BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Attempts to create an artificial Universal Language* should cease.

Communication BarriersLanguage can be used for things other than a reflection of culture. It can still be a framework of recognisable words for easier communication. You cannot carry a machine around the streets and input what others say. There is simply impossible to believe that an EXTRA universal language (not replacing pre-existing ones) could be negative.RespectYou can't accomodate for everyone's needs all the time. You don't include every country in the Soccer World Cup or the process would take too long. Does not detract from an universal language's usefulness.Don't Force ItWhat is 'artificial'? Someone had to start by saying, 'Hey let's invent a sound for this particular idea!' If aritificial is something created by humans, then all language is artificial. TranslatorsAll translators may be recruited into the development of this new language, their input is sorely needed. In summary, there aren't enough negatives to justify ceasing the development of an universal language.Thanks
Attempts to create an artificial Universal Language* should cease.

Communication BarriersIf we aren't going to try to maintain the intricacies and cultural values of language, then there is no point. We may as well have machines continue to translate for us. RespectThe disrespect comes from excluding other cultures in the decision making process.Don't Force ItArtificially creating a language is forcing it into existence. I vote we allow it to occur naturally.CON says Convenience and that translators are expensive. How will translators feed their families when the Universal Language makes their skills inconsequential?In summary, an artificial universal language would not solve all communication barriers, would be disrespectful, and is not natural. Even if you give in to CON's claims about convenience, my points are more important than convenience.Thank you for an on topic debate.
Attempts to create an artificial Universal Language* should cease.

This is actually a really limiting character limit, so I'll spare you my eloquence.Communication BarriersJust because we cannot translate every culture's word does not make a universal language useless. "Hygge" and "Esprit d'Escalier" are not necessary for every type of interaction. Again, you are listing disadvantages rather than why any attempt should cease to exist. I extend my argument that the good outweighs the bad. Being late has nothing to do with this. A universal language does not have to be the 'single language'. RespectI repeat the point that a universal language does not have to be the 'single language'. Why do people still learn Hebrew?Don't Force it Nowhere in this resolution does it say it has to be forced in any way. I'm glad you agree with me. Global unity is a great point. Thanks!ConvenienceHuman translators cost money and we may not trust their translation. There are numerous jobs demanding certain language qualifications, I will cite sources if asked.
Attempts to create an artificial Universal Language* should cease.

I. Communication Barriers Different languages have quirks that cannot be translated directly such as “Hygge” and “Esprit d'Escalier” [1]. Cultural values affect how many words a language has for central terms. For example, there the Eskimos' have 50 words for snow [2]. In the US it is highly offensive to be late. In Spain it is seen as weird to show up exactly on time. A single language cannot compensate for all cultural needs, nor can it solve miscommunications due to differences in cultural values. II. Respect I do not claim there will be a hostile language takeover. However, any artificially created language could not possibly include all perspectives. III. Don't Force It A naturally developed universal language would be lovely. It would be a sign of global unity. However, it must not be forced. A. Convenience Not having a universal language is not causing significant harm. We have translators: human and machine. We have bilingual international business branches.
Attempts to create an artificial Universal Language* should cease.

I will simply outline my arguments in this round. Any contentions rebutted by my opponent will be expanded upon in the next round.My ArgumentGreater ease of communicationIt is blatantly obvious that having a universal language will make communication easier. This goes from social interaction to business discussions to countries working together for technological berakthroughs. I highly doubt there will be an argument against this point. My RebuttalsCommunication BarriersUnfortunately, communication barriers have very much to do with not speaking the same language. Why do world leaders use translators? Because language is the primary vessel of meaning. Secondly, learning another language does not mean leaving their culture - it can be in conjunction.RespectWe never said this universal language had to be imposed, it can be optional. Not learning a language does not implicate a lack of respect, simply a lack of time. Translators add an additional barrier and cost money.
Attempts to create an artificial Universal Language* should cease.

I. Communication Barriers The idea of a 'universal language' clearly does not understand what communication barriers actually are - they have little to do with not speaking the same language.There is more to understanding one another than simply knowing what words mean. We should be focusing on improving relations and understanding foreign values - not memorizing words. It is important to stop assuming your cultural values are correct, to stop assuming other cultures are like yours, and to be more comfortable around differing cultural values.II. Respect Universal Language creation clearly values convenience over respecting the beautiful variety of cultures. It would be convenient for travelers not to have to learn a new language. However, respecting cultures by not imposing a common language on them is more important than the ease of tourists and international businesses. You can always hire a translator. Attempts to artificially manufacture the "Universal Language" should stop.
Attempts to create an artificial Universal Language* should cease.

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: StandardRound 3: StandardRound 4: No New ArgumentsTime to Argue: 24 hours Argument Max: 1,000 CharactersInterpretation of the Resolution: A language is a complex system of symbols. Complex means that a speaker could form an original sentence. To be considered universal, the language would need to be at least an auxiliary language in almost all countries. Auxiliary means that, even if it is not the predominant language, the majority of citizens know it as a second language. Claiming that "universal safety symbols" or the "laws of nature" are universal languages is NOT in the spirit of this debate.Do not accept this debate if you are going to deviate significantly from the interpretation.Sources may be included in the comment section to save characters. Be sure to label which speech your sources are referring to if you do.
There is no such thing as a virus

Rebuttal: To answer your questions 1)The First person to see a virus did not know what it was but after researching they came to the conclusion that it is a virus with its own identity. 2. Viruses have flagellum to move, Bacteriophage has legs, They have mini arms, They have protein and nucleic acids, 3)Viruses evolutionized 4)Viruses, Archaebacteria and MANY small organisms can survive in unfavorable conditions. Some ways are endospores, Adaption and quick evolution 5)The virus finds a host cell, Enters in their genes, Take over the cell, The cell bursts and viruses reproduce AKA The Lytic Cycle 6)Viruses Are INCREDIBLY Small. Way smaller beyond comprehension even compared to bacteria. Ants can't eat ALL the viruses in the world Questions For You: 1)If viruses don't exist, What is the cause of flu, AIDS, And HIV? 2)How come we harness viruses and use them to cure bacteria superbugs. 3) Bacteriophage kills 40% of the oceans bacteria, Why do we not see HUGE bacteria population explosions if they don't exist? 4)How come there is photographic evidence it exists. Source: MY FRIKING 7TH GRADE SCIENCE TEXTBOOK(no im not kidding)
There is no such thing as a virus

Firstly it needs to be established that disease has only 2 primary causes. 1. Vitamin deficiency 2. Chemical poisoning. Note - Genetic mutation is mostly caused by vitamin deficiency, Thus, It is not a 3rd cause. Latin root meaning of the word virus - a poison or toxin. Any other explanation other than these 2 reasons should be considered either as frauds or secondary symptoms of disease only. Thus, These 2 explanations are sufficient to cover all of the so called many different diseases of mankind and plants. To prove that viruses don't exist. Answer these logic questions - 1. How did the first person to see a virus know that it was a virus without any references as to what a virus looks like? 2. How do viruses find their host if they have no legs, Arms, Eyes, Ears, Brains, Sense of touch or means of locomotion? 3. How can something that is dead, Suddenly come to life? 4. How can viruses survive in the atmosphere and sunlight without any walls for protection? (very fragile) 5. How does a entity (virus) that kills its host pass on its genes and what does it gain by killing the host? 6. If viruses are proteins, Then why don't small insects like ants find them and eat them all?
Anime Death Battle!

R1: Acceptance and Contestant R2: Arguments R3: Rebuttals ONLY (any further arguments brought up during this time will be excluded from the final decision). The only arguments that CAN be made are ones that negate the argument of another (Def. of Rebuttal). The Rules are that your character: Cannot be invincible, has to have been beaten before, cannot be immortal or multi-lived in anyway, and cannot be from the same series as my character. The Character that I will be using will be Vegeta from Dragon ball Z.
My user name is not retarded flamingo

I am a flamingo, but none of your pictures accuratly shows a retarded flamingo. In my species, we add colons to our race. Homosexual-Flamingo, Pretty-Flamingo, Smart-Flamingo, Retarded-Flamingo: you get the point. You are not physic. For that argument, you could not have predicted this point I am making. I AM A CHARGIN MAH LAZA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You also claim that I am a 15 year-old male, but later on you refer to me as a "she". That argument is invalid. I do not have other usernames on any sites, because I lie about my age and gender. I am about three years old and since I am mentally disabled, I can not check my gender. The evidence is covered in pink feathers. By the way, your constant profile picture changing confuses me. Please keep in mind that I am retarded. Oh yea, I leave myself logged yet am not always on because I have to take many pills or else I will go on a massive killing spree and take over China. Hey, maybe I'm physic. Next turn you will say I did not prove that that is my username, well you know what I have to say to that? Errrr......*takes pills*.
My user name is not retarded flamingo

Thank you, err…retarded-flamingo I will like to Question my Opponent in three different ways. >><< I) Who is "my"? It can refer to me, you or anyone for that matter. Unless an Assumption is made "retarded flamingo" can be anyone. Prove II) You are a Retarded Flamingo. You can be a literal Retard Flamingo. This is clearly demonstrated in these two pictures, it's possible: [ http://hypochondrisch.files.wordpress.com...] [http://1.bp.blogspot.com...] [http://embroodles.com...] III) You have other usernames other than this your profile calls you a 15 year old male. Assuming this to be true most 15 year old males are into cyber networking via games, social sites and others. I doubt debate.org is your only usernamed account. >>Anti Points<< I am Psychic[http://www.thepsychiccenter.com...]… …I know what your going to do next turn. Your going to say there is a difference between "retarded flamingo" and "retarded-flamingo", well a average person can make an assumption that the two name refer to the name person. Even the word assumes. To justify this, see the test results on a forum post on this website: http://www.debate.org... In the next turn Pro must prove she's not a retarded flamingo, that retarded flamingo cannot refer to any one else and that he has no other usernames at all. Goodluck. Ok, thank you all… for now. >>References.<< [http://www.debate.org... ] [http://www.thepsychiccenter.com...] [ http://hypochondrisch.files.wordpress.com...] [http://1.bp.blogspot.com...] [http://embroodles.com...]
V-Neck T-shirts should not be worn by men

"Some "friends" of mine think that since I am wearing a V-neck shirt, that I am a quote-unquote "f*g". This is a stupid position to take considering that a shape of a collar is to be discriminated." --Bowzer Clarification. I didn't say that men who wear shirts with the V-neck collar are a f*g, I insinuated that the wearing of such clothing indicates a sexual preference for people of the same gender. Now this is not true in all cases. For example, Bowzer wears these shirts and he is most certainly not gay... I hope...awkward. On a side note I hope that Bowzer has noticed that he is arguing that men should not wear V-necks, being in the PRO position. I hope he enjoys himself. :D Anyways lets go into my opening arguments for this. The corrected argument being "Wearing a V-neck t-shirt indicates a same sex sexual preference." I am proving that this is incorrect. First of all, let me tell my opponent that there is a difference between "metrosexual" and "homosexual." Homosexual is, obviously, being attracted to a person of the same sex as your self. Metrosexual, is a term for the modern heterosexual man who is interested in and knowledgeable about things such as style, art, and culture. Bowzer seems to be indicating, seeing as he is pro for this argument ( lol ) that they are one and the same. However I am arguing that a man can be conscientious of modern fashions, which in this day and age include V-necks for men, and not automatically be thrown in the category of homosexual. There are no reliable studies or organizations, unless you are counting the Malaysian Teachers Foundation who backed none of their arguments, that would even suggest that such a correlation would exist. I will give the time to my opponent for a rebuttal.
We should solve problems on earth before exploring mars

Stop wasting time on problems on earth! Earth will never be fixed! Global warming, wars and more catastrophic events will take place on earth if we don't think about the outside world! If the earth was in total danger with a meteorite heading in a course collision and we had already explored mars and somehow realised it was safe if we lived inside, we could go straight there and save the whole human race! Stop focusing on problems here and get looking at possibilities on mars!
The atonement of sins is an immoral and illogical doctrine

1. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - you said "putting their own health at stake to heal the inflicted, these are true sacrifices which display the greatest love" exactly! What did Jesus do? He put his own health at stake to heal the inflicted. and you agree with me that this displays the greatest love.! 2. "Jesus is the manifestation of Gods grace. What Jesus did manifests Gods grace to us." -you said "This is not an answer to the morality of the atonement. You must also demonstrate this statements validity." I just did in #1 above. 3. you seem to affirm objective morality, but still fail to provide any bases for it whatsoever. you say "we are subject to physical laws" - This implies a law giver. if God exists than God provides a solid foundation for these objective physical and moral laws. If God does not exist you have NO foundation for objective moral values. I asked you to provide a foundation or bases and you just went off railing against the christian religion. You failed to provide any bases, thus we can affirm that God is the most logical and rational bases for objective moral values. Now imagine this God who designed these laws entered into his creation to save the morally fallen mankind, and his creations mocked and ridiculed him, tortured him and crucified him. How noble a deed!! how pathetic we were. If you fail to see the grace and mercy of God demonstrated in this act than God help you. "it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." 4. you say it is wrong to think a baby sinful. I agree a baby is a very innocent and precious looking but I bet my life that the baby if it grows to be a mature adult will lie at least once, probably steal at least something small it will think evil thoughts now and then, it may even do a lot worse in the course of its life. The bible teaches we are all sinful and so far I have found this to be 100% accurate, do you know of 1 single person who has never sinned?"...I do, Jesus Christ. 5. Yes - if you "choose not to believe in this act, then I am condemned to eternal punishment." Once presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross to pay for our sins you will be held accountable for your decision regarding Christ. The bible says in Phillipians 2:10 "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;" I surrendered my life to Jesus a few years ago and it was the best decision I ever made. Mathew 16:15 "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
The atonement of sins is an immoral and illogical doctrine

1. "Con did not show proof that the atonement through sacrifice is moral." - Not only is it moral, it is the greatest moral act that anyone could have ever committed. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13 2. "If we are going to be saved by grace through faith, why send Jesus to die?" Jesus is the manifestation of Gods grace. What Jesus did manifests Gods grace to us. God loves us and blesses us not because of who we are or what we can do, but because of who He is and how great His love is for us. "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Peter 1:18-19 3. My opponent believes the sacrifice of Jesus was not acceptable morally. But without the God of the Bible my opponent has NO foundation for objective moral value statements such as this. - Let me ask you, what is your foundation for your moral judgement? society? yourself? if it is either of these it is merely a subjective opinion with no foundation in objective reality. Thus Jesus dying for our sins is not only moral but is actually the most moral thing that any being has ever done in the history of the universe. For he came "to seek and to save that which was lost." Luke 19:10.
The atonement of sins is an immoral and illogical doctrine

The atonement is an immoral doctrine, specifically "substitutionary atonement" which holds that Christ suffered and died on behalf of humankind. The first round will be for opening arguments. Con will be in favor for a moral atonement doctrine. I will be in favor for an immoral atonement doctrine. Con shall have the burden of proof since it is a major doctrinal component in Christianity and stated as being moral from Christian religious leaders. http://en.wikipedia.org... Responsibility is by definition: accountability: the state, fact, or position of being accountable to somebody or for something Not only is the atonement for sins immoral because it allows a guilty person to dodge their responsiblity via scapegoating, but it is also illogical. It is illogical because punishment is the appropriate response for the one who is guilty of breaking a certain law. The important element of retributive justice then is that the guilty party and only the guilty part should be punished, and thus it is logically impossible to punish an innocent person. To punish an innocent person contradicts the very definition of the word "punish" in the judicial sense. Thus, the substitutionary theory is an oxymoron. Con did not show proof that the atonement throw sacrifice is moral. You can post as many quotes from the bible, but they still do not show how this act is moral. You are basically stating that god has the power therefore it is right. But might does not necessarily make right. If god is almighty, then there are many more moral ways to give forgiveness for transgressions against god. A sacrifice is not necessary. Plus it is not a real sacrifice, for Jesus was supposedly resurrected. The act of god giving his son to die is immoral. Con states that "we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God." This is an immoral statement, explaining that instead of being responsible, we need to try and dodge the blame. If we are going to be saved by grace through faith, why send Jesus to die? According to Christianity, God gave us our sense of right and wrong. The Bible teaches that Jesus suffered in the place of sinners, while Jesus was sinless and thus innocent. Therefore, the atonement is a contradiction; otherwise, Christians have to admit that its okay for God to do what he tells man not to do. The Old Testament also makes numerous statements that God greatly dislikes human sacrifice, because it was a practiced by non-Jews to appease their gods (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 18:10). However, God did command Abraham to kill his own son Isaac in Genesis 22, however God at the last moment stops the sacrifice and was satisfied with Abraham's obedience. This very fact, carried to its logical conclusion, would eliminate the necessity of the sacrifice death of Christ. It eliminates the atonement and thus over turns the whole Christian Gospel. If sacrifice is unacceptable to God, then the sacrifice of Jesus was not acceptable.
The atonement of sins is an immoral and illogical doctrine

My opponent fails to fully comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 "All people have sinned against God. But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. He must punish the sinner, the Law- breaker. If He didn't, then His law is not Law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God." http://carm.org... Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith since it was not by our keeping the Law, but by Jesus, God in flesh, who fulfilled the Law and died in our place. Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." This is why the gospel of Jesus is the most astounding event of human history and utterly defies our initial conceptions of what is logical and necessary.