BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Culture of fear isn't the best way to ensure implicit obedience "

First of all It 's simple to say the same that your debate prove nothing also, so please respect the rules of debate and try to abandon pointless criticism. As you mention these " unpleasant things " are the points which defend my argument. also, who are you to show me how debate works except 102 year old man " according to ur profile" who missed some details. Anyway, lets go for debate. I am talking here about autocratic empires which cultivate fear in people So people will be obligated to give their consent to Cold War policies, to hot wars, to the complete militarisation of society. that is why i stated in my argument the opinion of leading member of Nazi party. to show my orientation towards (fear method as away to control people). "Obedience may only possible through fear " that the rule how to control animal or child or social anomaly. the rational way is always the "best" way to get absolute obedience .that is why religions persist till nowadays. but if you control some one with stick,believe me once this stick is broken you will get insurgence. (180 degree immediate change). so i believe it will not be logic that the fear culture is the best way but it is easy to be implemented, has a rapid impact ,.. as i said in Round 1 there are big difference between conditional obedience and implicit obedience. also precautions and laws are done for commitment not to obligate people to be obedient . that is why when corrupted autocratic regime with ruthless use of military and police power collapsed , people will turn against regime in frenzy manner. so i conclude that the rational way is the best way to get obedience under precautions and laws to be the boundary of beautiful art against social anomalies.
"Culture of fear isn't the best way to ensure implicit obedience "

Pro brings up some interesting points. That's all they are, interesting. They argue nothing and prove nothing.Pro's entire case is, in essence, that culture of fear does some unpleasant things so somehow the resolution is true... No, I'm sorry Pro but this isn't the way a debate works.Pro concedes that huge empires were built upon the concept of 'culture of fear' but Pro actually fails to point out that all successful civilisations began under such a regime until things settled down and the obedience was held for long enough for a police force to form and then the 'cops' could be the bad guys the criminals and disobedient rascals dealt with rather than the leaders themselves.Obedience is only possible through fear in the first place. If I say 'do this' and you do it, it is because you fear that not doing it bears more consequences for you than doing it. Whether you fear this due to rational thought or simply because I'm going to beat you with a stick if you don't do it, it does the job of making you obey.The term 'implicit' means 'within' so to speak. A culture of fear has obedience within its very structure and is the best way of doing so simply because there is no alternative that has ever worked as efficiently as implicitly ensuring obedience without any further precautions or laws. The culture of fear creates an atmosphere whereby one doe snot just fear those in power or those holding the batons with which to beat them but their very on family and friends who may turn on them and snitch at any moment for fear of themselves being dragged down with them. It is systematically flawless in ensuring that everyone genuinely fears disobeying the authority because everything beneath the authority becomes de facto sided with it in an active sense.
English Grammar in Schools

FORMATRound One: Acceptance, greetings, and brief introduction to topic position.Round Two: Opening statements and primary argument. Round Three: Supporting argument.Round Four: Summary of stance in the situation. Overall, I believe that the subject of having English grammar taught in schools is simply useless. I can understand the phonetic classes, but does it really seem like something we should have to learn? I can speak and write fluently already, I do not need the additional support in this respect. Although I can see the point in literature and reading classes, knowing how to identify the adjectives in a sentence simply does not seem useful. Although it is helpful in the identification of words in sentences for new learners, I think that the subject should then be classified as an elective class for those who do not speak English at home.
Haiku Debate (Theme: DDO)

Charlie relinquished His battle abilities By posting nothing. Round two and round four And round five are easy wins The winner is CON. Thank you audience For the chance to battle with Meaningful haiku. ====== In the first round of this debate, Charlie stated that the winner of the most rounds gets all the points. This debate had a total of five rounds, and Charlie forfeited three. Therefore, I automatically won more rounds than my opponent. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Same sex couples should be federally allowed to adopt.

Amendment 14, Section 1 has a clause in it called the Equal Protection Clause. It states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This proves that same-sex couple adoption should be legal. The case Loving vs. Virginia is the case that overturned the ban on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia was being discriminatory. The Court unanimously voted against Virginia, against discrimination, and in favor of the Loving (no pun intended) family who was allowed to marry. This proves that adoption rights go out to all couples, despite discrimination. Australia, the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Belgium and Iceland allow same sex couples to adopt. The American Psychology Association says that same sex adoption does not negatively effect an adopted child. Every child deserves a loving home. To deny this to a child is more than immoral or prejudice. It is inhumane.
Twenty Questions

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited Round 2. I must call this an automatic win for Pro. Recap on several important rules: 1. Con must ask Pro ten questions in Round 1 and another ten in Round 2. These questions can only have a possible answer of: yes, no, maybe, or sometimes. Con failed to ask Pro any questions in Round 2. 11. If Con does not provide the exact number of questions when obligated, Con automatically loses. Con did not provide the exact number of questions when he was obligated to do so in Round 2. Rules are rules. Unfortunately, this debate has not gone anywhere. I urge a Pro vote. I shall reinstate this debate in hopes that someone will be able to participate. If my opponent wants to continue this debate, he can contact me through a PM or a comment on this debate, and we may be able to work something out. Other than that, this debate may be over. Thank you.
Twenty Questions

"1. Is the object larger than a bread box If yes go to question 2a If no go to question 4" Honestly, the object can be either smaller or larger than a bread box, depending on how it was made. So, the answer is some times. However, it is more commonly larger than a bread box, so for the sake of this debate, you can consider this response as a "yes. " I'll go to question 2a. "2a. Is the object larger than a semi truck If yes go to 3a If no go to 3b" No; the object is not larger than a semi truck. I shall go to question 3b. "3b. Is the object larger than a regular sized car Go to question 4" No; the object is not larger than a regular sized car. "4 Is the object located on planet earth If yes go to question 5 If no go to question 7" Yes; the object is located on planet Earth. I shall go to question 5. "5. Is the object found worldwide? Go to question 6" Yes; the object is found worldwide. "6. Is the object found exclusively in the America's Go to question 7" No; although the object can be found in North America and South America, the object can be found in many other countries. "7. Is the object a solid (at room temperature) If yes go to question 8a If no go to question 8b" Yes; the object is a solid at room temperature. I shall go to question 8a. "8a. Is the object a liquid (at room temperature) Go to question 9" No; the object is not a liquid at room temperature. "9 Does the device use or generate electricity? Go to question 10" No; the device does not use or generate electricity. "10. Is the object metallic (made almost exclusively out of metal)" The object is metallic some of the time. Allow me to clarify. The object has been known to be made exclusively out of metal, but many times it will not be made exclusively out of metal.
Twenty Questions

Is the object larger than a bread box If yes go to question 2a If no go to question 4 2a. Is the object larger than a semi truck If yes go to 3a If no go to 3b 3a. Is the object larger than a Boeing 747 Go to question 4 (regardless of answer) 3b. Is the object larger than a regular sized car Go to question 4 4 Is the object located on planet earth If yes go to question 5 If no go to question 7 5. Is the object found worldwide? Go to question 6 6. Is the object found exclusively in the America's Go to question 7 7. Is the object a solid (at room temperature) If yes go to question 8a If no go to question 8b 8a. Is the object a liquid (at room temperature) Go to question 9 8b. Is the object a gas/plasma/Einstein bose condensate (at room temperature) Go to question 9 9 Does the device use or generate electricity? Go to question 10 10. Is the object metallic (made almost exclusively out of metal)
The Christian God is real

Dang it I meant for it to be 4 rounds to do this we will take out the fourth round every other rule applies Anyways In the beginning statements of the bible it says "God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) I presume that my opponent will quote the bible or say the bible does not count as a source so to keep that quiet According to the Huffington post Albert Einstein's mathematics proved the existence of God http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Racist, sexist and sexually related jokes should not be viewed as offencive

Your counters are literally once sentence per entire paragraph of mine... In fact your counter to my first one is a misspelling or irrelevant.I don't really understand them either...See the below. You suggest that my definition of offensive is irrelevant but if I do not define it then there is clearly a relevant definition required (which you failed to provide).I do not suggest that your definition of offensive is irrelevant, what I am getting at is that the context and claims that held it and revolved around it's placement was off-topic rambling and a strawman.But just because a man happens to find it offensive doesn't mean racist, sexist and sexually related jokes should not be viewed as offensive. This is a key factor here.Lol, I feel as if you blatantly contradict yourself here; you claim that it doesn't mean they should be viewed as offensive, which entails that you are mixing up our resolutions, you are the one defending that premise, not me. "Your personal beliefs and prescriptions will not always entail truth and logic, young one." Why not? Also I think in this case it did.Because if everything that came out of everyone's mouth were true, then everything would be false, with the exception of a small group of people (or no one) who says a certain thing, unless you can prove that you are right 100% of the time. Your counter to all my remaining points revolved around the idea that offense and jokes are self intuitive and that if one man finds it offensive this proves it should... It doesn't.If you entail that self intuitive claims are fallacies, then you concede your entire argument because it strongly revolves around self intuitive applications. The ginger remark was to display what a joke exactly is as opposed to an insult.Jokes still hurt.
Racist, sexist and sexually related jokes should not be viewed as offencive

Your counters are literally once sentence per entire paragraph of mine... In fact your counter to my first one is a misspelling or irrelevant.I don't really understand them either...You suggest that my definition of offensive is irrelevant but if I do not define it then there is clearly a relevant definition required (which you failed to provide).But just because a man happens to find it offensive doesn't mean racist, sexist and sexually related jokes should not be viewed as offensive. This is a key factor here."Your personal beliefs and prescriptions will not always entail truth and logic, young one." Why not? Also I think in this case it did. Your counter to all my remaining points revolved around the idea that offense and jokes are self intuitive and that if one man finds it offensive this proves it should... It doesn't.The ginger remark was to display what a joke exactly is as opposed to an insult.
Racist, sexist and sexually related jokes should not be viewed as offencive

However since con failed to even discuss the issue I shall begin my case. If the instigator doesn't reserve R1 for acceptance, it becomes the acceptance round. You should know that. .. .. .. .. .. .. . What is it to be offensive? To be offensive is to DIRECTLY harm someone's ego, emotional well being or belief system in a manner which clearly either shows intention of doing so or no intention where awareness should definitely be brought (if you believe in indirect offence than I warn you a simple counter is ANYTHING can be seen as an indirect offence so that's ridiculous). Irrelavent. Here is the fundamental issue I have with saying these jokes are offensive (NOTICE I NEVER SAID RELIGIOUS JOKES). They are about things a person CANNOT HELP (even your sex life, if you believe in fate, is basically what comes of you and the other person at that time you don't technically help your ability in bed. .. Let's not discuss free will). I mean if a guy is black and you make a joke about black skinned individuals why shouldn't he laugh, in fact why not the LOUDEST of them all? ! Because he finds it offensive, thanks for coming. I was a very bullied and teased child because I had buck teeth (thank the holy father in heaven for braces) and basically was called rabbit. Now, prior to even knowing of 8 mile or eminem, I would just laugh and say rabbits have the wildest sex and smiled and walked away. In this way the bullies laughed in hysteria as did I. It was all good fun and I didn't get offended. I have been offended when people made some personal jokes about me but that is my fault for being offended. Your personal beliefs and prescriptions will not always entail truth and logic, young one. We live in a worldwide society that prides itself on an increasing level, and degree, of the pure and utter freedom of speech (short of swearing in public) so I fail to see the justification for not finding error with those find offence as opposed to those who make the humorous remarks. Because, people find it offensive regardless of others freedoms, that has already been addressed. In the end, blonde jokes (yes I will accept you can analogise racist jokes to blonde jokes) are basically funny and I hope even the smartest blonde in the world can find humour in how ridiculous a proposition it is that hair colour determines IQ (considering that three hair colours are solely shown by Caucasians, or mixed race kids with some Caucasian blood meaning that all non Caucasians automatically are not dumb since they never have blonde hair). I cannot stress this enough, SOME PEOPLE FIND ASININE REMARKS OFFENSIVE. The phrase "gingers have no souls" isn't funny and therefore isn't a joke and I can definitely understand why it is offensive, I never say it (but thank God I'm not ginger. .. . If you can't tell that what I just said was meant as a contextual joke you need to get a new sense of humour). This blatantly contradicts your resolution.
Racist, sexist and sexually related jokes should not be viewed as offencive

However since con failed to even discuss the issue I shall begin my case. What is it to be offensive? To be offensive is to DIRECTLY harm someone's ego, emotional well being or belief system in a manner which clearly either shows intention of doing so or no intention where awareness should definitely be brought (if you believe in indirect offence than I warn you a simple counter is ANYTHING can be seen as an indirect offence so that's ridiculous). Here is the fundamental issue I have with saying these jokes are offensive (NOTICE I NEVER SAID RELIGIOUS JOKES). They are about things a person CANNOT HELP (even your sex life, if you believe in fate, is basically what comes of you and the other person at that time you don't technically help your ability in bed. .. Let's not discuss free will). I mean if a guy is black and you make a joke about black skinned individuals why shouldn't he laugh, in fact why not the LOUDEST of them all? ! I was a very bullied and teased child because I had buck teeth (thank the holy father in heaven for braces) and basically was called rabbit. Now, prior to even knowing of 8 mile or eminem, I would just laugh and say rabbits have the wildest sex and smiled and walked away. In this way the bullies laughed in hysteria as did I. It was all good fun and I didn't get offended. I have been offended when people made some personal jokes about me but that is my fault for being offended. We live in a worldwide society that prides itself on an increasing level, and degree, of the pure and utter freedom of speech (short of swearing in public) so I fail to see the justification for not finding error with those find offence as opposed to those who make the humorous remarks. In the end, blonde jokes (yes I will accept you can analogise racist jokes to blonde jokes) are basically funny and I hope even the smartest blonde in the world can find humour in how ridiculous a proposition it is that hair colour determines IQ (considering that three hair colours are solely shown by Caucasians, or mixed race kids with some Caucasian blood meaning that all non Caucasians automatically are not dumb since they never have blonde hair). The phrase "gingers have no souls" isn't funny and therefore isn't a joke and I can definitely understand why it is offensive, I never say it (but thank God I'm not ginger. .. . If you can't tell that what I just said was meant as a contextual joke you need to get a new sense of humour).
Racist, sexist and sexually related jokes should not be viewed as offencive

NO semantics, normal definitions of the words, if you try and give some funny definition of joke or offensive you forfeit all 7 points. I just want to understand why saying "why do chainsaws scare black people?"..."Cause when they run they say RUNNNN NIGGANIGGANIGGA RUNNN NIGGANIGGANIGGA (said in voice of a vibrating chainsaw)" should offend black people, I mean it's funny hahaha.
Restricted abortion should be legal

Definitions/Explanations Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.
Restricted abortion should be legal

I think it would of being better to ask for clarifications in the comments section since I think Cons questions can be taken care of quickly enough without wasting a round, but since it's to late for that.Con questions.1. What exact point in a pregnancy, event horizon if you will, that you think abortion is no longer appropriate?I refer to Con to the previous round..."I am open to the idea that maybe abortion should be more restricted in the later stages, but being open to that possibility is not the same as just assuming it, I would need to see arguments in support such a thing that can withstand critical scrutiny."Since among other things I believe that rights/interests need to be balanced against one another in any given situation where they conflict, I am open to the possibility that maybe in the latter stages of pregnancy the rights/interests equation changes so much that a restriction on the bodily right becomes at some point becomes justifiable.Consider Roe vs Wade..."Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy." [1]2. Are we debating restricted abortions or unrestricted abortions?I refer Con to round 1..."Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy."I would remind Con as per rules for round 4, Rebuttals to things in previous rounds, No new arguments.Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...