BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
R is a vowel

Who gets to say what "real" English is anyway? The English?!? Languages evolve, such as uh English. Besides, what makes the English people's accent the correct one? What about old English? Wouldn't that be the "correct" one if we're talking about origin? Besides, the English language isn't a monarchy. And what about the fact that the majority of English speakers don't speak like the English? The largest group of English speakers are from the India area, so wouldn't that "accent" be the current example of English? I'm saying 'English' too much... Besides all that, the American accents pronounce the R as a vowel. In fact there's nothing about the way the R sounds in other accents or even "original" English that make it sound anything like the consonants. Just because we can slap an R comes before a vowel doesn't seal the deal. Try "perturb" in non-American accents, because I don't hear the E on all of them. (Funny how we say "an R" BTW). The fact that you quoted a site that provides reading instruction doesn't change the fact that R is works like a vowel, no matter how absolutely proper it is taught. When the formation of English was happening or whatever, if they called R a vowel, nobody would doubt it. It would be up there with A, E, I, O, and U. I think the Y as absolutely a vowel would be a better sell for you, right?
R is a vowel

If you speak with a strong american accent, you probably don't say the 'u' in 'turn' anywhere near as strong as the 'r'. This is an accent and not applicable to analysing the syntax of the language. R is a consonant: https://www.readinga-z.com... CONSONANT LETTER R Sound/Symbol Use rabbit, rake, ring, and deer to teach students to recognise the letter r and hear its sound in the initial and final positions of words. In a British accent or Australian accent you don't say the 'r' in 'turn' at all so I fail to see the relevance here. Get over it noob.
R is a vowel

The letter "r" in English is a vowel. It works and sounds like a vowel, so why isn't it? Think about how it sounds when it's just thrown in with the other vowels: "ah, oh, er, ooh, ih, ee, uh, ...". It's totally a vowel! And what's up with "rhythm" or "turn"? BS is what! Nobody says the "u" in turn. The letter "y" gets to be a vowel sometimes and really should be one, but we are taught that it is a consonant. Opponents will of course be biased against this because of this unquestionable and ingrained tradition.
people arent rationate

RebuttalsMy opponent says that debates are not won by what position you are, by the arguments. This is not true, the positions in a debate matter, because that is what you are arguing. If there are no positions, you don't know if you are supposed to support the resolution, or say it is wrong. Also, because my opponent made arguments for my side, I have nothing much to do, because my opponent made no arguments in his side.
people arent rationate

debayts are not win by someone mistaking make themself pro/con they win by argumants n so i will prove that people arent rationate. 1.ppl fight wars and mass kill eachother which is not rationate. 2.ppl have sex for not babymaking which irrationate. 3. people believe thet white and gold dress is blue n black which is not rationate. 4. ppl play video game instead of real life which is not rationate. 5. ppl dance which is not rationate. 6. people cut their hair which is not ratione. 7. people globally heat theure envirement which is not rationate. 8. ppl are rascist which is not rationate 9. ppl are sexis which is not rationate. 10. thank u for this debate.
In the United States, Marijuana should be legal

I debated this in class recently and it proved to be a really interesting topic that people got into, so thought I'd try to replicate that on here. You know unless koopin goes and accepts the debate without arguing at all... First off the definition of Legalized is a tricky one, however for this debate I will define it the same way tobacco is, available at age 18 but illegal until then. With that I'll move onto my contentions on the high and unnecessary cost, the beneficial effects of legalization and that the current prohibition causes more hard than good. First off we have to look at the current cost of marijuana prohibition. (1) According to Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron we are currently spending roughly 13 billion dollars on the enforcement of marijuana prohibition per year. (1) In addition, if it were legal and taxed comparably to alcohol and tobacco the US would receive an estimated 6.7 billion in additional tax revenue. This means more money for public spending and less money for the drug dealers and international suppliers, something I will expand on in my third contention. Second, the beneficial effects of legalization. (2) John DiNardo, an economist now at the University of Michigan performed a study as states changed the drinking age to 21 that compared use of other drugs as the drinking age was increased. In the study it was shown that among high school seniors there was 4.5 percent decrease in drinking and a 2.4 percent increase in getting high. This experiment suggests that an availability of marijuana could lower alcohol consumption. While another study showed a 30% increase in cannabis use lead to about a 10% decrease in alcohol use. However alcohol use leads to thousands of deaths in the US each year, with barely any from cannabis, so trading one for the other seems like an alright deal. This is in addition to the tax revenue and the benefits from a whole new industry opening up. And third, the current prohibition does not protect this country but in fact aids criminal undergrounds and invites in more gangs and illegal activity. The lack of legitimate marijuana supplies has lead to several problems, its led to massive plantations forming in our own public forests (3), an increased presence of drug cartels in the US and more and more smuggling from foreign countries, especially Mexico. (4) In summation the current prohibition is irresponsible and give us nothing but wasted money and increased crime. We need to reform the current laws to ones that will actually benefit the US. 1)http://www.economics.harvard.edu... 2)http://motherjones.com... 3) http://motherjones.com... 4) http://www.nytimes.com...
Only 144K people will go to heaven

Hello! My name is Maddie, and I will be debating this topic with you! I would like to ask one question, how would God provide us with nukes? God has been a symbol for a long time. Way before nuclear energy was invented, and before nuclear waste was discovered, and made into nuclear weapons. http://www.ushistory.org... You also used /r offmychest to support your argument of Indians "stinking up the world". Can you explain to me why Indians are "stinking up the world" besides using someone else's experience? Do you have a bad experience with an Indian, and not someone else's experience? I don't believe in heaven, but this argument I will say that it possibly could be real. What does you argument mean? You just go on and on about numbers and what the bible says, but why 144k people? More than 144k religious people have died, and their families have claimed that they went to heaven. The bible can't justify everything. The bible has said that if a child is rebellious then they are to be stoned to death. Not very believable, huh? Why are there 4 corners of the world? The world is a slightly deformed sphere. It is impossible to count corners on a sphere or a circle. What do the bricks of the Pyramid of Giza have to do with how many people will go to heaven? 144k bricks were used to get the form of the pyramid. But you said 12 squared is 144. Not 144k, which is the number of people going to heaven according to your argument.
Only 144K people will go to heaven

Of all the days in my life, September 3, 2016, was an important day for me. That was the day I converted from being an atheist to a Jehovah's Witness (JW). As a JW, I believe that only 144K people will go to heaven. The Bible says so in Revelation 7. Also, the Great Pyramid of Giza had 144K casing stones. There were 12 tribes of Judah, and Jesus had 12 disciples. 12 squared is 144, and a square has 4 corners, just like the corners of the world. The thousand is just for emphasis, because 1000 has 3 0's, there is 3 in the Holy Trinity, and 0 is the number that denotes how many blacks go to heaven, because of, well, the curse of Ham. https://www.occultphysics.com... The Pyramids of Giza, obviously, is where God supplied us with 144 nukes so we can nuke India so they won't stink up the world. https://www.reddit.com...
Puerto Rico should become a state

Now, let me begin by going into further detail. In 2012 a two part referendum will be held in Puerto Rico to help determine the Island's ultimate status. The first part will ask do they wish to retain the status qua or a non-territorial status. if more people check the second option a second vote will be held on November 6, to asking whether the people would prefer statehood, free association, or independence. If the second vote is required it it highly plausible that they will choose statehood. I believe if they do congress should honor this desire. The people of Puerto Rico have been U. S. citizens for since 1917 yet, they are not represent in congress and cannot vote for president. They are effectively second-class citizens. If we are to preach democracy and fairness across the world we must be fair to all of our citizens.
Puerto Rico should become a state

aw my links failed :( all of them worked for me except 1. Here it is again: http://www.independent.co.uk... ok lets do this. 1) only one didn't work. at least I tried to have sources. You had none voters I deserve those 2 points. 2) you have provided no source for this claim I have, your statements are unsupported. All of mine where supported second round so even if the links don't work I still have a source earlier. Yes there are 3 main parties, there are 2 in the US, but that doesn't affect voting. Texas goes republican even though they can choose from many other parties. So having multiple parties means nothing. 3) According to the 2000 Census, 60.0% of the population attained a high school degree or higher level of education, and 18.3% has a bachelor's degree or higher. [1] So sure they learn it in school but 40% don't finish high school. Unlike most schools in the United States, public school instruction in Puerto Rico is conducted entirely in Spanish. [1] So most of their classes are Spanish, and public schools aren't that good, as they use the same US system. [1] 4) lol skipped the silver thing. also what a fail because they have silver and their economy is terrible. Joining america won't make it better. So their economy now will just translate over, and I do not want another few million poor people in this country, and those rates would make our economy seem bad. And their debt that we would have to take would be bad. 5) It won't pass the first vote as the polls suggest. Also the pro-common wealth people would just go vote for independence in the second vote, the combined force would overdo your remarks. It will not become a state. (through them anytime soon anyway). 6) His conclusion says he has broken down my arguments, so fact less statements break me down? Not to be rude but really? (use sources it helps). You have not broken down my arguments. Vote con. I have proven my arguments with sources. I do not need to add on as he didn't have counter sources. Vote PRO as I have defeated his arguments once, twice, and a 3rd time. I used sources and logic. My opponent used...fat less statements. Remember vote pro. sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]
Puerto Rico should become a state

1. ) None of your links worked and I could not find anything about the senate making English the national language so unless you repost I considering it false and hope the voters do as well. 2. ) Puerto Rico actually does have pockets of valuable natural resources a la silver. 3. ) As I have already stated Puerto Rico would most likely fall under the category of a swing state. That is obvious by its three main political parties which coincidentally each advocate a different political future for Puerto Rico. Here is something my opponent might like - the PNP the party that advocates for statehood is conservative and they hold the majority of power in Puerto Rico right now. If anything that indicates that Puerto Rico could be a red state but, as I stated earlier whether they lean republican or democrat should not have any barring in this situation. 4. ) English is mandatory for all Puerto Ricans from grades 9-12 and in college. It use to be from grades k-12 but was changed in the 70s. Although, language should not affect their status they could simply make it mandatory in all grades again. It sounds like a nice compromise. You also stated having them might help the Latin minority to dominate the country and cause some states to make Spanish their official language. Considering that Spanish ALONG WITH English are already the de facto languages of several states including your own state of New Mexico it seems irrelevant for you to argue this. I also find it strange how you seem to be threatened by the growing Latino presence when you yourself are Latino but, that should be saved for another time. 5. ) If the people really don't want it then it shouldn't get past the first vote and you have nothing to worry about. IF, however, they do get to the second vote it is almost guaranteed that they will choose statehood. That choice should be honored by congress so as to finally provide representation to these disenfranchised citizens. On a side note there are actually more like 4 million Puerto Ricans living on the mainland not 2 million. I think I have broken down all of my opponents arguments and shown why Puerto Rico should be granted statehood if its people choose it.
Puerto Rico should become a state

1.) It has been shown time and time again that allow a territory in as a state causes a period of marked economic growth. If they were to become a state they would also have to pay federal income tax. 2) The United States of America does NOT have an official language. English is the de facto language of the country but, it is, by no means, federally recognized as the official language and this thus cannot be used to deny them admission to the union of the United States of America. 3). That is a terrible argument. Whether or not they would be more likely to vote democrat or republican should have no barring in this situation. At most, however, it could be said that Puerto Rico would be swing state. Mississippi, the poorest of the current 50 states is a solidily red state. 4.) Opinions change over time. With each referendum statehood has gotten more and more votes. Last time it was only narrowly defeated. I see no reason to put a cap on how many votes they can have. If they want to stay the same they will but, if they want statehood (or independence) it should be made so. 5.) They have a non-voting commissioner in congress. He may express what is thought could help Puerto Rico, but, he cannot vote and thus truly has no say in matters relating to Puerto Rico.
Gay Marriage

1) Gay parents result in Gay Children. I cited a journal printed by Cambridge University Press in its Journal of Biological Science. My opponent cited About.com. Hmmm which do you think is a more reliable source of information? 2) Perhaps my opponent should peruse a dictionary to look up the word contradict before employing it in any future arguments. Point: Gays in America, especially gay children, face persecution and discrimination. This goes completely unchallenged. Point: Children of gay parents are more likely to be gay. This is rather poorly challenged with some feeble excuse of a citation. Therefore, Gay Marriage results in more children subject to persecution and discrimination. And again, therefore Gay Marriage should not be allowed until widespread reform has undergone in America to put an end to intolerance and bigotry. (Once again of course assuming that gay sex is not an abhorrent act in violation of the way the Almighty Lord created us) Closing argument: America is not ready to embrace Gay marriage. That they want to marry is insufficient grounds for the changing of existing legislation. We have to keep at forefront the lives of children endangered by such legislation and as we all know, children always comes first.
Gay Marriage

I will set the record straight by correcting my opponent on the following: 1)Secondly, of course gay parents are unsuited to raise children. Gay parents will corrupt their adopted children or inseminated children and make them gay too. . The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. http://adoption.about.com... 2)The world as it is today is not a safe and healthy environment for gay children. From the time of even elementary school, children learn to link the word "gay" with the emotions of disgust and ridicule. Hostile would be the best word to describe the world, and it would be irresponsible for the government to allow children subject to such a life through allowing for gay marriages. . My opponent contradicts himself in this statement. It is because of people like him that discriminate against homosexuals that the word gay is linked to ridicule and disgust. The simple solution to the scenario he described would be to stop discriminating. Now for my closing argument: Gays entitled to marriage just like heterosexuals are. Same-sex couples are as committed and happy in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, find two studies in the January issue of the journalDevelopmental Psychology. Homosexual couples should not be treated so savagely. They are who they are. They would still have romantic relationships even if they aren't allowed to marry. My opponent has lacked conclusive evidence to show that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Gay Marriage

First, because the majority of Americans opposed federal government intervention in enforcing equal rights, there was no federal government intervention. It wasn't until the majority of Americans supported federal government intervention, as there are today, that the federal government stepped in. Secondly, of course gay parents are unsuited to raise children. Gay parents will corrupt their adopted children or inseminated children and make them gay too. http://journals.cambridge.org... The world as it is today is not a safe and healthy environment for gay children. From the time of even elementary school, children learn to link the word "gay" with the emotions of disgust and ridicule. Hostile would be the best word to describe the world, and it would be irresponsible for the government to allow children subject to such a life through allowing for gay marriages.
Gay Marriage

I have to comment on the following: 1) 'the fact that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage means there should be no gay marriage.' . So lets say we go back to the 50's. So would you say that since the majority of Americans did not favor equal rights than Blacks didn,t deserve any? 2) 'because both individuals are of the same gender, they cannot form the appropriate hierarchy and perform the appropriate roles to provide an appropriate developing environment for adopted or inseminated offspring.' . This statement is completely false the American Psychological Association, representing more than 155,000 psychologists, states that children of gay and lesbian parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents. . The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's leading pediatric authority with 57,000 members, says that children who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents. . The National Association of Social Workers, with nearly 150,000 members, agrees that research on gay and lesbian parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children. "Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." -- Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, 2004 Now for my own argument: Never has the word discrimination been a positive thing, Discrimination agianst innocent people is clearly wrong. If anyone does not wish to have a gay marrige than simply do not get one.
Gay Marriage

For the sake of argument, I am willing to shove aside the question of the morality of homosexuality. Although males falling in love with males and engaging in acts of love is an act of tremendous and unsurpassed evil, worthy of execution in the most gruesome and public manner (as is often the case in Iran), for the moment I am willing to adopt the liberal position towards homosexuality overall. (By the way, this does not apply to acts of love between females) Yet still, I am against Gay Marriage. Classical conservative philosophy posits a nuclear family unit with a clear chain of command and two different figures playing different roles in the support and rearing of children. Marriage is not about love, it is about child rearing. Without marriage contracts, the optimal strategy for males is to go out and impregnate as many females as possible. With a marriage, females and force interested males to provide for and protect the offspring as well as the female during the times of pregnancy. As you can see therefore, a Gay Marriage contradicts the purpose and effectiveness of marriage. Foremost, Gay individuals cannot produce offspring that share both sets of DNA. Secondly, because both individuals are of the same gender, they cannot form the appropriate hierarchy and perform the appropriate roles to provide an appropriate developing environment for adopted or inseminated offspring. And of course any offspring of a gay couple would be subject to tremendous ridicule and abuse from peers and probably school officials as well, clearly gay marriage does not achieve the function of marriage. Secondly, gay marriage should be forbidden simply because many people are opposed to gay marriage. It does not matter whether gay couples form more or less stable commitments, the fact that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage means there should be no gay marriage. Marriage is not some inherent sacred right granted to individuals by virtue of their being human or American. The right to live perhaps, the freedom to earn income, the right to confront an accuser, those are fundamental rights. Just as protection against employment discrimination, the rights of gays to marry depends on the whims of the public, and so long as the public is against it, gays should not have the right to marry.