BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
debate.org is filled with solicitors and spammers

You see, debate.org was meant to be a website for people to post their opinions on certain matters and debate about things, especially political or ethical matters. But now it is dilapidated. Look at this guy for example: http://www.debate.org... All he wants us to do is see some stupid movies. And then look at this guy: http://www.debate.org... He's also a weird Hispanic soliciting and getting people to do stupid stuff. And then here: http://www.debate.org... He is mentally ill. He's Indians, but he wants Indians to be illegal. http://www.debate.org... Also, he is retarded, because he has terrible debate skills. http://www.debate.org... He calls a guy a "lesbian", and it's pretty obvious that only females can be lesbians. Reggee says, "He is a giant lebziaan because he doesnt think that indians should be illegal even though they should be because they smell like f-cking curry and curry is a trash basketball player and also frankfurter 50 has no solo wins and he gets carried by his nerdy black friends and the best hes ever gotten is 10th place with no kills cuz hes trash and he probably plays pubg cuz hes a gezbian" Not only does he have too many run-on sentences and poor grammar skills, he also equivocates the word "curry". First he means a spice, then he probably refers to Stephen Curry. Debate.org needs to do something to get rid of its solicitors and spammers
To uplift one, thousands are crushed!

Firstly I thank con to attend round 2 actively. Coming to the topic: It is important to resolve some of the oppositions which con have raised. With reference to the definition of uplift (I mentioned in R1), con is arguing that " If any one uplift a little girl on his shoulders no one will be crushed" Well con, Here on context of the topic, the word 'uplift' not at all mean to raise or lift some one physically. With respect to the topic this word means raising one's standard of living, one's achievements, financial conditions etc. So It is baseless argument of con of having physical lifting of something or someone do not crush thousands. Moving ahead, now my opponent is on correct track and argues about raising a poor financially. It is true that the poor will be uplifted and you will rather be pleased nor crushed morally. I want to answer this opposition with an example: I hope con knows Newton's third law: Action and reaction are always supplementary yet in opposite direction. Here if one slaps you is action then you slap him back is scientifically not the reaction. Reaction is the amount of force felt by the slapper when slapping you. SIMILARLY, though morally you felt happy by uplifting a poor yet you lost some penny from your bank balance. This what actually should be seen in practical. I hope my opponent also know that word 'crush' too is used as slang. Here crush means any kind of depletion, decrement or degradation. In your example of raising poor, thousands of pennies were decreased from your account. So morally you didn't get 'crush' yet you have to agree that your bank account has less money then before.So this example of con is also baseless. Next argument of con is: I am rejecting individuality in favor of logically flawed relativism. I am being excessively relative and morally unjust. I too agree. Yet con should understand that in debate the topic can never be discussed at individual levels. No doubts, there may be differences at individual levels yet we have to discuss it as a whole with good reasoning and logical illustrations. You may know that lawyers debate in courtroom and sometimes they too have to keep aside moral. Debate requires logical reasoning. There should be a firm base on which one's argument stands. So con's opposition of me to be seeing and describing topic as a whole and not at individuality levels too is baseless. To be morally just in debate is against debate's moral! So I hope I have responded to almost all the opposition of my opponent. As this is last round, I wont put any new argument but conclude here by short listing my previous arguments: 1 Nature too believe in this law as one's upliftment is dependent on other's lives. 2 Present era is competitive one where literal race is seen. Here upliftment of one crush others in any form. (in education, financially, ethically etc) THUS Upliftment in any sector causes declination of others in small or large amount. IF ONE WINS IN DEBATE OTHER LOSES ITSELF...
To uplift one, thousands are crushed!

I apologize for my misreading negligence. Regardless you have lost already. Using your loss definition of uplift if I hold a little girl up on my shoulders, not I nor thousands will be crushed. If I uplift a poor orphan metaphorically by giving him cash I won't be crushed as I feel a point of happiness in a good deed while he is financially better off. The main problem with your argumentation of downgrading is that you put it all In a vacuum without considering the other factors that could make them better off in the end either morally or even perhaps financially/physically. Let's say I kicked you out of your precious garden and you found a new one that you liked more. We turned out to be both content and equal in terms of garden ownership. Now does this downgrade us and those who do not have gardens? Not at all. The point is that they were never participating in this system in the first place and to subject them to it is morally unjust. We must indeed keep this discussion relative, but not too relative obviously. In the end we cannot either assume they have been downgraded as we don't have maximum knowledge of their standing and why something like a garden ownership has a utility advantage over their other devices. In a Kritik of this resolution i reject this framework as we are rejecting individuality in favor of logically flawed relativism that you are showing. I am arguing for our admittance that these upgrades and downgrades are only based upon our personal biases and that is entirely why you can't affirm as you would be disrespecting individuality and being morally unjust. With no doubt I negate.
To uplift one, thousands are crushed!

Well, thanks my opponent...Yet I don't understand why con wasted the round 1 completely even though word limit was 3000! Either he had no clear point to argue with or he was too lazy to type his argument. In both the cases my opponent lost a golden chance to open his argument and opinion. In debate one should be faithful and should pick out time to argue and if the same time is not there then he must not accept the debate challenge... Any way I respect the rules and regulations of a debate and I will be loyal to it... Here I am elaborating my argument and I hope my opponent will seriously put his opinion in this round... Let me come to the topic by first narrating a short incident: "One evening as usual, I was watering the plants grown in our backyard...The summers were at the peak and that afternoon Sun rained intense photons. Thus it was indeed necessary that I water the plants the same evening. I wet the plants completely. And as I was watering, I myself felt cool and satisfied; feeling how cool the plants be feeling then! But suddenly, this coolness of mine turned to perspiration, regrets and sadness! Below one plant there were burrows of ants and it seemed a whole new kingdom had been established by them. I felt sad because on that kingdom a devil was going to shower floods..That devil was I, myself! I had no option! To uplift, to water the plants, I had to rain water and destruct the whole ant kingdom located near its roots! I started watering the plant. The roots were drinking water so rapidly that constantly for a minute I had to supply water on them. I could feel them absorbing water. But the ant kingdom was destroyed. A huge flood had came in their kingdom. I saw many ants running for their lives taking their eggs on their head! So even I was destroying their maternity home! Though the plant got a new life, yet thousands of ants sacrificed their lives!!!" ..................This small but effective incident literally pained my heart asking,"is it true, to uplift one thousands are crushed?" And sadly my brain replied "yes it is!" Everything is uplifted, upgraded by literally downgrading something, isn't it? Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest literally proves the key factor of existence in this world...The one who is fit, who survives is uplifted and the one unfit depletes! Take any incident, any place and any one...One thing is reduced to increase another. In office promotion of one indirectly discredit five! In schools and colleges, one uplift rank by indirectly pulling down the existed ranker! "Hundred of golden (rotten) leaves fall so that new green leaves can grow!" Thus here I conclude my second round...I hope I have made my argument clear and also my opponent will too clarify his opinion more elaborately...
To uplift one, thousands are crushed!

Let me open the debate by first clarifying meanings: Uplift:[1] to raise; to lift up (eg. her uplifted voice) [2] morally or spiritually raised. (reference: http://oxforddictionaries.com...) On the context of this debate, first meaning suites very well. Here is my opening argument: There is a short historical tale. A teacher draws a line on black board with chalk and ask his students to make that drawn line smaller without touching or rubbing it. All students being puzzled started thinking yet no one came with the answer. Finally teacher gave the answer. He took a chalk piece, drew another line bigger than the previous one and automatically the previous line became smaller. By this short tale, I want to convey a fact. On what basis we use words: big, small, tall? We use these type of words in context of other; as comparisons. There must be something big to say some other thing small! Similarly, words like uplifted, successful and progressive are also used with respect to others. Thus if one is uplifted then other automatically downfalls or depresses! See the world around and one will get many examples: A herbivorous is uplifted by eating (downgrading) herbs; the same herbivorous is eaten by carnivorous for his own uplift...and so on!! Even natural food chain is based on this law! Forests are downgraded to upgrade, uplift the human societies; flour is reduced to increase bread... So these are some known examples. I will elaborate the topic in second round after the arguments of my opponent. I hope i have opened and described the topic convincingly...
To uplift one, thousands are crushed!

It is time to end this debate with K-Dogg's final gambit (refutation of baselessness). Voting Issues 1. First off to claim that to be morally just in debate is against the reasoning of debate's morals is unfortunately for you wrong and unwarranted. You must not be familiar with Lincoln-Douglas style debate which is about Morals totally. Also you fail to understand that Morally Just is one of the biggest portions of philosophy which is the category of debate. 2. My Opponent, regardless of my facetiousness didn't fully elaborate the definition of "uplift" so it is to be up to strident interpretation regardless of your true intentions in this debate. The least that can happen is a tie in conduct voting (loss for me by not responding first and loss for you by not explaining the resolution fully). 3. Finally you admit to you being morally unjust to chosing logically flawed relativism to individualistic tendencies. You argue that Logic is not a factor in being morally just. That is the exact opposite. Our basis in morals are our basis in logic. We as mortals have absolutely no possible way of conceiving absolute knowledge. It is that paradoxical scenario of do our neighbors have a possible garden or not (and how can we say we absolutely know they do or don't) that renders your examples are the baseless ones. To affirm this resolution is embark on a dangerous LOGICALLY FLAWED relativism. That is why the voter must negate. 4. It is ultimately our duty to accept universal individualism (the acceptance of a person as they are without our own judging/upgrade-downgrade systems) and let them evaluate themselves without our interference. To accept my opponent's framework doesn't comply with the very value he holds greatest, Logic. It is ultimately more logical that we as mortals are not equiped to judge others and that is why my opponent's own value negates the resolution 5. Thank you to Karan for a very interesting and mind provoking debate. I hope and wish you best wishes to all your other debates and other endeavours. With that said it is Point 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and Won. You must Negate.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

What's not worded correctly? Please specify this. By the way, your sentence here is written poorly and is riddled with bad grammar. I don't haveva question I want answered, I have an order that I want you to respond to. A command or order by definition is not a question I want answered. The rock does accelerate. That is how it gains speed and becomes faster. Air friction will eventually slow it down, but it still gains speed from the immense amount of force applied to it. I asked you a math question, and you turn it into a logic question. That does not matter. I'm talking about what the acceleration is, not when it accelerates. The formula is not the answer, it's the comprehension and understanding of the answer. Mass times acceleration is a formula to solving force, as I have proven. The answer is a number representing the RESULT of the formula. By seeing frames in your mind, you know you're right? What? That makes no sense. What connection does seeing frames have with knowledge of winning debates? Also, if I am awesome at "it", (using sources) then this means you admit that I am good at using sources, thus giving me the point. I have rebutted all of your unsupported claims and have struck down all of your attempts to refute my arguments. You have failed to correctly fulfill your BoP in proving that comprehending the question is the answer to the question.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

alright, i was trying to work out the words "clocked in at" but, what im getting at is your question, dosnt fit that formula, its not worded correctly.. if you command me to give you an answer, you have a question you want answered. im not saying i am being asked a question no.. you are con, so you have to prove me wrong.. you are not pro, so you are not in a position to make claims unless they counter my position, if you want to win that is if i throw a rock, it dosnt accelerate beyond my hand letting it go, unless there is wind etc.. the question is the formula for the answer, it must be, just like 2+3=5, the formula is the answer, is the question, in order for there to be a formula for the answer to the question i dont comprehend newtons laws, you are awsome at it man i see that i am right in what i see just by seeing the frames in my mind as you decribe it with your words
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

"Speed" is incorrect because Mass times Acceleration is the key to solving force. As shown in a previous source, that is what Newton's Second Law suggests. If I used speed, the answer would be incorrect. And no, a command is not a question, it's a "order given to a person or animal to do something". There is a difference between ordering someone to do something and asking somebody something. A rock doesn't stop accelerating when thrown, it keeps on soaring through the air until it reached a certain velocity. It then slows down once the air friction becomes dominant. The formula isn't the question as I have said, it's a comprehension. It's a key for solving the question, but isn't a question itself. Your arguments are the ones that are "not true". You make all of these bare assertions without simply supporting it. Your examples are dull, because you often fabricate claims without supporting it with solid reasoning. Since you have the BoP, you must tell me WHY something is the case, not that it just simply is the case.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

i got it now.. if you command me to give you an answer, you have a question you want answered so are you measuring the acceleration of your arm? becasue when you let go of the stone it will stop accelerating, unles you throw it in high winds or something, or down wards the formula of the answer, is the question your examples are dull in that they are not true, you need to change the word acceleration to speed, but, this is me finding the answer, which is a flaw in your question if you use the word speed instead you will have the answer in the question
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

How are my examples dull? You lack explanations, therefore, my reasoning is unrefuted. A stone can accelerate, they DO indeed "do that". Otherwise, my arm has no strength. If that was the case, both of my arms would be broken by now, and I couldn't type this argument. This is simply a math problem, not a logical problem. A stone doesn't remain a constant speed. Due to unbalanced forces, it goes from being completely still to speeding up exponentially, and finally to slowing down. HOW the rock was accelerating doesn't matter. What matters is that you answer the question using a formula. (comprehension) You need to explain your points rather than just make claims. It makes you a hypocrite for calling my examples dull, because you fail to elaborate on yours, and just make bare assertions. Until you actually start making sense and come up with at least a moderately solid rebuttal, I shall rest my case and declare myself an automatic win.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

An answer can be applied to a command as well. Example: In a test, "write down the person who was responsible for (insert action)". That can be answered. So an answer can still be a response, even without a question. You are asking random questions about the rock. This has nothing to do with the primary question itself. If the rock had a jet pack, then it wouldn't be one object, would it? I would have said that both objects added up to a mass of 200 grams if that was the case, not that the rock weighed 200 grams. A jet pack doesn't become a rock when it's tied to one, the rock is just now a jet pack-propelled rock. These variables are irrelevant, since they do not affect the question itself. No matter what, the question states the rock is 200 grams and accelerates at 10 m/s. That's all you need to know along with the formula to answer the question. If it's assumed that throwing it with a jet pack makes it faster, (same with the direction) then I would have changed the data. The point is, it's a rock that weighs 200 grams and accelerates at 10 m/s no matter what.
comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

Comprehend- "to understand (something, such as a difficult or complex subject)" Question- "a sentence, phrase, or word that asks for information or is used to test someone's knowledge" Answer- "a response to a question that is meant to show whether or not you know something (such as a question asked as part of an exam)" Right off the bat, I have already noticed a fatal error within your argument. You claim that "the question is the answer to the question". An answer is by definition different than a question. An answer is a response to a question that is asked. Rebuttal: If an answer and a question were the same thing, then there would be no point in asking questions, seeing as you would only have to repeat your question to get the answer. We answer questions as a response, not in the form of asking someone. Comprehension is simply the understanding of the question, not the answer itself. It's key to answering, but isn't by definition an answer. Question: How much force will a rock that weighs 200 grams and clocks in at an acceleration of 10 m/s put out? Comprehension: The formula to finding out the force of an object is mass times acceleration. Answer: 200x10 = 2000 newtons of force Sources: 1]http://i.word.com... 2]http://i.word.com... 3]http://i.word.com... 4]http://m.livescience.com...
Defund planned parenthood

I believe that PP should not be funded on any level. Unsurprisingly the bill to defund PP didn't pass though bobby Jindal the Governor of Louisiana did defund PP in that state. I don't mind my money going to contraception and sex ed because it prevents unwanted pregnancies that would end in abortion or the creation of a child who would grow up in a poor family, and probably experience abuse and live a horrible life. I do have a problem with my money going towards abortion witch it indirectly does. Since tax payers give PP money for their non abortion services it frees up other money PP gets so that money can be used for abortion. My money indirectly goes to the killing of innocent children. This link is t help anyone reading the debate understand why some people are s against abortion. http://www.babycenter.com... Under the bill all the money PP gets would go to federally qualified heath centers witch provide health services for people in medically undeserved areas, areas with lots of immigrants where language and culture act as barriers, health care for homeless people and public housing health care. People who would otherwise get care at PP would get their care somewhere else. stds, unwanted pregnancies and abortion would be prevented, all with out tax payers indirectly funding abortions. https://en.wikipedia.org... PP has lots of supporters many of whom are very wealthy like bill gates. PP could easily spend 1 billion dollars a year on various services with out tax payers, but with donations from wealthy and middle class supporters. About 50% of the country lean towards a democratic stance on politics including abortion and many of those people would give donations to PP.
Defund planned parenthood

Thanks for debating me! First off I would like to say that I do like some of what planned parenthood does. They do breast cancer screenings, testicular cancer screenings and other moral things. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to those things. I do however have a problem with my money going towards abortions because I personally believe that abortion is the murderer of an innocent baby. If pro choice women force me to pay for their abortions they are forcing their beliefs on me and infringing on my rights under the Hyde amendment. No one should be forced to take part in something they are against. Women should be independent and responsible and pay for their own elective medical procedures. If abortion is between a women and her doctor than why am I paying for it?. Abortion is no longer private, once I am forced to take part in it. Now, under the hyde amendment tax payer dollars are not allowed to go towards abortions so the money planned parenthood gets from tax payers doesn't go towards that. It does however free up other money they get to be used for abortions meaning that tax payer dollars do fund abortions. Second. Planned parenthood is selling the organs of aborted babies (all four under cover videos by the center for medical progress), doing partial birth abortion (first under cover video from the center for medical progress) and changing the abortion procedure from a way that is safest for the mother to a way that makes it easier to harvest organs (first and second under cover videos from center for medical progress) Center for medical progress has uncovered all of this. Go to their youtube page and watch the videos. My argument is in the fourth under undercover video. The video is called "planned parenthood vp says fetuses may come out intact, agrees to payments specific to specimen". https://m.youtube.com... Rand Pauls new bill would defund planned parenthood and redistribute the money it gets from tax payers to local community health centers. People would have access to various medical tests and pro life people wouldn't be forced to pay for abortions. Planned parenthood has lots of supporters who would donate to it.