ebonics all the time and had been since the beginning, as I propose would be better, then "dude" would be considered respectful. As for using it to refer to women being sexist what about saying "you guys" when you are talking to girls like is common in everyday speech? Also it's not hard to create a feminization of "dude", just say "dudette".White People Speaking EbonicsIt looks weird because that's how we associate it in our culture and for no other reason. My argument is not that it would be practical for us to switch given the way we are now, just that language would be better if we had started with Ebonics in the first place. Also are you suggesting white people can't think fast? White people can't be as efficient as black people in their speech?
Society As A Whole Would Be Better Off Speaking Ebonics Rather Than Proper English

If your debate is whether society would be better off replacing proper English with Ebonics then I shall introduce a new argument.C1: Words like aint and dude encompass too much for clarityMany day-to-day sentences include two negatives in a sentence. For example 'I won't go if you aren't going to come with me' but if we used aint it would read 'I aint going if you aint coming with me' this is somewhat confusing and impractical. However there is a deeper issue with calling someone 'dude'. It is like calling someone 'human' except you associate it with a male. So what to call females? Well Ebonics likes to call everyone dude or 'man' which is really sexist and encompasses too much. Imagine calling your teacher or boss 'dude' you'd get a slap because it's disrespectful, but if we used Ebonics it would not be clear how to take it and cause confusion and offence being taken at incorrect times.C2: It's very hard for white people to speak Ebonics.I am not being racist but have seen white people trying to speak it. For some reason it's extremely hard for them to mimic, especially as ebonics combines extremely fast paced accent with lots of generalised words, meaning you have to think fast as well as using a word in a way which you didn't use it that way just a second ago (for example aint).C3: Only black people suit talking Ebonics... (see video)I know this is both racist and subjective... but seirously look at video and you will see how the ebonics only suits the black guy... If a white guy said those things like that around a black guy it could offend them.http://www.youtube.com...;
Society As A Whole Would Be Better Off Speaking Ebonics Rather Than Proper English

"Den u gotta keep going and take da left, but not da first left ain't you gettin me?" You probably will say "What the %&$!" walk off and tell your fmaily how ridiculously difficult it is to understand the hosts of the country EVEN AFTER learning their language.""Even after learning their language"But if our society as a whole used Ebonics on a regular basis and had always(the argument is that our society would be better off if we always spoke Ebonics, not that we should or shouldn't transition to it now) then we would have formal rules based off of that dialect, everyone in the world would know that is our standard and would learn that in order to interact with us."If it not made clear the proper English is the preferred/dominant form of communication, civil wars and hooliganism is more likely to spark."Replace "proper English" with "some dialect with a formal set of rules" and you would be correct. Because Ebonics is more efficient we'd be better off if we had been speaking it from the start.Saving Brain Space, Common SenseYou save brain space, every bit of information necessarily takes up more of your brain power to understand it. What functional purpose is served by having different forms of "to be". If our language didn't have that, and we all grew up and were educated learning the language without it how would we be any worse off? What purpose does it serve other than aesthetic?Point On "Ain't"Yes, since I grew up being educated towards a particular dialect of English, standard English it would be confusing to just switch to it. BUT that's not what the debate is about. The debate is our society would be better off today if we had always been using Ebonics as the standard form of English.Not UnderstandingIf we had always used it, understanding it wouldn't be a problem. My argument is that this hypothetical society lying on an alternate timeline would include additional benefits realized from the use of Ebonics versus Original Time Line Standard English compared to our society as it is now.
Society As A Whole Would Be Better Off Speaking Ebonics Rather Than Proper English

C1: Clarity to foreignors, which in turn increases pleasure of tourists, hence benefiting society.If I say to you "ain't it funny how that girl got her knickers in a twist over me talkin' bout pu$sy yeh?" You will probably comprehend it and chuckle or just say no. However, if you are a tourist visting a certain society, whose income is hugely dependent on its reputation, and you go to many 'upper class' areas of the society because of the bad reputation those areas that speak ebonics have then ask someone the way to the nearest cinema and they say this "Yo blad! you ain't got to worry bout nuffink! It's just across dee road and round da corner den u gotta skid cross to de ovva side and like you gonna be seein' a starbuck innit?! Den u gotta keep going and take da left, but not da first left ain't you gettin me?" You probably will say "What the %&$!" walk off and tell your fmaily how ridiculously difficult it is to understand the hosts of the country EVEN AFTER learning their language.C2: If it not made clear the proper English is the preferred/dominant form of communication, civil wars and hooliganism is more likely to spark.At the moment areas of UK such as Manchester and Liverpool have HUGE rivalry. But at least they know to have the decency to cut down the slang when conversing with each other, because it's really quite rude to talk in what could be regional swear words about another person and them hating not knowing what you're saying. At football matches, the language barrier and slang would only increase the hatred between the people. Often, between english and americans is the huge, and honestly sometimes violent, conflict when an American comes to UK and calls 'football' soccer'. There have truly been fights and beatings up of americans for calling it soccer. At least if we learn to use proper terms in every region, it will remove this form osf violence. For example, imagine if using the word 'girl' instead of 'lass' got you beaten up? At least if both agree that whatever to 'superior english' which neither speaks is correct to use it offers a common ground.RebuttalsConjugationYou didn't justify how you save 'brain space' at all.Ain'tTry saying the two following sentences using ain't, then realise how confusing it will be to use it in day to day language: I haven't got any idea why the show isn't on today, perhaps we are not going to go. There is not a single reason to think we aren't supposed to say 'ain't'. Isn't that true? Saving Time and Energy in Everyday SpeechCOUNTER-Contention: Use of Proper English saves Time and Energy in Comprehension of What is Being Said, Not Understanding What Someone says Requires Long Explanations, In Essence Wasting More Time than is Save by Using Ebonics.
Violent Video games should be ban

The newspaper argument you posted is one individual and it does not prove that video games make people violent. In fact, what your article proves is that people will do anything to get what they want. The video game did not make that person violent. His desire to get something he did not have made him violent. It is the same as a person who steals. What fear mongers and paranoid people do is pick something violent people have in common and say that is the cause of violence. Well, all people have toothbrushes, clothes, TVs, etc. We could just as easily say those things cause violence. Yet, we all know the don't. The odds of a violent person having a video game is very high since many households have them. That doesn't mean the video games cause violence. It just means people like the product so they purchased it. Like I said, I have been around real violence. When a person does something violent, it is for very specific reasons within that person. It has nothing to do with a game. If anything, the game lets the person relieve the stress in a non-harmful way. Want to see a really violent person? See a person who holds everything in and then one day just snaps. Look at all the violence cases. Go past the news or the twitter feeds that tell you nothing. Look at the case itself. What cause violence is more than likely two people going at it and in most cases, both parties are at fault in some way.
Violent Video games should be ban

How about this. http://en.wikipedia.org... and this http://news.bbc.co.uk... Thai newspapers say the teenager, whose name has been withheld, was arrested while trying to steer a cab backwards out of a Bangkok street with the driver still in the back seat. Police claim the 18-year-old confessed to stealing the taxi and said he kille Bangkok police "He wanted money to play the game. His parents, who work as civil servants, did not have enough money to give him." Thailand's Culture Ministry has recently been pushing for tougher regulation of games like Grand Theft Auto. It wants stricter age ratings and restrictions on the hours that people can play games in arcades. Ladda Thangsupachai, director of the ministry's Cultural Surveillance Centre, said: "This time-bomb has already exploded and the situation could get worse. Today it is a cab driver, but tomd the 54-year-old driver after he fought back. The teenager could face the death penalty if he is found guilty. Bangkok police Captain Veerarit Pipatanasak said: "He wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game. He wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game. Captain Veerarit Pipatanasakorrow it could be a video game shop owner." THIS PROVES THAT VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE BANNED
Violent Video games should be ban

This is a very good debate topic. However, it is clear that video games do not lead to violent outbursts. The following are three articles about this: http://www.forbes.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://psychcentral.com... In the United States, there is a lot of fear mongering in the media. If it bleeds it leads, is not just a cute expression. In America sensationalism sells. I have been around real violence. I have seen death first hand. What I observed is that in life there are very specific reasons why people commit violent acts and in many cases, it took two to tango. Rarely, is just an innocent bystander attacked at random. The only exception I can make for that are street gangs. Street gangs will attack at random.
Violent Video games should be ban

In your last post, you said there are many crimes caused by video games. Actually, no there are not. You cited 1 example out of a country that has over 3,000,000 prisoners and 7,000,000 more who are not in the system any longer. Bottom line is this, you can find a relationship between crime and anything you want. All the people who ever committed crimes were breathing that day. So therefore, breathing causes crimes. Come on, who are we kidding? Like I said, I have been around real violence. In real violent confrontations, there are very specific reasons why people commit those acts. It isn't the video games. Plus, 67% of American households have video games in them. Out of all those households, we have one incident of a violence that was supposedly due to a video game. There does not need to be a ban.
Violent Video games should be ban

The incident you cited is one incident out of the hundreds of millions of people who play video games. If we used that logic, we could come up causal relationships for everything and anything. For example, the day Charles Manson killed people he ate eggs for breakfast. Well, let us ban eggs because eggs obviously lead to mass murder. Come on. Who are we kidding? I wonder if in the example you cited, the little boy watched violent TV shows? I am sure he did. In all reality, the kids did not know the difference between death seen on a TV and real death. In the situation you identified, the real issues are: A) how did an eight year old get a gun and B) how come no one was supervising him. Really, it gets down to poor parenting. I could agree there should be age limits for certain games, but an outright ban is ridiculous. Like I said in my very first post, people kill others for very specific reasons and often, both parties are at fault. I have seen real violence. Very few instances are just random attacks.
Violent Video games should be ban

Don't focus in America focus in the whole world. An 8-year-old boy intentionally killed a 90-year-old woman when he shot her in the head inside a Louisiana mobile home after playing a violent video game, police said. But the child won"t be charged with a crime. The boy fatally shot his elderly caregiver, Marie Smothers, after playing "Grand Theft Auto IV" " a video game critics often blame for promoting violence " inside the mobile home at a Slaughter, La., trailer park Thursday evening, police said. Smothers was sitting in a chair and watching television when the unidentified boy fired one round into the back of her head, the East Feliciana Parish Sheriff"s Office said. The violent video game is considered inappropriate for children 17 and under. CATE GILLON/GETTY IMAGES The violent video game is considered inappropriate for children 17 and under. The boy was taken into custody at the scene, but later released to his parents, because Louisiana state law prevents children under 10 from being charged with a crime. "You have a child that does not know the impact or the consequences of the act that he has committed," Sclynski Legier, an attorney, told WAFB-TV. "He truly doesn"t understand that." The child initially told investigators that he accidentally shot Smothers while playing with the loaded pistol. But police later determined the elderly woman was targeted. Cops said the 8-year-old boy had just finished playing "Grand Theft Auto IV" - a video game critics blame for encouraging violence - before he fatally shot a 90-year-old woman. WWW.WAFB.COM Cops said the 8-year-old boy had just finished playing "Grand Theft Auto IV" - a video game critics blame for encouraging violence - before he fatally shot a 90-year-old woman. Cops didn"t reveal a motive for the killing, but said that the boy was close to the woman he allegedly shot. "By accounts of relatives of the victim, as well as friends of the family, the victim and the juvenile had a normal, loving relationship," police officials said in a statement to The Advocate. Investigators found that the boy had just finished playing the video game that police called "a realistic game that has been associated with encouraging violence and awards points to players for killing people." That's why the other countries banned GTA. It's an example.
federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more

engineering is a subject that can be taught in a regular degree, as could nursing and some other fields. we dont need people from the bottom of their class in these fields. some people might not do good in high school and are late bloomers, but we can have ACT or SAT to compensate. not everyone is good at tests, but this is just life, as a far out general rule, those tests test what is needed. the degree is dilluted because so many people attend. if we stopped people from attending, nothing would change much except whether they have a dilluted degree. again we are curtailing federal spending and doing right by kids if we have trade schools for most people. if college is as cracked up as you say it is, students again should be able to pay back their loans. this takes the responsiblity off other people to pay for your own needs and is thus fairer. the only ones who would be in poverty with loans are people at the bottom of their class if we did things as you argue for.
federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more

college doesn't make everyone earn more, it makes some earn more. it doesn't really combat poverty, it might if you are the lucky ones to be gainfully employed. the free market determines how much people make, and educating more doesn't mean more money being earned. it just means there's a more educated populace. why is college the magic point of being a right? everyone gets good education in high school, and for the most part, college is just an inefficient continuation of high school, teaching humanities and redundancies and making classes out of things that can be condensed into one class. i might agree a trade school can be a right, but not college. if people are making more from education they can afford to pay back loans. why should we take money from other people effectively at gun point through taxes to pay for them?
federal tuition assistance should be restricted much more

College should be available to all who would like to become a good citizen of our country, the United States. Education is the only way to ultimately combat poverty. When our government helps people to pay for their education, it helps our country. They will become good tax paying citizens that make much more money and not need to be on government assistance in the future. The Pell Grant program helps assist people to advance themselves while helping them not to go into too much debt. Life costs enough let alone college classes on top of that. Some people do not do so well in high school, but later settle down and become very serious students in college. We cannot punish them by not offering them assistance in the form of grant money just because they made a mistake in high school. Scholarships are earned, grants are for low income people.
Marijuana ought to be legalized

Well, it seems that my opponent has run out of steam... Perhaps I should not have accepted this challenge as I am not fundamentally opposed to the legalisation of all drug. The reason I did accept it was that I think legalisation of drugs ought to be preceded by a 'cultural change' (ie a broad public debate to raise the level of understanding and knowledge in the community in order to get past the current uninformed and emotive prejudices; an education process to make everyone aware of the fact that there are two kinds of people in the world: people who can use mood & mind altering drugs socially and without abusing them and addicting themselves to them, and people who can't do that because of genetic predisposition or learned behaviours; and finally the creation of preventative and effective treatment modalities for the latter group).