BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If you are not free to choose between a pencil or a pen, than....

If there is a difference between writing in feces, and writing in pen, it is because writing is affected by the medium. That the difference between pen and feces is greater than that between pen or pencil does not negate the obvious fact that there is a difference between pen and pencil. Con's analogy in no way follows from this. This concept of "specific freedom" Con is trying to advance is invalid. One cannot have "a freedom," detached from all context, one is either subjected to force in a field or not. If you subject me to force for the writing of my letter, it doesn't matter for the purposes of determining whether I have freedom to write to find out whether it was the ink or the words. Both ink and words are elements of the writing. If we accept otherwise, incidentally, all a government has to do to censor is ban all mediums of writing, and yet permit mediumless writing (good luck).
If you are not free to choose between a pencil or a pen, than....

Reductio ad absurdum Pro equates being forced to write in pen, with being forced to write in feces; this is simply not the case. There is a difference between smearing you name in feces, and writing your name with a pen. The resolution has nothing to do with writing in blood or feces; the resolution is isolated to options of pens or pencils. This comparison is like saying “if you had 0% body fat you would die, so you need to pack on as much fat as possible”. Specific Freedom We are not debating about broad freedom. We are debating a specific freedom; the Freedom to write what you want. Censoring the TV does not imply the newspaper is also censored, but both deal with the freedom of speech. Likewise, we are debating about a specific freedom; the freedom to write what you want. Just because you are forced to use a pen does not mean your freedom to write what you want is limited. You are required to use a pen when writing checks, because pencil can be altered. You are still free to write checks, for whatever amount you want, to whoever you want, for whatever you want. The requirement to use a pen does not limit your freedom to write checks, it only limits your freedom to choose the medium you use write those checks.
If you are not free to choose between a pencil or a pen, than....

It is irrelevant to the question of freedom that there may be some burdensome alternative means toward your intent that is within the bureaucrat's mandate of ink and not pen or blood, or similar rulings. The fact of the mandate negates freedom. Freedom of speech forbids such undue burdens from being placed on your attempt to express a message without taking harmful action against someone. If you mandate I must write all criticism of the government in feces, you use force toward my speech. Ink or graphite are in principle no different.
If you are not free to choose between a pencil or a pen, than....

Erasing =/= Writing Having an eraser is irrelevant to the ability to write what you want. An eraser simply implies the ability to remove what you have written after the fact. When using a pen, you could use white out to erase mistakes. You could also cross out the mistake or simply start over. The meaning of Ink Pro claims that what the message is written in has an impact on the message itself; this is just plain false. Pro tries to support this claim with the claim that “ink connotes more professionalism”. This is not true; ink is more permanent, and is more visible, which is why it is associated with professionalism. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because ink is associated with professionalism, does not mean ink implies professionalism. Which is more professional? a.) A grocery list written in pen, or b.) Instructions written in pencil? Context vs. subtext Writing in blood is a form of subtext, because there is an assumed meaning not found within the text. The implied meaning of the blood could be a threat, or it could be devotion. A Love note written in blood implies obsession, rather than a threat. It is for this reason, that subtext depends on context. The subtext implied by the medium (such as blood), can be substituted by the delivery. The implied subtext can also be written in the context of the message. I would like to point out that the resolution clearly revolves around the context of the message not subtext. You can be free to write what you want, without being free to imply what you want. Subtext depends on the reader’s ability to properly interpret the implied message. The reader could interpret the author’s description of the “blue curtains” as a symbol of the narrator’s depression, or they could just take it as a description of the actual curtains. Either way, the subtext was not written, despite being implied. The blood is not what is written, the billing statement is what is written. Not being able to write in blood, does not impact the ability to write the billing statement.
If you are not free to choose between a pencil or a pen, than....

Debate Format Violations Pro violated the Debate’s format. Round 1 is acceptance only. The message is the same The medium does not change the message. If you want to write “F*** you”, you can still write it in ink if a pencil is not available. The substance in which the message is written has no impact on that message. It does not change the message to write with a pen instead of a pencil. Freedom of Speech The freedom to write what you want does not depend on the tools you use, rather the message conveyed. During the inquisition free thinkers had to hide their messages in codes. Nostradamus hid his messages in vague quatrains, while Leonardo da Vinci wrote backwards. They cared less about what they used to write, and more about the message they were trying to convey. Just because you have to write in pen, does not mean you are not free to write what you want. If you college professor gives you a free writing assignment, but requires that it be written in pen, there are still no limitations on what you can write. You can write whatever you want, you just have to use a pen to write it. The pen is just the medium for your writing.
Gay Marriage

As I have already refuted his arguments, I will defend mine. D1: Procreation extend arguments ___ As it would be kinda unfair if I refuted his arguments once again, I will let them stand (well not really stand as they where debunked). I will only refute point 1 as this is the only argument he posted that is needed for refutation. Point 2 was personal views, but I provided statistics with my point, so I still win #2. #3 is not relevant as we are debating marriage not relationships, and I already refuted this 2 rounds ago. #1 My opponent still is pushing the reasons not to allow it. I have already presented this: Procreation. "Marriage, meaning the institution regulating sex, reproduction, and family life, is a route into classical philosophical issues such as the good and the scope of individual choice, as well as itself raising distinctive philosophical questions." [1] Gays cannot procreate and fulfill states interests, that's why there should be no SSM. Conclusion: His other 2 points where refuted and #3 is a red herring. Conduct - tied, he FF'd I refuted too early S/G - You decide Arguments - His arguments where refuted, he dropped the secular case against SSM. CON. Sources - Me, I had them. CON VOTE CON ______________________________________ [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Gay Marriage

Due to time shortage, I will post a shorter response. First of all, my opponent did not follow the structure of the debate (refutations were posted in round 2, instead of round 3). That in itself is a worth a penalty in voting, take note of that.I noticed that my opponent mainly (tried to) invalidate my points about allowing it rather that providing any real reasons against it. I would like to hear actual reasons AGAINST it to understand your argument.Refutations Refuted:1. It seems to me that you are beating around the bush. Why is that not a good reason to allow it? And what is your reason NOT to allow it?2. "What if SSM has detrimental effects on society therefore hurt the kids?" What if? Does it? I have met perfectly happy children adopted into homosexual as well as heterosexual homes, as well as unstable, unhappy children from both. However, there is no proof that instability of children is more common in homosexual households.3. Why not let the government be involved? Why not let it be legal?
Gay Marriage

1. First of all, are you against homosexual relationships? If not, why not let SS couples take it a step further? Allowing it will not necessarily affect you in a bad way. Why not let them enjoy the benefits of marriage? However, if you are against SS relationships, why, and how do they affect you? Think about it.2. Secondly, SS couples are not able to have children of their own, therefore they may adopt children. I have heard the excuse that every child deserves a home with a man and a women, but how truly different can it be? Also, adopting helps take care of the growing number number of disowned children in poverty or foster care.3. There is no point in not allowing it. As long as SS relationships are legal, couples will still live together, maybe even adopt children. All that not allowing it is denying them the benefits of marriage.
why video games are good for you.

Watch your words. The one you have just "copied" was to contradict your stand. Oh, what was your stand again? Video games are good for you. Now that you have admitted that it depends upon the people it now contrast badly. Why? Video games are not good and saying that it depends upon the people means that it is not good to all people. In fact, the right words to use where "gaming has benefits." And maybe no one would've stood up to conquer you. You have misused words. Gaming is not good. Good is the definition of the results when these benefits implies to a person. Let me teach you some lesson, 1 gaming is not good 2 good is the definition if the benefits have impinged to an individual 3 misuse of words is misleading and may construct an invalid argumentative reason and 4 try not to geneneralize people. As what I've said, people have different ways of thinking. If we had one way of thinking and then the benefits of gaming would imply to us and using the terms "Gaming is good" would be acceptable. I'm not really here to say gaming is bad but I truly object your agenda. Once again, gaming is not good.
why video games are good for you.

There was a Facebook Page who posted about a gamer who killed his parents. I saw one comment saying: "True Gamer, I salute you." And I was like What the H*ll. Do you even respect your parents?" I know it might or might not be a joke. Either way, you can see the streak of hatred of the commenter to his parents. And he is obviously a gamer. (Only a gamer would say that). One reason why it was obvious was the way he responds to people in the comments. The people were contradicting him. And he was like "Welcome to the internet b*tch." And I'm like "H*ll no this isn't the internet, you are making your own world, f*g." Now explain how gaming is good here. One more story: About the Psycho Dad destroying his son's video games. Well, I wouldn't believe that was true. It was pretty much for a show. I mean, too Overacting. BUT, Another commenter said: "Kick his dad's *ss though he paid for those video games blah blah blah." It's too nonsensical to read. But same goes my reaction. I would be happy if you could explain this. Addiction is one of the most severe con of being a gamer. But as I said it, it won't imply to everyone. It's really depending on people if they want it to be their distraction or plain entertainment. Let me give you a little example. A man had his PS4 technically broken, then he raged broke everythings in their house. OR A gamer who had his console hidden and has raised his voice against his mom and hasn't eaten for several weeks. Let me say it again. It depends on the brain thinking of the beholder. Let's be neutral.
why video games are good for you.

We musn't be devoted TOO MUCH to scientific studies. Like when a researcher says that night owls have higher IQs, every night owl has a high IQ. No right? On an angle, it pretty much depends on the person. Because you know, we have different way of thinking and these Pros won't imply on each person. Only a gamer would start this kind of thread. This is one con of being a gamer. You persuade people to believe that that they need gaming and gaming is good.
why video games are good for you.

my resons why video games are good for you. 1. They reduce cravings. We all have cravings. Ice cream. Alcohol. Crack… Fortunately, UK scientists have found a new way to reduce these cravings through the fun means of playing video games. 2. They slow the aging process. Don’t want to become a crazy old cat lady in your old age? A study conducted by the University of Iowa found that regularly playing a video game specifically designed by the team stalled the natural decline of cognitive skills by up to seven years for some participants. 3. Reduce pain. The pharmaceutical companies may blow a fuse when they hear this one, but psychologists at the American Pain Society’s annual meeting reported that chronically ill patients who immerse themselves in the virtual reality of video games report reduced levels of anxiety and pain. 4. Improves eye sight. In 2009, scientists from the University of Rochester compared the vision of expert action gamers playing shooting titles like Call of Duty compared to less experienced action gamers playing The Sims 2. Those playing the first person shooters found that their ability to distinguish subtle changes in the brightness of an image had improved a skill the researchers relate to tasks like driving at night. 5. Treats depression. Researchers from New Zealand have created their own video game which is designed to treat depressed teenagers as an alternative to conventional counselling. The acronym SPARX stands for ‘smart, positive, active, realistic and x-factor thoughts’, strategies which have been previously proven to help fight depression. The game itself involves creating an avatar who explores a fantasy world with the aim of removing ‘gloomy, negative automatic thoughts’ in an effort to restore order to the land. Each level incorporates facts about depression and strategies that can be used to help deal with negative thoughts within the game play. 6. Improves education in kids. In the last few years, one game in particular has dominated the industry in a way never seen before, drawing players into worlds of their own design for literally hours on end. Minecraft has sold millions of copies and its success shows no sign of slowing down, but for those of you who are worried about fans spending hours watching Youtube videos of others playing the game, research has demonstrated that the educational benefits of Minecraft are almost limitless in scope.
Atheism is irrational

Alright, So I DID look at your profile, And you seem like a bundle of contradictions, Hence me calling you a white supremacist based on some things I noticed. Nevertheless, I apologize for labeling you as such. Other than that, I'm done as much as you are. Have a good night's sleep now, Grandpa. P. S. While I was going to suggest you visit the therapist to tackle your troubling behaviour, I'll just overlook it as part of your old age.
Atheism is irrational

"Seems like my opponent is a 60 year old White Supremacist"" Aw well gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, Had you taken a lookie at my profile, You"d see ---exactly--- who I am, Oh great god of thee twinkletoes, Whose head is stuffed in a newly discovered black hole waiting to explode, All over the car-pet, All over your clothes. Indeed it is your unproven god in every single way imaginable who is most certainly a white supremacist, Just like you. But nah, You haven"t bothered to have read the damn thing - have you, You truly pathetic s--t for splattered brains and you know it. So don"t come off at me with your racist bigoted remarks when you bark up the totem pole with a noose around your neck and not knowing at all what you are squawking about. Got it --- boy? 1. Which creator? 2. Why only one creator? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions? So we can scratch your #1 because you haven"t proved one god damned thing. (a). Logically? What logic if you cannot prove that your creator exists? Not only that but you do not have the ability to think, Rationalize, Reason, Use common sense, Nor use logic. That"s because you cannot prove your "creator" exists. 3. ". . I care. But I am not most atheist dimwitted dullard snot meat sow. That doesn"t mean that the other millions of atheists on this planet care as to what I care about. Duh and doy with a pick axe stuck in your you know where areas. 4. Oh absolutely its not part of being an atheist. OK we're done. I"m not going to argue with a complete s--t teeny bopper who is a true tragic figure pest of a person who has already been squashed and is 100% out of his league by me and others who have also put this tinker toy boy to sleep without a peep who thinks he"s a godsend granny fart at a nuclear blast zone and all he knows how to do is blast off from his jerk chicken a$$ and did not watch ---any--- of the videos presented to him to find out what and who atheists are. Bye. My opponent just hates to lose. Too bad teeny bopper. Darn, You just did. That's because I will not play by your rules. Neither will anyone else.
Atheism is irrational

Atheism, Or the belief that there is no Creator of the universe, Is a flawed and irrational way of understanding reality. Atheists claim to be intellectually superior (or at least claim to be making intellectually superior arguments) than theists, But they fail to address the fact that, Assuming there is no Creator, And the creation of the universe is a mere collection of blind, Non-rational naturalistic causes coming together to give rise to life, How is it possible for the atheist to be confident of her rationality when it's very sources are random, Nonsensical atoms whizzing through space coming together to form her brain. Such an argument would be tantamount to claim that rationality is born from irrationality. The only LOGICAL conclusion the atheist can come to, Following this line of argument, Is that Atheism is an irrational belief.
Rap Battle

Well, since this was a letdown, here is a short rap i wrote that can sum up all of the rap nowadays in several verses.P*ssy, p*ssy, p*ssyit is so very yummy p*ssy, p*ssy, p*ssyI want it in my tummyI drink so hard i'm gettin' drunkcause I drink to my successAnd i'm successful but i'm such a dumb*ssNever played a game of chessI'm ballin' hard like bouncy ballsYou aint cause you a n*ggaI'm better than anyone elsen*gga n*gga n*gga When my girl dumps meI smoke some mirijuanaI f*ck a girl named marybecause i mary-wanna.Hope you enjoyed it!
Rap Battle

Hello, everyone. You good at rappin'? If so, please accept. BUT FIRST READ THE ENTIRE RULES.RULES:1. You must rap a song or part of a song that has already been made. Just use the instumental for the song and rap the part that the artist would.2. If the song has singing, singing is not required, but you can if you want. You will not be docked off points for singing (even if your not good).3. When you record your song, it does not have to show your face. It can just be audio, but please provide the video or link in your argument.4. In the area where you usually post your argument, post the video or audio and the name of the song or verse you are rapping.Rounds: 1. Acceptance (no rapping).2. This round you only rap one verse from a song. For example, the Big Sean verse from "Mercy". This means NOT THE ENTIRE SONG. Just one verse.3. Rap an entire song. THE ENTIRE SONG. The song must be AT LEAST 2:00 long. If there is more than one verse, you must rap all verses.4. Same as #3.That is all I can think of. LET'S GO!
Censorship is irrational

Clarification: The censorship referred to here is not about government censorship of citizens speech, a popular topic recently, nor an other types of opinionated information filtering. This is not a debate about the freedom of speech. I apologize if the title misled. Rules: 1) First round for acceptance. 2) Format being introduction, rebuttal and conclusion (no new points). 3) Profession maintained at all times (no trolling, carelessly crude spelling/grammar, etc.) Violation of rules results in 7-point victory for the other side. The character limit is set at max but debater is advised to keep points concise. BoP is shared. The debate is about the act of censoring, verbally or visually, of "inappropriate content". By inappropriate content I mean two main categories of such "content" - sexual and rude. I will not go into the other potential definitions of inappropriate content by others such as comments of racism and feminism, since that is going into another debate entirely. By sexual content I refer to videos and pictures of people with exposed private parts. By rude content I refer to words such as f**k, b***h, c**p or s**t being either written or said. I look forward to the debate with my opponent.
Is it needed to learn a language

If you want to work for Bugatti, it'd probably be good to have a fluent knowledge of French on your resume (they are based in France). But not everyone, as I have said before, goes to work overseas. The vast majority stay in the United States. So what practical reason is there for this majority to learn another language, if they'll never use it in the rest of their lives? Also, you'd think the higher-ups at Bugatti would at least know a little English, yeah? English is the language of business. If a company wants to go international, they need to have some knowledge of it to succeed.
Forget About 9/11 - Toby Keith DEBATE

Pro is named Bryan Mullins, not Dr. Dahlia Wasfi. Without any claims outside that plagiarized source, there is no argument from pro to grade. There are negative sources, but I suggest a conduct only vote. Argument: Just to hammer it home a little more, there are a couple quotes (one also copied from the plagiarized material), which are not tied to any argument. These quotes also speak of 9/11, thereby encouraging us to remember it; making any case pro could be said to have, entirely self-refuting. Sources: [1] . http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...