BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Focusing on the bully, not the victim.

You stated in your argument "I will always hate myself for joining in." I would assume that you have asked yourself multiple times why. According to Ditch the Label, "Those who bully others are looking to gain a feeling of power."(1). This proves one of the many reasons people join in on bullying is for power, and -using common knowledge and logic- the more power you have the less likely you are to be targeted. I'm not trying to say that is why, but it most likely is. You also claimed "When people are bully's they don't realize." In this case with you joining in, that is most likely true. The desire to dominate is a natural human process of thinking. Another reason humans discriminate against each other is because they feel inferior. This usually is caused by being antagonized by someone else, who is either in the same situation or another. "Bullying is not simply a dyadic problem between a bully and a victim, but is recognized as a group phenomenon, occurring in a social context in which various factors serve to promote, maintain, or suppress such behavior,"(2) states Susan M. Swearer and Shelley Hymel in their essay. This exemplifies that the impulse to tyrannize is taught and implanted in our minds like a seed. That seed begins to grow, feeding off the anger and rage stored inside from being the victim. When that seed blooms into a flower, you become the very thing you despised before: a bully. According to Bullying Statistics, "In a culture that is fascinated with winning, power, and violence, some experts suggest that it is unrealistic to expect that people will not be influenced to seek power through violence in their own lives."(3) Winning is undoubtedly part of most cliques, such as the classic group, the jocks. Power is also something the majority of humans naturally want to obtain. That leads to violence, which is certainly the easiest way to secure a position of power in society. In my next argument, I will address why and how as a community it is important to focus on treating these individuals and helping them with their issues that make them want to victimize others.Bibliography(1) "Why Do People Bully? The Scientific Reasons - Ditch the Label." Ditch the Label (USA). N.p., 15 Nov. 2016. Web. 29 Mar. 2017. <https://us.ditchthelabel.org...; (2) Swearer, Susan M., and Shelley Hym. "Understanding the Psychology of Bullying." (n.d.): n. pag. May-June 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2017. <https://www.apa.org...;. (3) "Why Do People Bully?" Bullying Statistics. N.p., 07 July 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2017. <http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...;.
Focusing on the bully, not the victim.

Why is a useless question. When people are bully's they don't realize. I have watched as my classmates tease this one guy over and over again, and I will always hate myself for joining in. With a different perspective (which I use everywhere now as it's better) I realize that this guy is very hurt, and I start talking about it. I don't think that they know what they are doing. I will always find it more simple and more consistently effective to talk to the victim, saying "they don't know what they are doing, and what they say doesn't matter. The bully doesn't see it like you do." Have the victim build self confidence and trust in themselves so they can be better people for the future. Solving this problem requires that the bully's do nothing, not stop doing something. Bully's will never go away, but victims can not let it get to them. Instilling confidence into the minds of victims is more successful then putting doubt into the minds of bully's
Abortion Is Morally Justified And Should Remain Legal

I have returned from my hiatus. I've been quite busy with school and as a result gained two losses via forfeiture, consequently I have made this new account because those two loss are not represenative of my debating skill. None the less I'm ready to get back into this.The resultion is fairly straightforward. Remember legality does not axiomatically imply morality and vice versa.Morality- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. 1. Acceptance and other preliminaries. 2. Constructive case 3. Rebuttals 4. Further rebuttals/ conclusion.Good luck to to whomever may accept :).
Discretion is not technically lying.

I have no formal debate training, and this has been a good exercise. As to the question of whether you can lead someone to believe something is false through silence, consider the traditional Christian marriage ceremony. "Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace. ". If Carl holds his peace, knowing the unfaithfulness of the Bride, he is leading John into error regarding said faithfulness. The debate isn't about the moral obligation(or lack of) to correct false information or false understanding. The question is whether inaction can lead someone to believe something erroneous. As we can see with the wedding ceremony, lack of action has consequences, and one of those consequences can be error in understanding. To reaffirm my original stance, the intentional withholding of information(discretion) can be considered intentionally leading to error.
Discretion is not technically lying.

What Con is saying then that one would have to accept things based on what isn't said which would go against logical reasoning. John is now taking the absence of any utterance as a statement of "No she is not cheating on me," This would be faulty mainly because the same thing could be true if Carl knew that John's girlfriend was NOT cheating on him, therefore John could interpret Carl's silence as both "She IS cheating on me" or "She ISN'T cheating on me" One of these is either true or false. To deliberately lead someone into an Untruth would be to actively give them information not based on facts and/or reality. By not saying anything you are choosing not to give any information. If John were to jump to conclusions and assume that his girlfriend IS cheating on him then John does not take into account the idea of ambiguity. Ambiguity by definition means to be "Doubtful or uncertain, particularly in respect to signification; capable of being understood in either of two or more possible senses; equivocal" [1] Carl in this case is leading John into Ambiguity but is not leading John into an untruth. Carl is choosing, by withholding the truth, not to lead or mislead John therefore not fulfilling the act of deceiving. If John assumes that his girlfriend is or is not cheating on him, that was his OWN mind leading him to those conclusions, to deceive oneself is possible in this case. Con then states "...allowing someone to believe non-truth is to cause, through lack of action, the person to continue to believe said non-truth." This would mean if one knows the truth they are obligated to tell it so they are not considered a deceiver to the other person. However as I stated before Carl did not lead the other person into untruth, it was John who led himself there. So Carl cannot be a deceiver because he did not intentionally lead him into fallacy. Thank you again for this invigorating first debate! [1] Webster
Discretion is not technically lying.

Thank you for your arguments again.I want to clarify, I wasn't providing a formal definition for the term 'deceive'. I was proposing that purposefully withholding the truth is a form of deception. I have no problems with your definition.As I said before, choosing not to say something is a choice and an action. By not giving the truth to a listener, you would be leading them to either disbelieve the truth, or believe a non-truth. As an example, if 'John' asks a group of friends if his girlfriend has been cheating on him, and 'Carl' knows that she has been, but withholds that information, he is leading 'John' to believe that she isn't cheating on him.It is possible to lead someone to an erroneous conclusion by withholding the truth.Pro stated "I...hold that whether a person is having doubts about a truth does not change the truth itself.", but the issue isn't the truth, it is the understanding of what is true. If someone has been 'lead into error', they may believe a non-truth. So I re-assert that allowing someone to believe non-truth is to cause, through lack of action, the person to continue to believe said non-truth.
Discretion is not technically lying.

You are most likely correct about your first statement that it changing the definition would be invalid. I would like to make it apparent that yes, you were correct and I forfeit from that original argument because I now see that it was invalid. Con defines the term "Deceive" as "To prevent the truth from being known." I hold, however, that this is not a correct way to define this term. Webster defines Deceive as: To lead into error; to cause to believe what is false, or disbelieve what is true; to impose upon; to mislead; to cheat[1] etc. This would mean that one would have to be deliberately causing/leading someone into an untruth. To not say, to choose to not say, would mean that one is neither choosing to lead into truth or mislead into untruth. Therefore one is not deceiving someone. To be discrete would mean one is simply not willing to express what he or she knows, or does not know. Con also states that "allowing a person to continue to have doubts about the truth" would be a violation against truth. However I disagree and hold that whether a person is having doubts about a truth does not change the truth itself. Truth/to be true is to be "in accordance to facts and/or reality." Because someone does not know WHAT the truth is does not change or violate the truth in any way because truth cannot be untrue because someone is doubting it. Thank you again, I am greatly enjoying this and learning so much about debate. [1] http://www.webster-dictionary.org...
Discretion is not technically lying.

I appreciate your responses. I would assume that changing the definition from the initial premise would not be allowed in a debate as that would invalidate any previous arguments and/or positions, but I'll go ahead and continue with my position.To lie: A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive. [1]Pro defined discretion as 'Choosing not to say something'. I propose that choosing to withhold the truth(choosing to be discrete) is a choice and an action, and the only reason to do so is to prevent the truth from being known, or to deceive. Therefore, choosing to withhold the truth is an action fulfilling the definition of 'A falsehood... acted for the purpose of deception'.Furthermore, withholding truth from someone is allowing that person to continue to have doubts about the veracity of the truth, which is an intentional violation against truth.[1] http://webster-dictionary.org...
Discretion is not technically lying.

Thank you for Accepting. I am not familiar with Boolean logistics, but I can understand its basic premise. It would seem my definition is very broad and I agree in what Con is saying that "Not Telling the truth" would entail that if one is not telling at all then the truth is not being uttered. This, though, is only true for the definition I provided and I would like to provide another from the con's preferred sources. *Note to Audience* I am Agreeing with Con's original statement that my original argument is false with that definition of the word "Lying" or "to lie" Here is the newer definition of the word to lie by Webster-dictionary.org To lie: A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive.
Discretion is not technically lying.

This is my first debate as well, and I accept the Con position against the statement 'Discretion is not technically lying'. Pro presented the definition for lying as "Not telling the truth." I would prefer a dictionary source such as Merriam-Webster or Cambridge, but for this debate I agree to this definition. I argue that whether or not the truth is told is a boolean event; there are only two possibilities: the truth is told, or the truth is not told. Naturally, if the truth is told, then that is not lying. However, for any other instance, whether a lie is told, or whether the truth is withheld, then the criteria of 'not telling the truth' is fulfilled. In other words, if you don't tell the truth, by not speaking, then you still haven't told the truth. Pro's argument of not telling anything would fit the criteria for a definition such as "Telling an untruth", but it doesn't fit the criteria for "Not telling the truth".
Discretion is not technically lying.

For my First debate I wanted to go with something simple. R1 is for me to state my Position and main argument and for someone else to state their position and argument. I am Pro/For the idea that Being discrete is not lying. Choosing not to say something (being discrete) is not lying; Lying is defined as "Not telling the truth."[1] So the act of 'telling' would have to be involved and therefore if one does not say anything the act of telling is not involved and therefore cannot be lying if one is not 'telling'. I apologize in advance if I do not know the full etiquette for this website and welcome someone to explain to me if how I am handling this is correct/incorrect or fine. [Sources] [1] Google Dictionary
School Uniforms

-First off, Des Moines won the case? And students are still plenty able to freely express themselves, by, hey I dontknow? TALKING! - Individuality should be shown by someones personality not what clothes they wear. - In Long Beach, CA, after two years of a district-wide K-8 mandatory uniform policy, reports of assault and battery in the district's schools decreased by 34%, assault with a deadly weapon dropped by 50%, fighting incidents went down by 51%, sex offenses were cut by 74%, robbery dropped by 65%, possession of weapons (or weapon "look-alikes") decreased by 52%, possession of drugs went down by 69%, and vandalism was lowered by 18%. - http://school-uniforms.procon.org...-Students are way more prone to embarassment without school uniforms as a highschooler myself I know a multitude of kids who were made fun of for not wearing the trending brands (Nike, Vans, Pink etc) and school uniforms will decrease that to a minimum.
School Uniforms

(1) By having school uniforms, you restrict freedom of expression by students. This can closely be related to the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines as they were restricted to what they could wear such as an arm band. By limiting students to a uniform, kids aren't able to freely express their selves. "compelled conformity to conventional standards of appearance" does not "seem a justifiable part of the educational process. " (2) By using a school uniform, it is promoted that a student has to conform to society and not individuality. It is shown to be a contradictory method when school uniforms are put into place as it contradicts the lesson that is suppose to be taught. Students learn everyday about history and how people were able to freely express their selves. By setting a standard of a school uniform, it reverses the process and starts an upbringing that students are no longer free. (3) By statistics, it is shown that violence and bullying did not reduce in numbers but actually increased. "A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per year] in the most violent schools. " More assault and bullying cases seem to occur when school uniforms are brought into standard. While kids can try to think that they will be victim less inside their school, there is still the worry that kids from other schools that don't have uniforms may target them. (4) My last point I would like to argue is that school uniforms can have a detrimental effect on a student's self image. By allowing school uniforms, more students are prone to embarrassment by not only their peers but even by adults. By giving students a specific uniform, it allows them to be targeted at their insecurities. Having a school uniforms shows that the learning experience is more disrupted than without having a uniform.
School Uniforms

Yes, they should. Schools that include school uniforms had a 51% less fighting rate, possibly because they didnt have anything to steal. School uniforms also keep kids focused on their education not their clothes. They also level a playing field so people dont think one person is cooler than another just because of what clothes they are wearing, they will think ones cooler than another because of their personality which is how it should be in the first place. They also prevent people from having gang sings on clothing. Also uniforms increase school unity and school spirit,
School Uniforms

-Economic Equality, if a kid is wearing lets say, 200 dollar Nikes, then another kid is wearing some 10 dollar Walmart shoes, that will deter the less privileged kid as he will not be focusing on school work but on the kids shoes.- The cost is worth it.- There are many more ways to express ones self,f art, your talking, ways more important than dress. - You are talking about having to worry what the next person will think of them? Don't you think someone will have to worry, way more about that if they are wearing some loser shoes or shirt!?
School Uniforms

To get started, I can agree to some of a extent with you that some violence does drop but that is still not weight to what cons having school uniforms have. To begin with this third round, I would like to bring up the point of embarrassment. As I am as well a high school student, by having school uniforms, my other peers would not be not only able to express their selves but also they would be vulnerable to attacks by other students not only inside our school but outside. By choosing to have a school uniform, kids would learn to pick on each other by calling out their insecurities. This would cause a rippling effect not only inside of the school but inside the school district. Many kids would not be able to focus on their school work while trying to figure out who and when will they get attacked next. (2) I would like to bring up the point of cost. School uniforms are not as cheap as you think, as each kid has to have at least 2 pairs which would cause the school district to order more. It is shown by statistics that a single school uniform can cost in the upward range of 150 dollars. " http://www.classroomuniforms.com... " Having these type of cost would deter parents from wanting their kids to attend that school. Not only would cost of the school uniform come into factor but also that once the student is outside of school, more clothes would need to be bought so that the child has clothes besides their uniform. (3) My third and final point I would like to bring up is that the fact that children do not like school uniforms at all. Kids would happily love to wear their own clothes instead of wearing something that could look hideous. My peers as I have asked all have said that having school uniforms would cause disruption and would cause chaos that would extent all the way into near school districts. Kids and teens always want to express their selves and by giving them uniforms, you trap them into a world they do not want to live. In conclusion, by giving kids and teens school uniforms, their freedom and expressions are limited. Kids need to be able to freely express their selves without having to worry what the next person will think of them. In overall, having uniforms would cause chaos to occur and would drive up the cost that students and parents don't want to pay.
Evolution is a religion, not a science

Upon reading your previous argument I see yet ANOTHER misconception. You can believe in evolution and not the big bang theory and vice-versa. I agree with fact #1 I agree with fact #2 I disagree with fact #3 on the grounds that if the same 'kind' of species (ex. dogs) changes into another breed that IS an example of evolution. There weren't hundreds of dog breeds at the beginning, Evolution caused these changes. Saying that Genesis 1:1-2 is a scientific theory is a slander to the word. Do not compare a scientifically recognized theory to a story in an ancient book. Also it seems to me that you are under the impression that if we do not see something w/ our own eyes we cannot prove it is true. You don't need to 'have faith' to believe anything that you don't see w/ your own eyes. For example, I knew the American Revolution happened because there are thousands of texts from the time confirming it is true. The difference with other kinds of faith (ex. the bible) is that is makes supernatural claims that we have absolutely no reason to believe are possible. Even if you don't think that evolution and the big bang theory meet your par for evidence, they are still the best theories we have at the moment. While I think that we should keep looking for answers, I do think we are on to something as of now. Thank you for providing me with a semi-professional intelligent debate on the topic. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. And to those of you who are reading this, I am not trying to persuade you to drop your religion, and to become an atheist, I am simply saying that by our modern scientific standards evolution and the big bang match the par, while no religion has done so. May the people judge us fairly and without bias.