BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO voting category S&G should be changed to "Who communicated best?"

1. Clear communication hinges on spelling and grammar in text. To be able to separate the two is a challenge I've yet to see completed; a person's spelling and grammar is key since misspelled words and bad grammar actually can change entire meanings for phrases and this also true of syntax and punctuation. The core of the misquotation of a person rests entirely on these factors. 2. Muddled spelling is a sign of incoherent conceptualization. Jargon and high-tier language requires precision so when a person can only use lower tier language the odds of failure to communicate soar. One's ability to spell is likely a strong indication of their vocabulary; while one may not be perfect in spelling the worse the spelling and the management of punctuation and other syntax and grammatical rules the less likely you can have an engaging conversation above basic level. Clarity is imperative but a separate issue and it is usually born from mastery of language; when considering the foreign and second language persons it's courtesy, not integrity, that allows the oversights because at times the language is different enough to actually produce entirely different arguments. Recently this happened with me, I asked "Is Beauty Objective?" and a person challenged me, likely not a native English speaker to: "Is Beauty THE Objective?" and these are two totally different ideas and statements. One's mastery of language when performing is not just external; the ability to understand what is being said generally relates to your ability to speak the language as well. The more complex the debate the harder it is to follow poor S&G which in turn is translated literally to "weakened communication". Perhaps your policy makes sense only in cursory moments such as discussing simpler topics like "are poodles really dogs?" but when discussing jargon heavy propositions it is imperative you know what you're saying, how you're saying it, and that no one has to guess. Debate is like Sudoku: You are NEVER supposed to guess or assume what a person is saying; doing so when you judge them creates a hard bias.
DDO voting category S&G should be changed to "Who communicated best?"

The point of a debate.The object of debate is to convince others of your point of view, or to disprove an opinion held by others. In order to do this, one must make convincing arguments, and rebut the arguments made by their opponent.The importance of clear communication.Clear communication of your arguments is vital to debate. If your audience is unable to mentally grasp your argument, your argument will fail.The importance of Spelling & Grammar.Spelling and grammar is important, but not vital to a debate. The rules of English spelling and grammar are fluid, changing with location, dialect, and time period.The case for clear communication, rather than spelling and grammar.Using correct spelling and grammar, a person may still make an argument that is not clearly communicated to the audience, even though it may be a stronger argument. Conversely, a person may have atrocious spelling and grammar, and still make a clearer argument, weak or strong.Also, many people on this site do not speak English as their first language. They do not conjugate verbs correctly, or they use inappropriate English punctuation. But their argument is clearer than their opponents. Why should they lose a point in a debate, when their argument was nevertheless understood?
DDO voting category S&G should be changed to "Who communicated best?"

There are two reasons why I would just a person harshly for misspelling difficult terms: 1. Laziness: If you are using the internet right now then you have access to multiple search engines. Typing "teradactill" into one of them will produce the correct spelling. You do not have the excuse of difficulty when you are literally using a giant reference tool; it is equivalent in my mind to saying "Well, yes, I do have all the answers right next to me, but I choose not to use them, and yes I did have to get sources for may claims about pterodactyls, but my ability to spell what I refer to is meaningless. 2. Ignorance: The last thing anyone needs is a person rampaging on ideas that they don't understand and knowing how to spell jargon is a sign of knowledge and command over a subject. Let's take your example and vocalize it; would you listen more to a person who says "terra-dac-til" or a person who says "p-ter-oda-ctyl"? The same thing stands in written debate. "Boo-sua-see" versus "Bo-or-gee-see" ( bour"geoi"sie ) and while again we can have tolerance for this marking communication instead of spelling and grammar only encourages people not to pay attention to what they say, type, or learn. You don't have to know how to do everything but you do need to know how to actually encompass some form of competence. I don't care if you ever learn how to spell pterodactyl but by golly there is absolutely no reason you can't reference it and absolutely no reason why people should simply overlook your refusal to do so when you are using the world's largest reference tool to even pose the argument to begin with.
Pro is a better Anti-Communis than Con

I am not saying that just because you do not support Capitalism, you are not truly against Communism. All that I am saying is that it brings your ideology slightly closer to Communism than mine is. The object of this debate is to prove that you are a better anti-Communist (meaning more anti-Communist) than your opponent. You argue that your Nationalism is a far right and anti-Communistic characteristic. In many ways, you are right, but Nationalism is not necessarily something that Communist governments disdain. Perhaps the ultimate exhibition of Nationalism is in North Korea. An average person in North Korea has very little contact with the rest of the world. Furthermore, the government has held mass sessions of mourning when one of its leaders dies. That sounds Nationalistic to me, but we all know that North Korea is an extremely Communist country. Therefore, Communism and NationalismWhile you still are opposed to Communism, you support things, such as governmental control of the economy, that pave the way for Communism to exist. You say that you are not in favor of a classless society (i.e. Communism), but you then mention that you are in favor of programs such as welfare, social security, and a progressive tax, which all reduce class disparity and lead a country towards a classless society. I support Capitalism, free trade, and a flat tax, which reward hard work with a higher socioeconomic status. To conclude, neither of us wants Communism, but you support programs that bring a nation towards a classless society, a key characteristic of Communism.
Pro is a better Anti-Communis than Con

Firstly, I would like to start by addressing saying that we, in our fight against the reds, are in the same boat. Therefore, it would be unwise to cause a rift which would ultimately lead to the end of our movement, and to the domination of those who do not deserve to live because of their political persuasion.Secondly, no I do NOT support the creation of a classless stateless moneyless society so called communism. My last argument was supposed to prove that the ideal communist society is obsolete and therefore, communism is a backward way of organizing society. Responding to the opponent's statement on my views, I would like to state the following: I am a nationalist to the core, and perhaps much further right than the opponent's description of "Extreme Right". Yes I do support social programs and welfare, because the government's ultimate aim is to serve the people and the nation: having large social programs and welfare will help the citizens of one's nation to depend on the government and create a stronger bond between the government and the people. I also say that I do not support free trade because workers are not resources to be toyed with, but human beings, and are citizens of the same fatherland. I would also like to state the following: just because someone supports a certain aspect of an ideology, doesn't mean he is of that political persuasion. I would like to link this misunderstanding to the Tea Party's accusation of being anarchist. The Tea Party Patriots was responsible for the Government Shutdown of last year, and we have seen that they do not want the Democrat-led government to run these United States. However, they were attacked of being anarchists. Are they? Probably not, Just because I do not support capitalism does not mean I am not a true anti-communist. In fact,a describe myself as a market syndicalist, and the reds will burn in hell.
Pro is a better Anti-Communis than Con

In this round of the debate, I will rebut some of the points that Pro has made.I would like to note that my opponent defined Communism as "A classless, stateless, moneyless self-administering society". However, in his Round 2 argument, he argued that the problem with Communism was that it was secretly helping entrench the bourgeois class. In essence, he is arguing in favor of a classless society, or at least one in which class plays a reduced role. On the other hand, I support the free markets in their entirety, something that a Communist government, that wants private property not to exist, would hate.One key thing for this debate is to look at both of our stances on issues. Kc1999 self-identifies as a member of the National Socialist Movement (as of this posting). While National Socialism is not Socialism in its true sense (nor is Socialism quite the same as Communism), he does exemplify many anti-Capitalist sentiments. He lists himself as Con with respect to free trade and Pro to social programs, welfare, and minimum wage, all of which add to the government's control of the economy and bring us slightly closer to Communism. He also says that, in a Capitalist society, "workers are treated as resources, not their true potential".On the other hand, I believe that the government should allow free market Capitalism to prosper, maximizing economic growth. In a classless society, there would be no incentive to work. A true Communist society does not allow for individual ownership of things; instead, the government owns everything. On my profile, it says, as to why I support Capitalism, " Capitalism is one of the core values on which America was founded. It allows for maximum economic efficiency and is fair in that people get what they earn". That is a core anti-Communist position, as it does not allow for any government control in the economy or redistribution of wealth.To finish my argument, I want to say that I am a true anti-Communist, as evidenced by my stances on issues, while my opponent is not satisfied with Communism in practice, but he, as evidenced by his profile and by his Round 3 argument, supports the Communist ideal of a classless society.SOURCES: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
Pro is a better Anti-Communis than Con

In this round, rather than addressing any of his points, I will simply explain why I am anti-Communist. I believe in many things that are the polar opposites of Communist ideology. First and foremost, I believe in Capitalism. As Communism argues for the lack of private ownership of property, while Capitalism promotes the lack of government involvement in the economy, it is impossible for one to be both Capitalist and Communist. Communists believe that the government can allocate resources and goods as it chooses (whether it be equally or not). On the other hand, I believe that the economy should be controlled by laissez-faire free markets, in which the government has no role. If the government were to allocate resources and if there were no private property, what would the incentive be to work? A classic story that demonstrates this is a professor deciding to average the test scores of everyone in the class and give each student the average. To make a long story short, they all fail. While the tale has no clear origin and is attacking Socialism, the same principle (that people are less willing to work without a tangible benefit) applies to Communism. Finally, I believe in freedom of speech. While a lack of freedom of speech is not inherent in Communism, many Communist countries, including China, have severely restricted freedom of speech, as the government generally has more power in these countries. Also, what Communist countries, other than China, which has a substantial amount of underground Capitalism, have succeeded? I look forward to hearing your next argument.
Pro is a better Anti-Communis than Con

The Commie swines and scums have attempted to break the back of the proletariat by introducing the movement of the bourgeoisie! The Commies are the real bourgeoisie! The Communist Bourgeoisie class which attempts to harass the working class shall die in the flames of agony. Stalin was a bourgeoisie swine, coming from an aristocratic family and he now attempts to influence his dirty hands to the free workers, or the almost free worker. The Far-Left Communists have failed to improve anything and have only succeeded in freeing the class that it secretly loves the most, the bourgeoisie! In their ranks, there are only anarchist and liberals who want the worst for the nation! Is this not a clear indicator that communism will only destroy the world! In third world countries, aristocratic communist pigs have always attempted to seduce the working class into one of it's foolish propaganda. Meanwhile, trade unionists and social democrats warned the workers about the impending advance of Aristocratic Communism into their soil; they call them comrades and they attempt to unite the world, but in reality, they are part of a greater conspiracy, organised by someone, to rule the world and trick the proletariat into following there movement blind! The Working Men deserves to be free to work on his own will, and on his own pace, but the Communist Oppressors attempt to impose this system that has for so long been obsolete to the world, and we will keep it obsolete. Communism will go down the well, but it's scars will remain forever, unless we thoughtfully improve worker's conditions.
Pro is a better Anti-Communis than Con

I would like to inform the opponent that if the opponent attempts to compare nationalism and communism, he would have to go through many difficulties. Engels, the founder of modern communism along with Marx, said in a letter to "Renegade" Kautsky, that he does not want to restore "Chauvinism". I can be most describe as a Chauvinist, and oppose internationalism as it is another form of Communist-Bourgeoisie attack on the culture and identity of one people. The opponent must also relize that the DPRK is not a communist state, but it follows the idea of Juche, which is a lose combination of Socialist Patriotism and Stalinist Coercion, which I do not support indeed. Communism is a society without a government, but there is still a government in the DPRK. Also, mass mourning in one's leader's death is by no means nationalistic; it only means that the people were subjugated to the propaganda that government introduced.I support certain things that reduces class inequality on others justification; I support welfare because I believe that the government must provide essential services for the people; it should also be noted that I do not oppose private hospitals, and I also believe the people have the rights and liberty to choose whatever their treatment may be. This is the same for public transportation. I support government regulation, not government control; I support the government regulating the minimum wages and maximum working hours, but I do believe that if we are not to transition completely, then companies should be able to work on their own. I believe that this thing called class is useless and hopeless, and as long as any citizen is part of a country, he is entitled to his rights to be treated equally, and to not be emphasized to those richer. I do not support progressive taxes; a man is rich because of his achievements. Because Communism is a traitorous to the foundations of humankind and will betray the workers who carried out the revolution, communism will be opposed. I would like to inform the opponent that we are on the same ship, our guns fired for the same purpose, to protect humanity from this obsolete and backwards system called communism.It is of our best interest to fight communism and it's proxy Social Democrat form.
George Bush is the worst President on earth.

As you have not argued my points but instead presented some hypothetical information and a question, I assume you conceded all my arguments to me. I will now present some pretty bad things Fidel and his comrades have done: Fidel Castro: If you consider the number of people that try to leave Cuba each day to get to the USA, then it is difficult to see Castro as a great leader. If you consider the standard of living of the average Cuban, it is impossible to see Castro as a great leader. Its been considered that the people around him are keping him up, and doing everything for him. Vladimir Putin: Communism, dictator-like leadership from ages and forever. In conclusion ,there have been worse presidents and worse people who lead significant groups. Thank you.
George Bush is the worst President on earth.

I am here to argue that he is not the worst president on earth, but rather mediocre compared to some other pretty bad leaders. I believe that communism is the wrong thing, and any communist leader is better than a leader who screws up a democratic and free country. Here are some worse leaders than our beloved dubyah: Vladimir Putin Chavez Mao Castro To name a few. I direct your attention to a poster made up saying that Mr. Putin is worse than bush. http://kscakes.com... Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Nations would benifit from using Tridemism as their political philosophy

I would first like to tell my opponent that I have no problem with technocracy, but I will be debating the San-Min DoctrineArgument 1: Tridemism has been very successful so far.Taiwan: The country of Taiwan is notable for using Tridemism as their main political philosophy. The whole government is centered around Tridemism, and it is now one of the Four Asian tigers, and one of the most free and liberal nations on earth. http://www.isn.ethz.ch...http://www.youtube.com...United States: Back in America's Progressive age, we had made some of the greatest advances in democracy. The progressive party, from which the san-min doctrine was formed, is notable for being led by Theodore Roosevelt. Almost everything on the progressive platform had been fulfilled within 30 years, and we became the worlds leading economic and military super power. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... Argument 2: NationalismNationalism, whatever your view on it may be, is undeniably a great factor to have in your county. It brings people together, and makes them work for a commoncause. To make their nation the best one possible. What a beautiful thing, to unite religions, ethnicitys, and cultures under one banner. http://www.britannica.com...Argument 3: DemocracyHow great is democracy. It took 1000's of years for humanity to realize that power should not rest in one mans hands. Democracy gives power to the people, and the people give power to the state. Which brings me into my next point... http://www.merriam-webster.com...Argument 4: Welfare of the PeopleThe San-Min Doctrine promotes the Welfare of the People as the first priority of the nation. Advocating the goverernments role in making every citizen well and happy. While many interpret this as socialism, it can mean a lot of things. It means that all citizens get an equal chance, and citizens who can't keep up will be supported. http://americanart.si.edu... Now I'm very intrested in how my opponent will argue that this doctrine will not help various countries, but I'm certain that some good points will be made. Thanks for debating with me, and good luck.
Nations would benifit from using Tridemism as their political philosophy

Opening this debate, I first contend that the reasons why we have created nation states in the first place has nothing to do with social policies or national or relgious dogmas but that the driving motivator for the states Existance is Economic in nature. Economics here is based in general welfare to begin with and expands as civilizations have grown into prosperious contexts of wealth. How ever the people of a nation look to the nation state first and fore most to be a methof protecting and encouraging wealth and prosperity. In the days of Imperial conquest this was done with territorial expanion. In this Cnetury, it is not quite so clear. For this reason, at its premise Tridemism is not terribly relevant as it tied in greater effect to the social relation betweeen a people and government than it is to the Economic welfare of people an state. Social freedoms are not the same as Economic freedoms but they have in common that a firm balance must be struck between authoritive state and liberal minded policy. This ideal balance is infact a moving target, driven by the ever changing will of the people and it is irreagardless of whether the state is democratic or authoritvie in nature that a Balance must be struck. That said. several civilizations in their prime have done a reasonable job of keeping up with it. Notably the famous civilizatiosn on which modern Tidemism was built upon. Western examples such as Athens, Rome and even the Contutional monarchy of Great Britian, during its hieght was an excellent example of balance between authortive and centralized powers of state.. and liberal economic and social policies. While this balance may or may not be easier achieved through Tridemism as you've defined it, it has not been ahcieved by this system exclusively. Enter the 21st century, With rapidly evolving Technology creating a crisis in economics as our systems scramble to catch up with Hardware and software advances of the previous decades, Obvious cracks in the modern systems of both Economics and politics are forming and growing ever wider. Systems be them Tridemism or Authoritive in nature are increasingly ireelvant as western culture increaingly liberalizes in social policy. Governments which require their citizens to serve in the capcity of funding the state are pressed ever harder as to make the spread sheets balance. Here in coems the beauty of a Technocract, Resource based Economy, A machine based government with the only simple function of forfilling the needs of its human citizens. It has no social policy and no need of one. it is a government focused only on utiliatrian functions and its nature is bound like wise to mechnaical functions. Where in the past I would have sugested that out nation states should be treated as if they where a business. I now propose that a state is best if thought of-and-used as a computer. It serves a function, it is operated,maintained and repaired in a methodical way, it operates like wise. Undecirminating, Unbias. This is the Ideal state and I look forward to debating it with you.
Nations would benifit from using Tridemism as their political philosophy

Tridemism is a political philosophy designed by Sun Yat Sen, but in America, it is very similar to Progressivism. It promotes 3 main beliefs known as the principles of the people.1. Nationalism2. Democracy 3. Welfare of the people (Socio-capitalism)It calls for the three main pushes in the American Progressive era1. Official Recall2. Initiatives3. Referendrum.In short, it promote high interaction between the people and government. A mix of direct and representative democracy.It also promotes a three branch government, and checks in balances.If you were not aware, this is strikingly similar to the US, with a few slight differences. Notable Nations which use Tridemism as a philosophy-------------------------------------------------------United StatesSouth KoreaTaiwanIf you want any more information before we start the debate, please inform me.