BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tragic events are just that, but are also necessary

I believe that as long as there is, and there always will be, evil, there will and must be as much of it as there is good. Take the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Though there were many hardships, it was, on a larger scale, beneficial. These attacks showed us that the threats that were posed upon us were more severe than we had thought, and we acted accordingly. Tragedies of this scale are crucial to the balance of society, and life itself. It helps keep humans 'in check', and can allow us to learn from past mistakes.
Tragic events are just that, but are also necessary

As I accept, I believe we need to establish certain rules before we begin arguing. Burden of Proof is on the pro, since none was established originally. As well, this statement is posed in terms of a universal, a grand sweeping statement of the human condition. As such, this should receive this level of substantiation. Necessary: absolutely needed Tragic: regrettably serious or unpleasant Definitions were obtained from Merriam-Webster. If any of these conditions are unfavorable, please challenge them. I thank Pro for posing such an interesting debate. I hope this will be fun for us all
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

Yeah the words are already pretty close but I think the distinctions are important to emphasize. Well we could state simply that children who are bullied should be treated as children first before any religious or racial group being oppressed. In the event someone is being bullied specifically because of their race or creed I could see some sort of tolerance being taught. They are children who need to be taught how to be people sometimes. I think that cultural differences can often sometimes be overcome but that tolerance should never reach into our ability to criticize. The common example would be how people are afraid to criticize islam. Viva la Charlie Hebdo. I think we agree on the use of the words. I'm sure we could fine tune where we draw the line on what kind of support is applicable to bullied individuals. Glad to reach a conclusion.
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

Saying bullied or oppressed isn't what is going to stop racists, Homophones, Or misogynists. I don't think generalizing one word will stop special treatment. I mean we aren't even addressing an instance where this was used to justify some sort of special action. I mean who is getting kicked out of school or facing a harassment charge because of bullying? How does the distinction between bullied and oppressed apply? Oppression isn't a synonym with ganging up. I mean we agreed on the definitions and being ganged up on isn't necessary for oppression. So I didn't think you were claiming that oppression was the new cyberbullying and I don't think using a word, Even if you use it wrong, Is limiting your freedom. What freedoms do you think are being limited by these words? I mean I can call a whataburger sign light red but that doesn't make it true. Orange is orange. Light red might be closer than say blue but it's still not quite the right word. So without a context of how this is actually affecting the punishment of bullies idk if the word is being weaponized or used poorly. Stop bullying. Gov uses 3 different demographics when talking about religious persecution because they have outward and visible signs of belief. The rest is generalized about origins. The site you quoted is actually very upfront about their lack of research. I'm not going to defend "care based" ethics. I think you're correct but I don't understand how you're using that logic to justify "newspeak. " I mean I have a comprehensive understanding of consequential and my own responses to it but I still don't understand the connection you're trying to make with that to essentially changing vocabulary. So we agree that both can harm a person. If you're arguing that in similar scenario's one is being treated better than the other then of course I don't condone one being called an oppressor and the other being called a bully. The proper way to combat inequalities in punishment isn't to combine terms but to emphasize terms. Especially when they are used wrong or are unnecessarily harsh. To use the terms of the sjw's "Check their unconscious bias. "
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

I understand the stretch and I am not denying it. However, If you let the narrative of special rights keep going that's how you once again keep empowering racists, Homophobes and misogynists over and over again Also opression by the logic of it's own could be considered as far ganging up, As that is a very common form of conflict and bullying in school. Ganging up on innocent people happens all the time and it shouldn't be too surprising. I am not saying that opression is the new bullying, I am just saying people should have more freedom to be respected and encouraged without the limitation of today's platforms Because even a website like stopbullying. Gov still only caters to certain demographics and so once again, How does that help? Why romanticize special rights platforming instead of prioritizing all innocent or powerless people at once? Also, This is what I believe the impression of a "care-based" morality is all about. I think the care based morality is what buys people to look into more into heir identity and less into the character. Where as a justice based morality has to do more with advanced claims to freedom, Resources and so forth that are potentially conflicting. Also, Bullying and opression can both harm the person's self esteem and confidence in the long time, So why should they both have a different peripheral then?
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

Context is literally everything. If you'd like to bring up a specific instance feel free to and we can debate whether that instance is bullying or oppression. You list a lot of special interest groups that claim oppression. Their is nothing wrong with gathering support from your community. Whether the oppression claim is true or false is the issue. I think we can agree that it's possible to be bullied and not oppressed. In order for a school or company to take action you need proof not numbers. So as long as a person can prove they're being bullied or oppressed is all that matters. So, Marginalization isn't a good thing when it comes to vocab. Having and understanding more words is of greater use. "Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, The enunciation of truth. " V. By using one word in place of another you are attempting to remove the power of a word. So you're talking about social justice. I mean the movement social justice, The idea of a social justice, Or just what is or isn't socially just? I don't think the movement knows what is socially just, Justice is as socialized as I think it ought to be, And what is just is a debatable topic all on its own. Good round; your floor.
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

No, Is not about context at all. You're just more likely to get sympathized if you're some usual highly marginalized class such as blacks, Women, Muslims, Hispanics, Gays, Transgender or the disabled But let's say you're being harshly bullied for being a brony, A flat earther or someone into cult cars, Who's really going to speak up for you? Who's going to wanna even accept you? Now you could say opression is a type of bullying, But then we would have to come up with another phrase of bullying kinda like cyberbullying Another thing, Once again marginalization comes in all flavors and forms, Therefore even in this day and age I see no nothing inappropriate with combining the 2 into the same vocabulary Even if it's a stretch so what? Social justice should have a more open and less parallel approach to tackling the evils of our planet Alright, It is your turn to reply back
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

I just want a good baseline and a strong bridge to start on. I'm glad to see we're in agreement on the definitions. So you ask "How will this help those who don't have some TRUMPETED cause reach out for help? " It will help with context. There are times when a bully is just a bully. Their are times when a bully is in an authority position. It sounds to me like you're mad about people claiming oppression over simple cases of bullying. So let me ask this: How will using these words interchangeably help anyone? I think that sympathy revolves around the act and that what you are actually mad about is certain minorities using Non sequitur to bolster their claims of oppression. I don't think most of the U. S is pro bully I think people in the U. S believe in giving children more time to learn right and wrong before the real world comes down on them. So people can be more dominant, Productive, Or intelligent. That is literally unstoppable. What everyone can have are equal rights which is egalitarian. The two are not mutually exclusive. So I don't think making these words interchangeable will somehow defeat identity politics. I would simply say that keeping the focus on the individual rights is more important than looking at the groups.
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

Alright I will get started with round 2 since eventually I will forget Alright then I appreciate the explanation for the distinction, Even though you may as well percieve it as pointless considering I even said it in the beginning myself: Opression is more govermental and legal while bullying more social and personal. And once again, How will this help those who don't have some TRUMPETED cause reach out for help? Now sure, You may as well say "but what's the point of needing a platform if you're just being bullied? " And sure, But there are those who are constantly picked on and can suffer suicidal tendencies in the long run The sympathy will only kick in stronger though if you have a very trumpeted cause such as being gay, Being a minority or even being a Jew. But shat if you're bullied over something else and especially if it's something more trival or akward, Hey don't bother empowering yourself as a person, Right? I agree, The distinction serves an important function when people were mistreated on the basis of more serious positions in society But that is still no different than disrespecting a person who is viewed socially akward, Has poor social skills or has some weird interests. Mistreatment and marginalization are not cool no matter what the motive is Another thing, There is no way hierarchies can co-exist with egalitarianism, Because the dominance instinct in people has to kick in one way or the other. If you want people to be equal, Don't prioritize them in the name of their identity. That's only giving more structural power to staunch racists, Misogynists and anti-LGBT folks because you're taking the bait from them.
Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

There should be no distinction between bullying and opression. While opression may be more legal and govermental and bullying is social and personal, The distinction only marginalizes and ignores those who don't have some idenity trophy in the name of social justice If you are truly up for equality and justice, You would recognize the redundancy of this distinction. Also, Most bullying is factor-based anyways, People just don't bully in the name of wanting to seem "accepeted". People could be bullying a person based on what that person likes, What that person wears, What that person learns or how that person thinks. Prejudice does come in even the most niche of factors, Is not always just about race, Gender, Disability or sexuality. Besides the stupid distinction, Social justice is way more important it seems again in the form of political activism rather than from a generalized perspective: So once again, How does this help those who don't have some very organized or idealistic platform? And as much as I hate to say this, Is Social Democrats who impose this kind of crappy social hierarchical system in the first place, Where as at least conservatives focus on the individual.
Video games are for retards

Playing games is totally not for retards, actually playing video games improves our skills of evaluating situations, for example in decision making games, where what you do creates a new version of how the story will go out games: GTA V, HALO. There are many video games that also include puzzle solving and you will have to think really hard to figure some puzzles out which also helps our problem solving. Games for example: The incredible machine, Echochrome, Fez, and Portal franchise
The united States should eliminate Transfat within the schools nutritional service

"Transfat is what causes this amount of Carbs within the body during our young age and other excess amount of foods have little to no effect on our YOUNG ages and especially during school days." This is completely untrue. Transfats do not cause carbs. What my linked showed is that eating too much food of anything, be it protein, carbs, unsaturated fats, or transfats, will all yield to obesity, not just transfats. So removing transfats alone will have little or no impact on the health of students if nothing else is done. If they are still eating a lot and not exercising, they are going to get fat. "Finally i would like to address the fact that the alternatives that my opponent stated are simply ineffective due to the lack of funding, lack of knowledge, ignorance, and most of all lack of time and economic disadvantages." I will address each of these, one at a time. Lack of Funding - It is well known throughout the healthcare fields that prevention is much cheaper than treatment.[1] Thus prevention methods of obesity, such has healthy food options, nutritional eduction (for both parents and students) and exercising (which is actually free to just walk around for a while anyway), will save the schools and government money. Lack of Knowledge - Informing parents and students about nutrition and how the body processes foods is a prevention technique which, as shown in the previous example, saves money. Ignorance - is just another way of saying lack of knowledge, see above. Lack of time - We all have 24 hours in a day. No one has more, no one has less. All students are in school for the same amount of time, and so they all have the same amount of non-school time. Economic disadvantages - this doesn't really apply unless we are asking parents to pay for it themselves, which we wouldn't, since it is a public school paid for by taxes. Thank you [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The united States should eliminate Transfat within the schools nutritional service

===My case=== By arguing that obesity was and is still bad for the United States, I also argue that Trans Fat is bad for you simply because Trans Fat is the leading cause of obesity within our various school zone. ===My Opponent Case=== In his first paragraph, my opponent argues that obesity is a very dangerous disease as we know it in which i agree with him however; he clearly failed to state exactly what causes these intense amount of Carbs within our body especially towards the young age. Transfat is what causes this amount of Carbs within the body during our young age and other excess amount of foods have little to no effect on our YOUNG ages and especially during school days. Within his second paragraph, my opponent states that the children could go to "McDonald's" to acquire a greater amount of Trans fat however he also neglected the fact that the school is most influential to a child and in most cases carry on to adulthood. Finally i would like to address the fact that the alternatives that my opponent stated are simply ineffective due to the lack of funding, lack of knowledge, ignorance, and most of all lack of time and economic disadvantages. i would encourage my opponent to state different alternatives that would be more effective than the elimination of TransFat within the school NUTRITIONAL SERVICE. Thank you.
The united States should eliminate Transfat within the schools nutritional service

My opponent makes an excellent argument against obesity. However, what has failed to be done, is show that transfats are the leading or primary cause of obesity, thus indicating that it ought be eliminated as the solution. While I fully agree that obesity is a serious problem that can no longer be ignored, there are various other, superior alternative solutions. Our obesity (as a nation) is caused by an imbalance of calories intake verse outtake, meaning that we are consuming more then we are using. One very nifty feature of our body is the ability to take energy (i.e. calories) that we don't use and save them for later. Even if you eat an all carb diet (which is highly unhealthy, as the body needs proteins and fats), all unused energy is converted from carbs, into fats for future use (the body will do the same with excess protein too).[1] Therefore, by simply saying "no more transfats" our imbalance problem is not going to be fixed. Lets look at some of the major offenders in school foods, soda and candy. Coca-cola does not have a single gram of fat, infact, most soda doesn't (I cannot find a single one, but I will refrain from making that generalization in case there is one that I did not think of).[2] Let us look at a snickers bar, 13.6 grams of fat, only 0.2 grams of transfat.[3] Or a 3 musketeers bar, with 9.0 grams of fat, no transfats at all.[4] We can even go to McDonalds and see the item with the most transfats is the double quarter pounder with cheese and it has a staggering 2.5 grams of transfats.[5] So we know that transfats are not found in soda, candy, or fast food (the usually suspects of obesity). Well, lets just see what does have transfats? The number one offender (according to Cindy Moore of the CCF) is butter, which now many butters (particularly soft spread) contain very little transfats (though still some) compared to the older, more traditional stick butter.[6] We also, as an alternative solution, ought to look at the other side of the equation, exercise. Right now, many schools are cutting their PE programs, at a time when most kids do not do any exercising outside of school.[7] We ought also educate kids and their parents on the importance of a healthy diet. This does not mean that we should go overboard and complete ban and eliminate all transfats from schools, only that kids should be provided various options and the knowledge to be able to make informed choices on those options. [1] http://recipes.howstuffworks.com... [2] http://productnutrition.thecoca-colacompany.com... [3] http://caloriecount.about.com... [4] http://caloriecount.about.com... [5] http://www.mcdonalds.com... [6] http://www.vpul.upenn.edu... [7] http://abcnews.go.com...
The united States should eliminate Transfat within the schools nutritional service

School as in K-12 and only public schools Thanks for accepting. Definitions : School- an institution designed for the teaching of students (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Eliminate:to put an end to or get rid of (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) TransFat: an industrial process that adds hydrogen to liquid vegetable oils to make them more solid. (http://www.heart.org...) ===My Case=== Obesity is a major problem in the United States simply because for many years, it has been neglected by our government and school board. we must find that the United States simply can not afford its citizens especially the kids to go on with there life with many physical problems due to Trans Fat contaminated foods. Contention one: A healthier Generation What we find in our various school's are not just random kids who come together for one specific goal (to get their education) but kids who will become the future of our Country. Now with that in mind, we must consider the fact that the United States Government rather than supporting and encouraging unhealthy eating habits should fight against it in any hopes of having a prosperous future. Sub point one: Depression and stress Rather than giving you some basic surface harms of TransFat, i will provide a much deeper reason to fear Trans Fat especially towards the psychological hazards. When faced with uncertainty of what might happen next, it is the human trait to become afraid more so during the adolescent and young ages. We find that within the school ground, many children feel insecure due to the fact that they are obese thereby going into the stage of depression. "Obesity is often a symptom of depression, but it may be that obesity caused depression in your case. A classic example of this is some overweight people's refusal to get into larger sized clothes and continue their usual outdoor activities. Unwilling to even dress up, they prefer hiding themselves in their homes rather than taking the GREAT DECISION to get back their lives." (http://www.a-nutritional-supplements.com...) Sub point two: physical damage Trans fat within our schools nutrition also leads to many physical diseases such as cardiovascular diseases. we have to find that it is no fair to the children's or our young ones if we simply engorge them with Trans Fat contaminated foods. in conclusion, Trans is bad for you.
The united States should eliminate Transfat within the schools nutritional service

I will be arguing that schools ought limit and provide cost-effective healthy alternatives to transfats, but that there is no need to complete eliminate them from our schools. I will let my opponent clarify, but is "school" to mean k-12, or shall we include all public universities? Also, do you wish to include private schools in this or only public schools. I will pass to my opponent for this round now.
call of duty is a unoriginal and bad franchise

i feel as though call of duty gets a bad reputation around the gaming community. when its first titles started releasing, it was a fine and great shooter. round about cod 1-3, then cod 4 came and innovated the series with new era etc. it was unprecedented. the series however, got continued criticism from areas of the community for being "the same game every year" due to its same formula boots on the ground etc. so when, after the under whelming release of Ghosts, they innovated, with advanced warfare, adding, a new engine, brand new movement system, and even got Kevin Spacey to motion cap the new villain. and received a meta critic score of 83, so its a fairly solid game. Rather than being met with praise from the community, they where furious that the game had gone away from boots on the ground warfare that had been present in previous titles, and that had also received criticism for being samey. Everyone jumps on the hate train to bash call of duty for going into the future, and demanding to bring it back to boots on the ground. its a cycle. community complains of same cod every year - Cod innovates- peoples angry at change demand to go back to same cod every year Its come to such an extent, that when infinite warfare trailer released, people automatically assume it the biggest pile of bad, and everyone automatically assumes its bad because, being in the future, the game MUST suck. When in reality, the last 2 call of duty games to be set in the future, received scores above 80 in meta-critic, which would seem to suggest otherwise. No proper game play was released, no details - game play wise where known, but everyone decides that its trash, just because everyone is saying its trash. i look foward to your response