BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States of America is a Christian nation.

You know, I didn't particularly want this to be a debate about semantics, but whatever..... nation-a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own From dictionary.com....... The body of people that rule the US is a nation, thus we about 3 out of every 4 people claim to be christian, that would make us a christian nation. Nowhere did I say that the laws are christian. (although I think argument could be made for that) Nor did you say "The government of the US is christian." It is simply that a majority of the nation, is christian. With that, the John Adams quote is irrelevant, and the constitution does mention religion, it just says that there shall be no law preventing religion. However, again the majority of people are christian.
Bullying in middle/high school builds character for victims, thus should encouraged.

I am mixed about whether or not being bullied can help build character, but I am certain that it should not be encouraged. 1. First and foremost, many kids are bullied purely because of physical weakness, even though they may be strong and self-confident people in and of themselves. But because of constant harassment, they may eventually snap. I cite a New Jersey public school case where an intelligent, but severely overweight teen, after enduring years of abuse, eventually came to school in a trench coat and sunglasses with a firearm a-la-Matrix, intending to shoot and kill two bullies who has assaulted him. Fortunately, he placed his trust in a friend, showing him the firearm, and was arrested. My point is, it's not possible or advisable to encourage negative behavior for the sake of a possible *good* outcome. We have no idea how a bullied person would react. 2. In addition, bullies themselves need to be bullied. If you hire them for that position, how would these bullies grow as people? The benefit, if there IS any, would go entirely to the victims, whereas the bullies would become more and more violent because their behavior is encouraged. Perhaps you may breed a country half-full of smart people, but the other half would be violent, bloodthirsty sociopaths. 3. Slippery slope. If your advice was taken for those reasons, where else could people apply it? In the office? In congress? In a hospital or nursery? People don't stop growing mentally, so should people working a 9-5 job be punched in the gut periodically to ensure that they don't get delusions of grandeur? What about criminals who assault other people? Can they then argue that they were helping mankind by doing what they do, and after beating someone up, they simply walk free? 4. This is immoral. The principle of double effect is a test in which someone can determine whether an act is good or evil. 1. The act in question must be either good or neutral in nature. Bullying others is neither good nor neutral in nature. It involves hurting other people physically. 2. The intention is for the good effect and not the evil effect. Yes, the intention is for the strengthening of a personality. 3. The good outweighs the evil enough to make the risk worth it. No. Bullying may strengthen a personality but it may not be worth it, especially because there may be psychological damage, or the amount of benefit towards development is simply not worth the physical/mental pain. 4. The good effect does not come about because of the evil. Failed. The good effect only comes about by way of the evil effect. The test declares an actions evil when it fails even one of the four. In this case, it has failed three out of the four. Therefore, this action is morally evil.
Bullying in middle/high school builds character for victims, thus should encouraged.

I'm tired of seeing all of these complaints about the public school system. Bullying has always been one of the most beneficial aspects in schools. Lets face it. Today, alot of our kids are rotten to the core. Giving them a good tap with a belt (or in my case, a hose pipe) will get your thrown in jail nowadays, so the legal system pretty much encourages that we spoil our children. But right when our rotten kids get to school, they learn their lesson real fast when someone twice their size decides to teach them a physical lesson. It's not until this point that these kids learn their lesson and become humble. Most of these kids turn into geeks/nerds. Without bullying, we probably wouldn't even have the Bill Gates we know and love. One could argue that bullying is what builds our economy. Thus, bullying should be made mandatory in schools. Here's my plan: On orietation day, the shools principle would find suitable candidates for the task of bullying and assign them to their territories. The bullies would be handsomely paid $10.00 a week for their services (in addition to any amount of money they can get from their victims). The bullies would be able to keep 5 out of the 10 dollars they make as the other 5 would go into their college fund (as lets face it, life usually goes down hill for these bullies after high school, so putting money into a college fund for them would be all the more beneficial). And that's all I've gotta say.
If I'm oppressed, and I say something wrong, it clearly means I'm right.

You revealed a major problem in your assumption. In Round 1, you stated that minorities are always right. However! You also stated in Round 3 that right/wrong is opinion based. "Right = True or correct as a fact" AS A FACT! Minorities can have different ideas. Like, for example, some people think that abortion should be illegal. Others think it should be illegal. If you want proof, just browse this website! These people are likely minorities. 2 minority examples you said were women and blacks. There's a likelihood of some debates containing black/women for both Pro and Con in those debates. If they have contradicting ideas, which one's right? None of them are lying, as they are incapable of lying. Yet, they have different ideas. So which one is correct? Perhaps that answer comes from another debate between me and you. (a little less biased next time. ) Also, you're whole argument is that the rulers (and whites) are always incorrect. Whites cannot be trusted, and are incapable of being correct. But, I am a shitlord after all! I am your KING! Even though this is a bad thing, I can be certain for a fact that the letter 'e' will finish this sentence. As you can clearly see, the letter 'e' finished my previous sentence (the 'e' at the end of 'sentence'). I can be correct too. And back to the whites at hand. I thought Martin Luther King Jr stopped this racist nonsense! You are directly attacking the whites, saying they "cannot be trusted". We had some pretty cool white presidents back then! George Washington, for example. A grand example of a trustworthy president was Abraham Lincoln, everyone says he "never told a lie". And also, with my shovel example: the slave claimed that the shovel is broken, but it wasn't! This was an excuse for the slave to not have to work! You say, and I quote: "As for the shovel, it absolutely is broken if the slave says it is. " the slave lied! (Oh, I should mention most slaves were African American; black. ) Minorities are capable of lying. And just to clear this up: If I win this debate, I win this debate! To say I've lost when I've clearly won is contradictory to reality, which minorities (such as Pro) are incapable of, as stated "the slave has the truth internalised, so at no point could they proclaim monarchistic power since that would contradict their unchanging reality. " For easy's sake "slave" is metaphorically Pro, "monarchistic power" is the victor of this debate.
If I'm oppressed, and I say something wrong, it clearly means I'm right.

"...anyone can agree that "shitlord" sounds a lot like an insult." It certainly does, and it was specially devised by the patriarchy to deterr minorities from ever aspiring to obtain power. It's super effective.In your king scenario, you're yet again assuming that the slave could ever lie, which I already covered in the previous round. "If "right is right and right is wrong" how do we know the difference of right and wrong statements?" This is determined by who is saying it, the fundamental point in my instigation. 'Right' is only wrong if a shitlord is saying it. The simple acknowledgment of ones role in a patriarchal society can hardly be dismissed as "bad sportsmanship." Minorities are objectively right all the time, Patriarchists are objectively wrong. Don't forget the fragility of your 'trustworthy' Oxford dictionary.The very aim of this debate is to reevaluate the definitions of words. My definitions are composites of what leading intellectuals (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Jessica Valenti, Bell Hooks and many more) propose in order for a cultural shift to take place.Reverse psychology won't help you in this case. What's right/wrong is also determined by your thoughts, which you have very little control over. Your verbal concession alone tells us nothing about your state of mind, which is conscious of the evasive tactic you employed.As a supporter of the patriarchy, you have an in-built and unchanging perception of things which can never be altered by words alone; to say you lose can't change your internalised belief that you've won. In my case, as a minority, my state of mind leads me to believe the truth. I'm not calling out white people for being wrong for the sake of ad hominem attacks, it's merely observing the reality that privileged people can't see the truth. "Who's the minority?" Blacks, Latinos, Hispanics, gays, bis, trans, agender, genderqueer, female, gender neutral, trigender, bigender, genderfluid, intersex, you get the idea (that covers most groups.)Again, the slave has the truth internalised, so at no point could they proclaim monarchistic power since that would contradict their unchanging reality. Obama is merely a puppet for the real world leaders to manipulate; corporations, media, and indeed, the patriarchy. He has no power, your example is obsolete.PS you can't just go calling yourself a minority if you are part of the patriarchy. A black member pf the patriarchy only appears to be black; a female member only appears to be female. The patriarchy are masterly fraudulent. PPS since I engaged in round 3, your definitely a not a minority.
If I'm oppressed, and I say something wrong, it clearly means I'm right.

" 'Shitlord' is a monicker reserved for those who directly benefit from the patriarchy and have substantial rule within it." Thanks for the compliment, but anyone can agree that "shitlord" sounds a lot like an insult. You say that I'm the king. You're my slave. I could execute you if I wanted to. But no matter what you say, it'll have the same result. But which result though? Will I execute? Or will I not? If "right is right and right is wrong" how do we know the difference of right and wrong statements? As for your formula, you're saying "no matter what, Pro will win" and "no matter what, Con will lose". I get it now... You have poor sportsmanship, sir. The voters will agree. You also are also saying the Oxford Dictionary is biased. I was pretty sure that it was a reliable source. Can you support this grand statement? Also, where did you get your definitions from? Back in R1, you claimed "Wrong = Something only neurotypical cis white male hetero-patriarco-capitalist gamers can be.", which is still racist. So are you saying everything I say is wrong? And everything you say is right? If this is the case, then there would be no way for me to win... Jk, this means I could use reverse psychology to my advantage! Example: "Seems like I lost this debate" means "I won this debate". ALSO: White people cannot be trusted, according to you. I knew Mario was evil! "white people can't be trusted" is another example of ad homonym. You are directly attacking the person/group of people. Oppression now apparently means that "any offence taken by any minority" What if, we say, this world you are suggesting exists. Who's the minority? (I cannot use the dictionary, as Pro doesn't trust anything white men say [racist]) Minority is, basically, a person who doesn't have a high position. According to your logic, the slave could just say "I am king now" and POOF! Slave is king! But this means king is now slave, then he could say "I am king" POOF! King! And they could simply fight for the throne just like that. If minority can be right all the time like that, they can warp reality. And this can be frustrating (This was in one Fairy Odd Parents episode). Anyways, if you can change reality, you're not minority anymore, this makes Barack Obama a minority (even though his reign is over, I think. or at least soon). But if Obama is a minority, he can warp reality, making him not minority again. A await your response. PS I am minority. I say this debate is over now. You will forfeit Round 3.
If I'm oppressed, and I say something wrong, it clearly means I'm right.

Fool, everyone who isn't in privilege or a self-flagellating minority knows that the Oxford dictionary supports the patriarchy.One point I didn't make at the time was that white cis males edit the dictionary to their own will. Meaning any citation of any dictionary shows implicit support for the oppression your apathetic towards. For instance, the Oxford definition clearly omits anyone who's mildly offended by direct or indirect criticism or jokes. clearly that's outright oblivious torture.In this case, "Oppression" should really be defined as any offence taken by any minority.As for the shovel, it absolutely is broken if the slave says it is. It's a logical contradiction to suppose that a minority can ever lie. It would be like supposing that 2+2=5 or that men are good. Logically impossible.Far from being an ad hominem, 'Shitlord' is a monicker reserved for those who directly benefit from the patriarchy and have substantial rule within it. It is a highly respected title among the ruling class. Any white male straight etc. can be a shitlord, but being true to trickle-downery, some shitlords stand above the rest, with the current ruler being Sargon of Akkad.I'll make a formula to illustrate who comes out as the victor for this debate:A little algebra first: W = Win, L = Lose, M = minority or me, Y = You.M + W = WM + L = WY + W = LY + L = LI hope that elucidates things for you.
If I'm oppressed, and I say something wrong, it clearly means I'm right.

Right off the bat I sense something's amiss. First, he doesn't define what "oppressed" means. According to the Oxford Dictionary (online version), "oppressed" means "Subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment:" So if a slave, for example, says "My shovel is broken, so I'm unable to dig", but the shovel is obviously in good shape, does this mean the shovel is broken? Obviously not! Even if the leader accepts the slave's excuse, the shovel still works. "If I lose this debate, it clearly means that I win and you're a patriarchal shitlord." Notice the argumentum ad homonym here. He insults me for winning the debate, how cute! :3 Insults aside, he's saying if I, PowerPikachu21, lose, I win by default. But wait... if I win... then he wins... does that mean I win? And does this mean it goes in a loop? (probably not, though). Oxford Dictionary definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
If I'm oppressed, and I say something wrong, it clearly means I'm right.

Let's be clear about our definitions as they currently stand:Right = True or correct as a factWrong = Not correct or trueIt's often pontificated that people are right or wrong based upon facts and statistics or some such thing. But this privilege of being objectively right has only been afforded to the white male hegemony who rule everything, even those who don't realise it. To redress this imbalance, we need to accept what minorities say even if they're wrong, because minorities are never really wrong. After all, wrong and right are patriarchal constructs that need the postmodern deconstructionalist treatment in order to address this grave injustice. So here's my proposition for truth reformation:Right = MeWrong = Something only neurotypical cis white male hetero-patriarco-capitalist gamers can be.If I lose this debate, it clearly means that I win and you're a patriarchal shitlord.
Welfare should be completely transformed.

Welfare should not be a lifestyle. It should be a way to support you or your family for a TEMPORARY period of time until you can find a job. The way welfare is today, people are able to survive off of it without getting a job. They may not be living a lavish lifestyle, but living off welfare like it's a job is wrong and ultimately stealing from the country. Welfare should: 1: Have people drug tested before receiving money 2: Only be enough to pay for food and partial living expenses (should be less than minimum wage) 3: After time, slowly ween people off welfare by urging them to get a job. Much like you can't take a drug addict and in one day cut them off, you can't cut off all aid at one time. Take baby steps and allow them to get a job while being able to save their extra money to either get a better job or a higher education.
Welfare should be completely transformed.

There are people who will abuse any system, but my point is that anecdotes do not prove anything. I agree that those people were losers; but nothing in the article talks about them receiving welfare, or, if they did, spending it on drugs. Who knows how they were surviving, but this anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Like I said, most welfare DOES NOT COME IN CASH FORM. And it is NOT enough to live on (1). Drug tests for welfare are currently questionably constitutional under the Fourth Amendment; say what you will, your beef is with the Constitution (2). And there are actually not that many welfare applicants who use drugs (3). The average welfare applicant may actually be LESS likely to use drugs than the average nonwelfare citizen. You seem to believe that poor people are stupid and need to be shepherded around all the time. But they're actually mostly good citizens, just like the rest of us, and that's why we trust them with our money. You should go after CORPORATE welfare, which is a COMPLETE waste of money. 1: http://www.welfareinfo.org... 2: http://www.ncsl.org... 3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Welfare should be completely transformed.

So they're richer than 20% of people in the world. Does that mean everyone else is dead? They are definitely struggling but they are clearly living. And to your point on it's not a living wage, I don't think you read that second article. A druggy woman (on welfare), a druggy man (on welfare), and the two kids were living. Neither of them had a job and they have no desire to work. They just want to live off of what the government provides to them and attempt to steal from a local business. They don't deserve my money or your money. They are the reason why welfare needs to be reformed.
Welfare should be completely transformed.

The Forbes article said top 20% IN THE WORLD. Did you read that part of my argument? Making $32,000 a year puts you in the top ONE percent. So Americans on welfare are far poorer than even lower-middle-class Americans - they're not rich as you would suggest. My point is, whatever you say, it's simply not possible to live off welfare. I don't care what anybody says; $9,000 is not enough to live on for more than a little while. The changes you advocate have largely existed since welfare began during the New Deal; Welfare is just a stepping stone, and it does not provide much monetary assistance. You seem to be ignoring my points. WELFARE IS NOT A LIVING WAGE.
Welfare should be completely transformed.

Well the words, "I think welfare recipients are lazy" were never said. Of course there are people on welfare that are looking for jobs, however your, my, and everyone's tax money is going towards the public assistance programs of everyone. Not just the ones who actually need assistance. Your Forbes article seemed to go against your argument, seeing that it did prove that welfare recipients are in the top 20% of all income earners. I can also rebut to "the week" article. I never said that all welfare recipients are lazy. But these two articles are first hand accounts of people on welfare. I praise those on welfare that try to benefit themselves like the woman in the first, however she clearly says that many of the people like her do not have that same drive. And before you read the second article, note that I didn't find this article by accident. The woman in that article is a relative of mine and I've seen first hand of the abuse that occurs when some people are able to live off welfare. http://www.economist.com... http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com...
Welfare should be completely transformed.

Your YouTube source is a high school/college project, and I do not believe it is any more authoritative than my "skewed source," and far further off center. Pro says nothing about my other source, so I assume he/she agrees with what it says. Sorry, I meant the percentage of income spent; as my first source says, welfare families spend 77% of their income on essentials, as opposed to non-welfare families, who only spend 65%. Also, Pro assumes that welfare makes people lazy, but it does not (1). There are still three jobseekers for every job opening, and wage growth remains slow, so, while people on welfare may not be consistently employed, it's not for lack of effort on their part. Also, ALL welfare payments total about $9,000 per adult per year (including all the "combined public assistance" Pro was talking about) (2). I know all Pro will be looking at is the URL (my record isn't much better), so I should point out that that's the top 20% of income earners in the WORLD, not the USA. Pro doesn't make any other points I can rebut, or rebut any of my points, so I'll assume he/she accepts all of them and leave my argument here. 1: http://theweek.com... 2: http://www.forbes.com...
Welfare should be completely transformed.

I'm not saying it should be abolished. I just believe that it showed be reformed. There is no encouragement to make your life better if you're getting free money, free food, free health insurance. With a job, you have to work to afford all that. Also, it may be true that people with jobs spend more than people on welfare, but that's because they have more money. Do you know of the percentages of spending for people with a job versus without? All of that assistance together makes for one easy living, especially since none of it is taxed. With the combined public assistance, it's easier to have money given to you, rather than work for it. Con, your first source is an extremely skewed to the left. This YouTube source is a first hand documentation of how people can consistently live off of the government's aid. She even said she has no desire to work because she gets everything for free. http://nypost.com...
Welfare should be completely transformed.

Except that welfare doesn't work that way. People aren't on welfare forever, and it's not a "lifestyle." People on welfare are actually WISER about their money than people who don't benefit from it (1). And welfare doesn't pay as much as a job does: A family of three on welfare earns less than half the minimum wage. The average American gets just $1.40 per meal of food stamps. Pro seems to assume that TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the traditional "welfare," accounts for most of the welfare budget; in fact, it is dwarfed by Medicaid, food stamps, and Women, Infants and Children (WIC), all of which give services rather than money to needy people (2). And actually, of those on Medicaid, 56% were people not expected to work (children and senior citizens). And only 20% of welfare recipients stay on it for longer than 5 years (3). I would seriously question whether Pro knows anything whatsoever about welfare, or whether he/she is instead arguing off of the far-right definition of it. 1: http://thinkprogress.org... 2: http://www.politifact.com... 3: http://www.city-data.com...