BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Thr s no need t wrte crrectly (Spelling)

But the correct spelling of the link was still required for it to work, much like correct spelling is needed to convey the intended premise. Whether pro typed it or not, pro knew or it was a resource to their contention via its correct spelling. curse/cures lips/spills/pills to/toe/tow Even casual misspelling of the above could have disastrous results. As I look in the dictionary at the definition (found by a correct spelling of the word), when using 'corruption' to a word or phrase, it is explained as a word or phrase that is regarded as erroneous or debased, the definition of evolution moves from the simple to the more complicated. Clearly 'evolution' cannot describe breaking something down into a mishmash of component letters with the hopes that the reader gets the correct impression. The evolution of a language comes from an agreed upon spelling and meaning. "wanna-be", "texting", "selfie". These have become regular use words by a consistent spelling and common sense common use. I would be so bold as to say I am speaking English because I didn't grow up in Germany, Greece, or Japan, not because of poor spelling. It is important to also mention: "It is important to check your grammar and spelling, otherwise you may be penalized by the voters" and "Your argument will be judged by many factors including spelling, grammar, cited sources, and civility", further demonstrating an immediate need for correct spelling.
Proper Grammar on Social Media

I appreciate your civility. Yes, slang and abbreviation are modern inventions that make life easier, but the cons happen to outweigh the pros in this situation. I have to admit, you were right on your comparisson with the invention of transportation methods to the matter in which we are debating. And no, it wouldn't be right to force children to not use slang and abbreviated texts; however, I believe that they should be reprimended more frequently at school and on social medias for the use of them. I'm not saying they should be punished, because in America you do have the freedom of speech, but they need some sort of warning to set them on a better track. I'm highly aware that the English language is constantly changing, with new words being added and old ones removed, but standards should be raised by a small amount.
Proper Grammar on Social Media

Slang text and abbreviations are used to save time and energy when texting or communicating. Though this may seem lazy, abbreviations are just another modern creation to make our life easier. This is not lazy, it is using our time more effectively and intelligently. Take cars for an example. They were created to make transportation from one place to another easier. It's not impossible to walk hundreds of kilometres, it would just take a long time. It would not be beneficial to force kids to not use abbreviations and slang, it would be much better to study or read. Its not because of slang and abbreviations that grammar skills of teenagers are being affected, it is because of their schooling and determination to learn. Therefore it is better to use slang and abbreviations when texting or communicating on social media because it is more efficient. .
Proper Grammar on Social Media

I think that proper grammar should be used on social media sites. Over the course of time, I've noticed how the use of abbreviations or slang terms have taken a toll on the vocabulary of my peers. Take school assignments, for example. I was helping a teacher grade a few written essays, and I had to ask someone in my class to help me decipher what the person was saying. The matter was on the use of a "text dictionary", and the entire passage was written in "text speak". The passage was written along the lines of: "i wish dat sum ppl wuld understnd dat txtng dusnt efekt grmmr. just bcuz sum ppl use txtng abb duny meen dat theyre grmmr is bad. sum ppls grmmr is aktully gooder bcuz pf txt abb." Now I understand that the abbreviation of words when texting or using social media doesn't affect all people's grammar, but it does affect a large percent of teenagers today. On the other hand, I am aware of the fact that social media sites are to be used as a way of communicating with one's friends in a fast and effective manner, and I'm aware that grammar varies depending on how a person was taught. I know that my grammar isn't perfect, but at least I try to an extent. It's not that hard to learn the basics and put them into practice, so why not start with where everyone communicates?
Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

Like it or not, and despite the proliferation of new age liberals who seek to villify the United States, we ARE the world's most powerful super power. There are some that say foolishly that we've had the position long enough and it's time to give someone else a turn at it. This is not Romper Room or Sesame street! There is a world of bad guys out there that are badder than anyone you've ever dreamed of. Yes, we have to protect the world. We ARE the police. And rightly so. If left to their own device, most nations that have or seek to have nuclear (pronounced NEW CLEAR, not nuke-you-ler) weapons would be loose canons if allowed to go unchecked. The idea that the US should step down and pacify is utterly ridiculous. It's like sending a man covered in meat juice into the cage of a hungry tiger. He's sure to be devoured. We must protect ourselves and our allies, despite the recent practice of engagine in 'policing actions' rather than declaring war and being in it to win it. Any flowery ideas that we should just lay back and watch is pure folly. Dangerous folly. But, thank God that there are those out there willing to fight and die for the sovereignety of the country; thus allowing such fanciful thinking.
Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

It would seem that we are in agreement on several points. What we disagree on is 'putting our nose in everybody's business'. We aren't just taking it upon ourselves to tell everyone what to do. There is intelligence of which we, the general public know nothing and yet, it exists. Our government, corrupt and underhanded as it may be, knows the intent of other nations way before anything happens and so, moves pre-emptively to head off mayhem before it occurs. Conspiracy theories be damned. It is for that reason that we must respond. Lines drawn and crossed? The president of Egypt said openly and correctly that the US hasn't won a war since WWII. We have a long and shameful history dating back to the korean conflict (it cannot be called a war) and proceeding to the embarrassment that is Afghanistan. Afghanistan? They mean absolutely no harm to anyone that doesn't attack them! Chased Al Queda into that country? Why? Let them stay there! We've logged one embarrassment after another since then and why? Because some politically correct douchebags thought it would be a great idea to enter wars and not fight them; indeed not to even declare them. If any president were to act as decisively as did Harry Truman, who ended a 4 year war in but a few days, we would have our respect again and be well on the way to gaining our rightful place as a nation to be reckoned with, not a nation of sissies ruled by buffoons. Prevent nuclear proliferation? Of course. Do that by beating hell out of the bullies with a couple of nukes! They thumb their noses? Break those noses! But our president is like the kid in the school yard that when punched in the nose, whines 'awww, whadja do that for?'. Of course they laugh at us. Look at the way we behave in the face of aggression! So, returning to the subject at hand: Again I say yes. Prevent it by bombing the hell out of anyone that rattles their sabre at us, quickly and decisively. It's the only way.
Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

I wasn't talking about aid either. When the country is threatened or has been attacked, by all means show them whose boss. But, when we stick our nose in everyone's business, it is likely to get bit. The United States was once the most respected country in the world, but now our "Fearless Leader" has ruined that. When he threatens someone with a red line and they cross it that shows that they are not afraid of us anymore. If we were the country we once were than we woudn't have to worry about that. If we ever want to get our respect back we have to rest and recover to fight another day, let someone else take this one. We've done it long enough.
Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

I'm not talking about aid. I'm talking about exercising our strength to patrol and control any and all threats within and outside of our nation. I believe that we should stop all expenditures aiding other nations. And then give an immediate show of strength. In other words, declare war on the biggest guy on the block and beat them to a pulp. Without regard for collateral damage.But the pc powers that be, not wanting to offend anyone at any cost won't do that. The misallocation of funds and real resources will continue; political correctness will continue to rule the day and someone else will pick up the dropped ball and run with it. So, while I'm absolutely for the unilateral use of force by our nation, I don't expect it to happen any time soon. Especially with such a pandering George Soros-installed puppet in the white house.
Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

Our domestic policy is less than stellar. If we cannot support ourselves in our own home how can we possibly support the other countries of the world? If we continue to spend money, resources, and American lives in countries that hold no immediate threat to the country, we won't have anything to use here. Many years ago America was established as THE superpower of the world, and it is already seeing the decline. We see it all through history, a country is promoted in status and after years of being there, it is torn down and it is only a shadow of it's former self. We saw it, most prominently, with Rome, but you can look at Britain in the 1700s and France before that. Now those countries are either nonexistent, or inferior. The only good that Britain is anymore is an old queen and a royal baby. If we want to continue to be the greatest nation in the world we have to fall back and regroup. Just as we have in the past we have over-extended ourselves and now we are exposed.
Canada Should Never Have Become a Member of the Military Coalition Against ISIS

For anyone curious who hasn't read the comments: "Aaaand I've accidentally forfeited. My sincere and profuse apologies to Nevearo; your arguments are really good and you seem to be taking this debate seriously (unlike so many of the trolls on this site). I just got hit with a LOT of work right now (in real life), and I hope to have a rematch some time in the future when I actually have time. Apologies to all! Have a nice day!"
Canada Should Never Have Become a Member of the Military Coalition Against ISIS

Good day Debate.org! I recently argued this in the Ontario Pro-Con Debating Forum and I was wondering if I could get a fresh perspective on the argument from you fine people. The definitions of the terms are rather straightforward, thus I don't feel I need to define them. First round acceptance only please. Second is for posting main arguments as well as for my opponent to cross-examine me. Third round I answer and cross-examine my opponent, then they answer. Fourth round is for concluding arguments/summaries. Bon chance! PS: I'll post in the comments if I forgot anything. PPS: Have a nice day!
learning is better than mugging for getting good marks in exams

I don't care what you meant by the title. I proved the title of the argument false with my sourced interpretation of it. You didn't rebuttal my argument, you didn't use proper grammar, and you didn't have any sources. This was obviously a debate topic that pro was trying to get a cheap victory, but I took advantage of your lack of specificity in the title and made a plausible argument. I don't feel I need any more evidence because you didn't say anything substantial to disprove my argument. Voters, please vote fair.
learning is better than mugging for getting good marks in exams

i m taking this topic as the marks in the subjects..you can take the good marks in the easiest exams which generally are direct....but it the exams are hard then the mugging will not give u good marks.....in the hard exams,your knowledge should be with u...this helps u to get more marks... mugging is also a way to get failure in your life....mugging is with u in that particular year only...but learning is with u lifetime....
learning is better than mugging for getting good marks in exams

I will be proving that mugging is more effective that learning to get a good grade on an exam. First off, let's look at the definition of mugging: "An act of attacking and robbing someone in a public place." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) Now let's look at one of the definitions of exam: "Inspection or investigation, especially as a means of diagnosing disease, qualified according to the methods used, as physical, cystoscopic, etc." (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) An exam is something done by doctors when you are hurt. I don't know how learning can produce "marks" one your exam. Mugging is far more effective at that. If you mug another fellow, there is a very good chance someone will use a self defense tactic. They could get out a knife and stab you with it. Then, you will go to the hospital, and the marks of the stabbing will show up plain and clear on your medical exam. A person who mugs others will probably get hurt themselves more often than someone who never gets in fights. Getting hurt will naturally produce marks. Also, in the debate title it says "good marks". These will happen as well. The reason is that if more marks happen, there will be naturally more good and bad marks than no marks at all. Therefore, it is quite obvious that mugging gets you more marks (specifically more good marks) than studying. I hope I have enlightened you in the subject. If you want to be injured and have marks on your body, start by mugging.
Should it be illegal to wear brown underwear

sure. I'll take a fun debate. I shall argue that the having underwear that are the color brown should be outlawed. The color brown has many psychological implications. For starters, brown can evoke feelings of warmth, openness and security which may sound like a good thing at first glance, but when taken in the context of underwear, we realize that this could be psychological manipulation that people could use to get others to have sex with them. Which is basically rape. Next, in some folks, brown can bring feelings of isolation, loneliness, and sadness. These feelings have been linked to suicidality. Next, If you aren't wearing pants and are in your underwear, the excess brown can totally mess up your Feng Shui in the room. Excessive brown can unbalance the energies and create negativity. As we can see, brown underwear are a dangerous threat to society that it's time to eliminate. Sources: Verywellmind.com National Center for Biotechnology Information.
if illegal immigration causes job losses, so does free trade

The pro in multiple rounds has claimed that my speeches are complete jibber jabber, but that is clearly not true. For that to be the case, I would have had to spam letters/words of any kind in such an incoherent manner that I would be garnered an automatic loss. This is not the case at all. Close examination in each of my speeches will show detailed answers to each of the pro's points, in the order of my Disad, then the pro's case. Furthermore, as I said in Round 2, this "disorganized" manner of my speeches is actually the pro's fault, for vaguely stating his case in his first case, which the pro DROPPED. Ultimately, the pro tries to go for this "incoherent" argument, but he concedes everything else in the process. Not only does he kill his case, he concedes everything about the Disad. Thus the Disad outweighs the case, the case is dead.
if illegal immigration causes job losses, so does free trade

i waas hoping someone would argue me who beleives immigration is bad for jobs but trade is good for jobs. i dont see the relevance of con's talk about TPP. \con says i haven't shown how immigration and free trade are similar. but i hvae, in both cases someone else has the job. and ive shown immigration causes job loss just by the fact that the immigrant has a job while plenty of americans have none that owuld take the job. con says immigration accounts for like ten percent of jobs. still, these are job that could go to americans. and the wages would probably go up with fewer workers willing to work for cheap if it was just americans vying for the job. i dont know what con is talking about per no developments regarding free trade. we have NAFTA and generally are considered a free trade country. when a company closes shop and moves to mexico or whatever, the most initial impression is american's lost jobs. there might be arguments that the savings cause more jobs, but this is up for debate. in any case, con's assertion that there isn't anything yet to argue about is wrong. con's points mostly seem like jibber jabber.
The Christian god exists

I appreciate all that is said by the opponent. Although he states requirements for all material as stated to be "proven", he forgets that all material is stated in the Word of God. And proved therein. Interestingly enough, his previous statement only supports mine: "The popularity of the Bible or even Christianity is not correlative to the Bible's validity. Hundreds of years ago popular consensus was that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Popularity does not imply validity" The answer being found in the Word of God. (bet you didn't know this one) For thousands of years people believed the earth was flat. If one went too far, he would fall over the edge. This was taught in both Hindu and Buddhist scripture. In the 1500s, the first ship sailed around the world. This proved the earth was round. But the round earth was recorded in the Judeo-Christian Bible long before man discovered it in the 1500s. The prophet Isaiah (40:22) spoke of the "circle of the earth." Solomon wrote, "He [God] set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep." Proverbs 8:27. In our century, Arabs spoke of infidels being pushed over the edge into space. About 3,000 years ago, our Bible said the earth was round. This was not discovered until 500 years ago. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God. Good luck.
The Christian god exists

My opponent again does not respond to my 3 arguments and as responding beginning in the last round would be abuse, these arguments are conceded. My opponent then brings what he calls 'unrefutable evidence' that the Christian god exists. I will now proceed to refute these arguments. A.)The Bible is the best selling book of all time. #1 seller in every generation. Translated in 12,000 languages. The most smuggled book in history. No other book has been scrutinized, banned, and burned more than this book. The popularity of the Bible or even Christianity is not correlative to the Bible's validity. Hundreds of years ago popular consensus was that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Popularity does not imply validity. B.)Why has it tested time? People still buying into it does not mean it is correct. You have not yet provided evidence for this claim. C.)Rulers, kings, religious rulers, and men have tried to disprove this book, they have died, the Bible has not. Confusing here. You have not show why they have not been able to disprove the Bible or why the Bible's popularity means it is divinel inspired. D.)25,000 archaeological evidence for the validity of scripture. Bible is a library of 6 books, penned over a time of 2000 years, on three different continents, in 16 different countries, in 3 different languages, by 40 different writers from all walks of life...and not ONE contradiction. (I challenge you to prove otherwise) What are these 25,000 archaeological evidences? You have not brought any specific examples. E.)Over three hundred prophesies fulfilled surrounding the event of Jesus(God incarnate) and the cross. For just 8 of these prophetic words to be fulfilled is a: 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance. Where is your evidence that any phrophecies were fulfilled? It is up to you as the one making the claim of fulfilled phrophecies to back them up with evidence. You are simply making baseless claims at this point. Also as a side note, where did you get the chance of three of the prophecies being fulfilled? My opponent ends Round 3 with the samous Pascal's wager. The wager that one has everything to gain by believing in god and everything to lose in not believing in god. This argument of course says nothing about whether there is evidence for god's existence or whether a god can logically exist. It merely says that we should hedge our bets. My opponent brought many claims to this debate and as of yet has not backed them up with the necessary amount of evidence. My opponent has also not disproven my 3 arguments brought in Round 2. It is for these two reasons that I urge a Con vote. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period.
The Christian god exists

And I will provide one reason why He must exist. His faithfulness. The God of the universe will show up when you call on Him. When you have faith! Remember, you must believe, than you will see. My opponent wishes to speak of the all encompassing traits and characters of an indescribable God. That is why he fails to grasp the truth about our Lord. My opponent is very informational in approach to life, apparent in his previous statements in R1-R3. So my next move is to bring unrefutable evidence that must be observed. -The Bible is the best selling book of all time. #1 seller in every generation. -Translated in 12,000 languages -The most smuggled book in history -No other book has been scrutinized, banned, and burned more than this book. -Why has it tested time? -Rulers, kings, religious rulers, and men have tried to disprove this book, they have died, the Bible has not. -25,000 archaeological evidence for the validity of scripture. Bible is a library of 6 books, penned over a time of 2000 years, on three different continents, in 16 different countries, in 3 different languages, by 40 different writers from all walks of life...and not ONE contradiction. (I challenge you to prove otherwise) -Over three hundred prophesies fulfilled surrounding the event of Jesus(God incarnate) and the cross. For just 8 of these prophetic words to be fulfilled is a: 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance. (mathematics states that after a number reaches the 54 power, it is impossible. This number would be obviously reached if we were to count the other 292 prophesies) Most if not all evidences found in: "Evidence that demands a verdict" and "The case for Christ" Very informative researches that leave you the ability to study to show yourself approved. Test all things my friend. Do not be bound by the assumptions of others. Think about it: "I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't(at that point it doesn't matter anyway). Than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out He reigns"