BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should feel free to speak plain English

My opponent wrote: "Ask anybody on the street what the word 'f*ggot' means and they will most certainly tell you that it is a pejorative term to refer to homosexuals. " My opponent was obviously referring to an American street because if you asked someone on a British street where you could lay your hands on some really lovely f*ggots they would direct you to nearest supermarket. . http://www.tesco.com... Over here, a ‘f*ggot' has nothing to do with homosexuality but that didn't prevent gay rights extremists from getting a supermarket commercial banned for using that word. . http://www.thesun.co.uk... My opponent then wrote: "As for your argument in general that we should use more general terms to avoid confusion and wasting time, this often does entirely the opposite. " Actually, this is the opposite of my argument because I believe we should say 'f*ggot' rather than have to studiously avoid using it and try instead to describe this traditional West Country pork and liver meatball some other way, just in case we might offend some ultra-sensitive homosexual man that might be within earshot. Curiously, my opponent went on to write: "Simply stated, the whole span of the English language is beautiful. We have words to describe almost everything". Yes, this is true and reaffirms my previous assertion - since we have words to describe almost everything, we should be allowed to use them. 'F*ggot' might be a term for gay men in America, but here it is what we call our traditional pork meatballs. As previously noted, it is also a term for a ‘bundle of sticks' but in North America that meaning has fallen into disuse since the word was adopted by the male homosexual community. This is a great shame because they now have to use three words instead of one, just in case they offend anyone. As a side note, by the way, although there are over a million words in English compared to a mere 17,000 in Pennsylvanian Dutch, we have no equivalent to their ‘Aarschgnodle', which literally translated means "arse noodle" and refers to the strands of excrement found in the hairs surrounding the anus. Quite why they need such a specific word for that, but can cope without so many others, I don't know, you'd have to ask an Amish! . http://www.languagemonitor.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... In conclusion, I affirm that we should be able to use the word that exactly describes our meaning rather than beat around the bush in an effort not to accidentally offend anyone – we should feel free to call a spade ‘a spade' and not ‘a shovel with a pointed blade'. Thank you. . http://www.youtube.com...
People should feel free to speak plain English

Now, you say that even though the term 'spade' carries with it negative racial meaning, it should be able to be used in its original form that meant a garden tool. Even though in this case us not saying the word significantly hampers utility and practicality there are reasons why when words gain negative meaning that they are seldom used afterwards. Take for example, the word 'faggot. ' Ask anybody on the street what the word 'faggot' means and they will most certainly tell you that it is a pejorative term to refer to homosexuals. However, the term 'faggot' used to mean "a bundle of sticks" (source: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Even though the English language lost an effective term for describing a bundle of sticks, this does not excuse its use now because of its largely pejorative meaning. Now, we just have to say a bundle of sticks, a grouping of sticks, etc. This is much better than potentially severely offending someone, whether they are homosexual or not. As for your argument in general that we should use more general terms to avoid confusion and wasting time, this often does entirely the opposite. As humans we have created so many words so that we can accurately describe everything around us and everything that we have created, physically and mentally. True comprehension requires exactness, and although saying "he walked into the building is fine", it is much more effective to say "he walked into the post office," or "he walked into the church," etc. Simply stated, the whole span of the English language is beautiful. We have words to describe almost everything, and part of the beauty of it all is being able to articulate fully expressing everything clearly that is on one's mind. Shortening, simplifying, and/or dumbing down English is no better than what Ingsoc in 1984 did with creating Newspeak, it simply limits our abilities to think and articulate as human beings.
Children should not be allowed to be exposed to internet for prolonged periods of time

I am the most stupid man on earth if I am saying that Internet is bad. It took years of research and development for our researchers and scientists to develop what we call today as INTERNET. It is a very important tool which is both accessible and comes handy to the common man, an important resource of getting knowledge so that we can make use out of it. That's why we people have got internet connections at our homes. It helps us to be a man of our dreams from just a mere ordinary person. I will not call it a GENIE(a magical creature who lives in a magical jar and fulfills wishes of his owner) but a friend that helps you traverse the path of difficulty and achieve your goals. I am not against the internet since I know of the role it played in bringing the human race to the heights that was never imagined before. All the marvels of technology that we are witnessing today can be significantly credited to internet because someway or the other it has helped to bring them to the realms of reality. So you can see that I am not totally in disagree to the facts you have presented before me but I want to tell you that you have been deviating from the objective of our debate. Researchers have told in their recent publish that prolonged use of internet is not good for people. People as we know are less vulnerable than children in coping with situations that require mental strength. So a direct comparison can be made in between grown up people and children. This automatically brings us to conclusion that Children shouldn't be allowed to remain exposed to the internet for prolonged periods of time. All parents who want welfare of their children and are worried about providing a good future to them should try to understand what this new craze has got in store for them. Because prolonged exposure leads to depression which is quite opposite to what kids should be, energetic and enthusiastic for a better future of both the child and the nation. Thank you......
Children should not be allowed to be exposed to internet for prolonged periods of time

yes, it is bad just for limited reasons ,but I want to say that there is no harm overusing it, because we have to, for example we have a lot of hometasks and we do not know anything about that and of course we will be glued to Internet if we want to get high grade. but, I am agree if your point is just in heath. it is indisputable that it has big impact on our health. hoverer, we should also think about other sides of our life. And even without help of Internet we can not imagine sometimes that we can do our hometasks ourselves. So it brings us a great deal of success. And working hard is important in order to be successful. so my point is that we should not ignore a little harm of we are getting just because of eyesight's, but we need to recognize that we can have medical service for it or wear a glass if it is necessary. it is human life everything can happen. So we should be aware of it.
Children should not be allowed to be exposed to internet for prolonged periods of time

"Anything in excess is bad"-Good things however good they may be, become bad when they are done in excess. Thanks for accepting that it is harmful for small children but I also want to add to your belief that prolonged periods of exposure to internet is also bad for people like us. I will take the case of social-networking sites. I don't say they are bad they help our long distance friends remain connected but what happens with our nearby friends is a big trouble. People have lost their contacts and the relations are not like what they used to be. People are more interested to meet on internet and they deny your presence in front of them. I think it is just pointless. Also if we talk in terms of health of a grown up individual I think internet is taking toll on that too. For example there are many people who move aimlessly on the internet. We have got some limited motives and pages to visit and after we are done with it we think what should I do now in internet. So here I agree that when we need help we turn to internet. But after we get what is needed then, then what should we do. Most people are not of this attitude that now pc should be turned off, the usage continues. This becomes an addiction and with the word ADDICTION I mean to say people can't stay away from it. If you keep people with regular usage of 4-5 hours away from internet they become restless. They get depressed and they start behaving in a strange manner. Their work efficiency decreases. People remaining glued to internet all the time and not taking care of their health. What I want to say is that prolonged usage is bad and people need to be advised about it.
Euthanasia

It seems that my opponent has forfeited the last round. This means that, while I have effectively refuted every point Con has made, he has not refuted any that I have made, meaning that he has dropped every one. The points that still stand for Pro are 1. Euthanasia allows for a more effective allocation of medical resources. 2. Euthanasia reduces suffering. 3. Euthanasia is painless. I would like to remind the voters that Con has no points that can still be considered valid.
Abortion should be made illegal

Abortion is not murder. People have abortions when times are bad. The baby will come into a world where they will be exposed to evils and the mother does not want their baby to come into the world that she lives in. Steven Levitt made this argument in Freakonomics. He argues that abortion is the cause of the sudden crime drop in America in the 1990's. Crime rates dropped when abortion was legal as babies who would be coming into a world of evils and therefore committing crime themselves. People murder animals every day when they eat meat are you against that as well? Really it is a choice for the mother to take. It is not a choice mothers want to take but sometimes have to.
Abortion should be made illegal

Abortion is murder. Abortion is basically killing a innocent babe that is alive in it's mothers womb. People try to say that the baby isn't alive and it's totally unaware. But in reality its heart and brain are the first things to develop. Not only does the baby die but the mother feels the loss. This should automatically tell you there is something wrong with abortion. What if God decided that he didn't want you to be born and killed you? Would that be right? No of course not! So why would it make sense to justify a mother killing her baby? What if a mother had a baby prematurely and decided she didn't want it? Would that be right? I mean, some people get their babies killed at that time. For these reasons I consider abortion wrong and it is murder.
Abortion should be made illegal

You use the word unborn so if it is unborn how is it alive. Do you have any memories of the womb. I believe as do many a human is born when it leaves the womb. Abortion is not murder it is a choice some mothers have to take if times are bad or if they do not want a baby. The baby may be unloved and not live a happy life and just so you think it is murder the mum has to be approximatly 200,000 pounds for it to live
Abortion should be made illegal

Murder is the killing of an innocent human life. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. Therefore, abortion is murder. Many reject the idea that abortion (killing the fetus in the womb) is the murder of an innocent human life. However, the answer to a few simple questions prove that the unborn child is an innocent human life. (1) Is "that" which is growing within the mother's womb alive or dead? Of course it is alive. (2) Is "that" which is growing within the mother's womb animal or human? Of course it is human. (3) Is "that" which is growing within the mother's womb guilty or innocent? Of course it is innocent. The conclusion then is logically drawn by every rational person that the unborn in the mother's womb is ALIVE, HUMAN and INNOCENT. Therefore, the unborn child is an innocent human life! Abortion is the killing of the "fetus" in the mother's womb. Therefore, abortion is the killing/murder of innocent human life. A "fetus," as it is called by the medical world, is a baby (I prefer to call the unborn child what God calls it, a baby, Luke 1:41,44.) It is a human being. It is yet unborn, but is every bit as much alive, has all bodily organs, feels pain and functions just as you and I. The Bible speaks of the unborn child in the womb in the same words as it does the child after birth. Luke 1:41,44 uses the word "babe" to describe the unborn child in Elizabeth's womb. The verse reads, "For as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." The word "babe" is also used to describe Jesus immediately after he was born (Luke 2:12,16). "And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger." The Bible makes no distinction between the unborn (Luke 1:41,44), infants (Luke 18:15) and toddlers or young children (Acts 7:19; II Timothy 3:15)! There is no more moral wrong in killing a child AFTER it is born than there is in killing a child BEFORE it is born. By what sordid thinking do doctors, nurses, medical professionals and willing mothers put to death multiplied millions of little babies/children every year? These unborn children are sacrificed on the altars of greed and selfishness. The deliberate taking of human life is sinful whether the person be two months old inside the womb or outside the womb, two years old or 92 years old! God hates it (Prov. 6:16-19)!
God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violation of nature

con goes on to get into arguements that i didn't even make. but those arguments do have a good point which he didn't really address. based on our observation, the universe has a beginning. things are known to have causes. that means the cause must be outside our universe, trancendent as that proof he cited said. therefore, by definition a supernatural cause exists, given the cause is outside our natural existence. this makes more sense, cause we are estabslihing that something comes from something else, not that it comes from nothing. i do not see how he used inflation to establish proof for the multiverse. as far as i understand it, inflation just means the universe is expanding. that comes from the big bang. and then we get into where did that come from etc. how is he really establishing anything of significance? "Why does the universe have to have a cause? If there must be an uncaused cause, why go past the universe? If you do so, you re violating Occam's razor. " this is similar to if you see a bike rolling down the hill, and insist we shouldn't assume something caused it to happen. 'it violates occam's razor to think that! '. that rule is just a rule of thumb. as ive argued we naturally have to ask mroe questions, and in fact the razor rule is better satisfied with supernatural explanations than many other natural explanons, anyways. as i argued before, con is just giving some theories for existence. these are just theories and are not based on empirical information. the big bang and the apparently nothingness before it, is. something coming from something else makes more sense than coming from nothing. just because it's not definitively proven doesn'/t mean it's not proven. con argues that matter can come from empty space. he has not demonstrated that this has ever occurred, though. and, he has not estblished that it is true that matter can come from empty space. even if he did, he doesn't establish where that empty space came from. afterall, even empty space is temporal, and is an issue of existence. true nothingness appears to be before the universe, and appears to be more truly 'nothing' than empty space itself.
Marxian Economics vs. Neo-Classical Economics

Greetings. This is an open debate on the functionality of Marxian Economics against Neo-Classical Economics, which will be won or lost on the evidence for or against the following claims:Marxian Economics ability to explain market structure, labor relations, and value better than that of a Neo-Classical structure.Some DefinitionsNeo-Classical Economics:An approach to economics that relates supply and demand to an individuals rationality and his or her ability to maximize utility or profit.Marxian Economics:A school of economic thought tracing its foundations to the critique of classical political economy first expounded upon by Marx and Engles. Market Structure:A Market Structure is a set of conditions in which buyers and sellers meet each other for the purpose of exchange of goods and services for money. Labor Relations: The relationship between those who control the means of production and the workers. Rules~No semantics~No lawyerism~No new arguments 5th round.~Serious arguments only~Cite all sources~Have fun! ~First round is only for acceptance.-Zachary
Training the body through the fascial is more efficient at developing performance

By fascial I am referring to myofascia that is, the system that is coordinated through fascial lines. For instance, the pectorals, ipsilateral external obliques, contralateral internal oblique, and contralateral adductor from the originating pectoral, all of that is a connected fascial line developed through naturally occurring human Biomechanics. I will also clarify that by human biomechanics I am referring to coordinating systems that effectively build more efficient connectivity through fascial training. By intentionally loading each contributing part in that fascial line to connect the myofascia so that it works more efficiently together, for instance through gait, which I will be referring to as the basis of human biomechanics. The reason fascial training is more efficient is because it does just that, it connects a series of "parts" to create the whole. With weightlifting or body building, you are creating coordination, however it is more of an isolated approach. If you refer to Olympic weightlifting, that is only developing strength/coordination in the Sagittal plane, where natural human mechanics occurs in all 3 planes of motion simultaneously.
Socialism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

Uhh. . . . I'm kind of new to debating, So can you tell me what your first point meant, XDRe: 2) Pro suggests that "Socialism can work well". Nonetheless Pro appears to suggest in round 2 that Socialism does not work well. I only stated that the USSR mainly failed because of how badly it started off as (which wasn't even it's fault) and that fact that there were a LOT of embargos on it by Capitalist countries, Ranging from Britain to the US, Cutting it off from trade. When the USSR was at it's most Socialist state, It was also the time when the USSR had it's best economy and society. And for your third point; I guess by refuting my arguments? I don't know. . . I'm a noob.
Socialism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

Re: ¨True Socialism never works well. In fact it has never worked at all. ¨Lets take the USSR(Soviet Union) as an example, And compare it to the US(United States of America). America had hundreds of hundreds of years to revolutionize to become a world superpower, And they were seldom directly attacked (except in cases like the War of 1812). On the other hand, The USSR was only formed in the 30s, And were in an economically backwards state aand held an illiterate population due to the revolution. On top of that, They recieved embargos from dozens of capitalist nations, Ranging from Britain to the United States. You cannot expect the USSR to survive under these circumstances. For example, You do not compare a marathon runner to a 3 year old toddler who can barely run. You do not compare one who is learning to write to Shakesphere. Similarly, You can't compare the USSR to the US. If they were on the same playing level, However, Things would have been very different in history. Therefore, Comparing capitalist countries to socialist ones is pretty nonsensible.
Socialism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

Ok. But you still haven't given any examples or evidence of socialism working well. True socialism should be founded on absolute equality, But how could a society function effectively without hierarchy? I would suggest that true socialism is an unachievable, Theoretical utopia. People simply do not have equal capabilities, Therefore a society will always naturally evolve into a hierarchical system. The founding principles of the U. S. S. R. May have been loosely based on socialist theory, But from the outset compliance to the system was enforced through fear rather than through thoughtful cooperation. As such the U. S. S. R. Was never a socialist state. The U. S. S. R. Was never anything other than an authoritarian dictatorship. a) To not be an "enemy" would be to accept and to legitimise an authoritarian dictatorship. b) To trade openly would give the same recognition as above. c) The U. S. S. R as a true socialist state, Never actually started. But I would strongly assert that it would be inaccurate to say that The U. S. S. R. Was unable to progress. The U. S. S. R. Possessed an abundance of knowledge and resources which allowed it to compete both militarily and technologically at a global level. Anyway: We are focusing to much on the machinations of the former Soviet Union and straying from Pro's opening proposition, Which was; "Socialism can work well". I therefore reiterate: Can Pro give me an example of true socialism, Working well?
Socialism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

1) Shoot, Don't mind that part and just go on like the title was "SOcialism can work well". It was just some dumb thing. . . . 2 and 3) I was taking the USSR as an example. The USSR did NOT fall due to it being SOcialist. It fell because ofa) It was surrounded by enemiesb) It was denied from most trade, As it had numerous of embargos placed on itc) It started off very badly, So progressing in a world of much stronger powers and then making enemies with them is, Ehh. . . . .
Socialism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

1) Bracketed references: A. "I know their different". B. "But it depends what you do". What do this mean? I have no way of knowing unless you explain it clearly. 2) Your proposition was: "Socialism can work well". It is therefore incumbent upon Pro to substantiate this claim. You somewhat counter intuitively cited the collapse of the U. S. S. R. As evidence of socialism working well. 3) As Con; I should be refuting your claim by arguing that socialism does not work well and I would therefore probably cite the collapse of the U. S. S. R. As an example of socialism not working well. Regards.