BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the golden rule in application is not clear

do unto others as you'd have them do unto you the golden rule is not clear my thoughts are not very organized. maybe after a few debates they will be better. if it is clear, what are the guiding principles that can determine how to act in accordance with it? some intervention v deferrence hypotheticals: -someone is setting of fireworks close to the road, but it's debatable if it's too close. alternatively, someone is setting off fireworks with people around, but it's debateable if there's too many people around. alternatively, someone is staying too close to the fireworks debateably. some people say these situations are not debateable. so even if it's debateable is debateable, or at least debated. -someone looks at porn, which at least amongst Christians is usually considered wrong. -someone doesn't eat meat cause they think it's immoral. -someone cuts himself for kicks. -an adult male has man love with a seventeen year old male. greeks had man love with boys and men, and society accepted it. is a one year difference and the cultural phenomenons going on here going to change things? -what about those who: smoke cigarettes, marijuama, drink, does cocaine.... and then the varying degrees of usage. or those who eat arguably too much. in which cases does an outsider intervene, and in which cases does the outsider defer to the person? if it's debatable about how to approach the situation, then you have to formulate your own philsophy, which means it'd vary by the person, which ultimately means the rule isn't really that clear. many people would want themselves deferred to if they are doing something questionable. then they might want intervened against for extreme situations if they are seen as clearly wrong. but how do you know which is which, and what if another person would want to never be intervened against? you couldtake the philosophy that you personally might intervened against despite the fact that the other person doesn't want intervened against..... or you could take the philsophy of complete deferrence to the other's wishes, even though you'd want intervened against. so how is this rule clear if whether or not to act is purely up to the individual? and how is 'as they would have done unto you' clear, when you could base it on if the other person was you, or if you based on more on the fact that they aren't you? and sometimes it might be such that i would call it debateable, but another wouldn't. do you act based on your own perceptions of what's debateable, or seek some more objective source? plus there's objective and subjective things to consider. some people might view certain acts as okay, but society and pretty objectively, their acts are not okay. so when do we defer to their subjective reality, versus the objective nature of the situation? or, what about selling cars. some might say it's the other persons obligation to find any flaws and sell as is, but another might say a person whould be forthright with the information. do you just base it on your own desire or expectations if ou were in that situation?
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un should be referred to as "Fat Boy Kim" on all official US Documents.

ROADMAP: I'm not on the road. 1. Freedom of Speech is not designed to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. Besides, Kim Jong Un called Obama a monkey. That's just racist. 2. Tough Love (we hate the dude but still). He'd be inspired to change just to have his annoying nickname. That would actually result in his life being prolonged. He benefits. 3. It's unlikely that a war will result just by calling him "Fat Boy Kim". In fact, by showing him we're not afraid of him, he might be less likely to go to war. Who knows? 4. Okay, it works like this: the Pentagon authorizes sending a commando unit inside North Korea to assassinate Kim Jong Un. But once they get inside, how will they know which Kim Jong Un to kill? North Korea is a very secretive country, so it'd probably be harder than you think to ID him. Cracking my opponent's case: 1. The United States is not in a state of war against North Korea. However, they make incendiary remarks against the United States every year. 2. It's diplomacy. It's not petty at all. Besides, people would think it was funny. 3. By the standards of no country is somebody as heavy as Kim Jong Un not overweight (not even in the United States). 4. "Isn't the greatest ruler" is a bit of an understatement. Daily he oppresses the people of North Korea for his own benefit. They have nothing, while he's wealthier than 100 average Americans combined. Before I end this, I have one last point to make: The North Korean people, upon seeing that their seemingly infallible leader has been insulted like this and he is powerless to exact his revenge without sparking the Second Korean War, may begin to question their leader, which might spark a chain of events leading to the deliverance of North Korea from the tyranny of the dictatorial Kim Dynasty. That will be all, and I ask voters to cast their votes in my favor. Thank you.
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un should be referred to as "Fat Boy Kim" on all official US Documents.

1. I have already stated that a war against North Korea in which they attack us first (thus providing a justification for overthrowing the North Korean Government before its military becomes too powerful) is beneficial. 2. Immaturity? More likely it would show that our leaders are not afraid of North Korea. It would inspire confidence in the world. 3. Kim Jong Un's current weight is unknown, but physical appearance suggests he meets the criteria of "overweight". Especially by the standards of North Korea. 4. Why not? He is in charge of a dictatorship which has been responsible for countless deaths, and he has done nothing to alleviate the sufferings of his people since he has assumed the (metaphorical) throne. Rather, he continues to party and live the high life, giving little thought to the fact that the wealth he enjoys is at their expense.
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un should be referred to as "Fat Boy Kim" on all official US Documents.

I hereby negate. 1. It will heighten Korean tension If we disrespect the North Korean leaders name, then they are obviosly going to be mad. And what to mad people do??? Fight! Doing such an act would provoke another war... and war is bad since people die and money is wasted. 2. Immaturity Wouldn't it be immature for the US to call Kim Jong Un such a profane name. We are called to be the leading nation as we are the most advanced and unified. This would lower our self image a LOT. 3. Vagueness What is the definition of a "Fat Boy"? How do we define between boy, man, and adolescent? What is the brightline between fat, plump, and chubby? We don't know! We can't call someone something that is too subjective to define. 4. Disrespect Ok, we may disagree with everything Kim Jong Un is doing. But that doesn't allow us to disrespect his name and family name. Doing such an action would greatly offend the Kim family along with Kim Jong Un. I negate and will refute next round
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un should be referred to as "Fat Boy Kim" on all official US Documents.

1. An affirmation of Freedom of Speech When North Korea (or someone who supported them) hacked Sony because of "The Interview" (a movie which parodies Kim Jong Un), they were trying to make a point: that no criticism of their leader, Kim Jong Un, would be tolerated by North Korea. If the United States government responded by renaming Kim Jong Un "Fat Boy Kim" on all its documents, that would send a message to not only North Korea but to tyrannical regimes throughout the world that freedom of speech would not be suppressed. 2. He is Indeed Fat Honesty is the best policy. In fact, by calling him that, perhaps they could shame him into losing some weight, which would be beneficial to his own well-being. 3. WAR!!!!!!!! If North Korea responded with a cyber attack on the U.S. electronic grids, that'd be sufficient justification for a war against North Korea, which is growing more and more dangerous. 4. Precision As there are probably several dozen people in the world who are named Kim Jong Un, but no one is named Fat Boy Kim, this would allow for complete precision of language. That is, if Obama authorized a mission to assassinate Kim Jong Un, nobody would respond with "Which Kim Jong Un are you talking about?" It's my opponent's turn now. I await his response.
Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized

Thanks for the reply con! A very worthy opponent indeed.This part of my argument will be purely rebuttals."Firstly, it is crime itself, not always drugs, that is associated with lower GDP. As using drugs is currently a crime, we would expect more of these lawbreakers in poorer states. "Con has brought up an intersting argument, that I will have to agree. However, legalizing drugs would not do much good either. As I have shown earlier, drugs are related to crime such as ape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, serious motor vehicle offenses with dangerous consequences, arson and hate crimes. So, if we do legalize drugs, there will be a far increase crime due to drugs than not legalizing it."Remember that association doesn't imply causation, and that because drugs are illegal it is impossible to obtain truly accurate data on their effects, as I explained last round"Since con has not posted his sources on this round, I am assuming he meant that was towards his previous round. Looking at con's source, (1) I could not find direct usage of drugs. However, lets assume for now that "association doesn't imply causation" implies drugs as well. "drugs are illegal it is impossible to obtain truly accurate data on their effects" I fail to see what my opponent was referring to. I ask my opponent to explain in the following rounds if he was referring to my drugs and crime statement? We can still use drugs for testing in the medical environment. " It is not morally right to ban something because it is associated with real crime." Again, this debate is not about current drug laws. Over to you con.
Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized

Let's get straight to the arguments. Firstly, it is crime itself, not always drugs, that is associated with lower GDP. As using drugs is currently a crime, we would expect more of these lawbreakers in poorer states. [1]. Remember that association doesn't imply causation, and that because drugs are illegal it is impossible to obtain truly accurate data on their effects, as I explained last round. Note that pro failed to answer this point. Secondly, I am glad pro posted his sources. However, there is a significant problem with his argument that drugs cause crime. It is not morally right to ban something because it is associated with real crime. For example, black men are more likely to commit a crime, but we don't lock them all up because of that. [2] My opponent has failed to answer the charge that it is immoral to use force and lock up a nonviolent drug user. Don't harm the responsible drug users and throw the baby out with the bath water. All of my sources prove the point intended. Please check if you don't believe me. Sources
Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized

Lets get straight into the argument. Federal and economic standpointI. Will cause decline in econmy. (As shown by New Hampshire and Vermont)Vermont and New Hampshire has one of the Highest Illict drug problems in the U.S.Yet, its not suprising that they have one of the Lowest GSP. Now, I am not implying that illict drug use is the sole cause for a decrease of GSP. But, rather it is more than a mere coincdidence. From a logical (as well as statistical) standpoint, it is safe to assume an increased drug rate will lead to an unstable society which the risk alone is not worth taking. Also, drug legalization advocates claimed that the money used to legalize drugs can be used for the good. Here is the DEA's response “Ask legalization proponents if the alleged profits from drug legalization would be enough to pay for the increased fetal defects, loss of workplace productivity, increased traffic fatalities and industrial accidents, increased domestic violence and the myriad other problems that would not only be high-cost items but extremely expensive in terms of social decay."II. Drugs tied to terrisomDuring the aftermath, of 9/11, the DEA, performed research through drug trafficking. Regarding the train boming in madrid, according to the DEA, "The bombers swapped hashish and ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts, which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell phones used to detonate the bombs".III. Drugs and crimeThere is no doubt that drugs relate to crime. Drug crimes often involve murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, serious motor vehicle offenses with dangerous consequences, arson and hate crimes. We need to break the chain between drug and crime, not make it stronger. 80% of offenders abuse drugs or alcohol. Nearly 50% of jail and prison inmates are clinically addicted. Approximately 60% of individuals arrested for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drugs at arrest.We have one of the higest incaraction rates, and 60 - 80% of drug abusers commit a new crime (typically a drug-driven crime) after release from prison. Approximately 95% return to drug abuse after release from prison.IV. Jobs that require drug testsMany jobs do not require drug tests, but that is a big exception when it comes to federal and transportation jobs. However, one out of five employees were reported for drug tests in Colorado. It is not very shocking that many buisness owners prefere a drug free envirment. It is not unlikly to get fired if you are caught getting drugs in the workplace.This is all for my Federal standpoint. I will do rebuttals in the next round, and include morality in my Bophttp://www.whitehouse.gov...... http://www.businessinsider.com...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... https://ncadd.org...... http://www.nolo.com...... http://www.denverpost.com......
Should kids have cell phones in school

How helpful are cell phones in a classroom? They can Google answers, and find definitions. And if you're doing that then you defeat the point of being in the classroom. Pick up books if you want to learn about history or science. By a standard calculator if you need to use a calculator instead of jumping on to a phone. Cell phones may be able to be useful in class, but students should not be using them if they disregard the teacher's instruction. Telling your friend about how bad class is is not important. Sure they can be used in certain situations for safety, but by distracting students, it is doing more harm. It may not seem like very much, but a lack of an education can be harmful to a pupil. It can be used in a situation for safety, but so can a knife. In the wrong hands though it will not be used for it's intended purposes. Cell phones are a nuisance, and it has been confirmed that texting and social networking are addictive, and can cause harm to a person's physical and mental state. Yes physical. Reports show people who use social network and text often have developed carpel tunnel syndrome. They have also seen a decline in face to face social interactions. You may find it weird when a stranger talks to you about the bus being late, or the weather, or simply greeting you with "hi, how are you?" but before social networking and texting, that was the social norm. You gained friends by talking to strangers. Texting and social networking has caused harm to the Y generation. Sure, you may argue that if students were taught to use them properly, and taught to not use their phones without a teacher's permission, then everything would be fine, but that's just it. No one is going to listen to you anyways because they are too busy texting the guy sitting across from them telling them how they like the girl sitting next to him. I think cell phones should be allowed by teachers so that students can write down a reminder for a test, or write down their homework. And in school, a student's schedule should determine their cell phone use, with an emergency contact for the student to call for help from a family member, but schools should have the ability to take away the child's texting capability unless they press the emergency contact button, and a teacher can allow the release of cell phones to be used if the child is asking someone that might know something, or allow them to research things on the internet. But, a student should not be able to whoop out their phone in the middle of a lecture just to text their friends. Again, yes they CAN be a useful tool, but it is unlikely the students would use them in a proper, school appropriate manner. And if you are a person in high school, let me strongly suggest you do not try anything funny with your phone in a class in college. The teacher is the boss, and they can make up most any rules they want for the class and you are to abide by them, or they can remove you, or just your cell phone, from the room.
Should kids have cell phones in school

Depending on what type of kid? I have seen rich, poor, black, white, Hispanic, people from dysfunctional families, people from great families, people with disabilities, wrestlers, baseball, football, and basketball players, etc text. Doing assignments on phones between class? So occasionally looking up from your phone, bumping in to 5 people while trying to do your homework later in the day that is due in the class that you're going to that should of been done last night is okay? Well maybe you were busy the night before, right? Well, then you need to set your priorities right. Not only that, but it has been proven dangerous, regardless the person, that texting and walking is dangerous. Phones are not like portable laptops. You don't have Microsoft Word, and if you do then you don't have a lot of space to type fast enough. You can talk in to it and it will write I'm sure, but then you take away those little skills that we ought to work on everyday; those skills being typing, spelling, and grammar. Let me tell you, in college, you still are tested on grammar and spelling, and your damn biology teacher is going to take points of for improper spelling when you arrive. A Kindle Fire can be used in the way you described it, so why not that? Why must it be device that you can talk to your buddy about stupid things? They are a distraction. If you text your friend in class, then now both you and the friend are distracted. Students should give all their teachers 110% of their attention during a lecture.
Should kids have cell phones in school

If you think computers help someone learn things easier, than how about teachers allow laptops in to classrooms? And instead of a backpack full of things, how about use the laptops for everything like digitally submit papers, type notes, research etc. Or give everyone a computer that stays at school that can be synced up to their home computer? Cell phones cause more harm than good in today's generation, and we have shown this to kids. People are getting in trouble for texting and talking on their phones while driving, and rightfully so.
Will Betsy DeVos be a good Secretary of Education

Betsy DeVos was recently recognized as the United States' Secretary of Education. However, tensions and controversy are shrouding her victory. Con will argue that she will be detrimental to education, while pro will advocate her ad her plans as the Secretary of State. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
Is harambe still alive🤔

Is Harambe still alive? That's rhetorical. The answer is "no."My opponent's words are "Square sponge bob pants." His argument bears no relevance to Harambe's current status, but does clarify thatwe are discussing Harambe's biological state.Harambe is dead. On May 28, 2016, Harambe was shot dead at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, passing on a day after his seventeenth birthday. [1]Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Deity of Jesus Christ

1) "Lots of reputable scholars". This sounds like the argument from authority. Thinks are not true simply because "experts" think they are. If the NWT is truly a "garbage" translation, you should be able to demonstrate this rather than just punting to other people. If you want to play the game of list the scholars who like and dislike the NWT, we can go the route. Otherwise, please make an argument. 2) I am glad we can agree on this point. 3) Again, you are simply punting to a scholar. If his translation is correct, how do you know? Many translators have translated the same passage in different ways. The truth is, since theos does not have a definite article, it must be correctly translated "a god". You still have not dealt with this point. 4) I'm not interpreting my theology into the text; you are. Firstborn literally means "the first one born". If you want to go around the common usage, then you are reading your belief into the text. I agree with John 17:5. As I said, Jesus is the FIRSTborn, so he is the first created thing. Therefore, he was in existence before the world. Colossians 1:16 actually says "because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible". Jesus was created by God, then created all other things. 5) Let me spell this out more clearly. -Jesus is the wisdom of God. -The wisdom was created by God. -Therefore, Jesus was created by God. 6) If Jesus meant he was also God with the Father by saying he was one with the father, why does he then say "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one" (John 17:22)? Clearly, in this verse, Jesus is not claiming that we can all become God, so "one" must mean something else. Since we are one in the same way Jesus is one with the Father, this is not evidence of Jesus' deity. 7) We know Jesus is a creature since he was created as the wisdom of God, and he is the firstborn of creation. We also know that he is spirit since he existed before matter. Jesus created all other things according to Colossians.
The Deity of Jesus Christ

Let me explain point by point where you""re wrong; 1. Lots of reputable scholars [http://www.bible-researcher.com..., https://www.worthychristianforums.com..., ) have said it"s a bunch of garbage and a gross mistranslation 2. Sorry, I was quoting my kjv 3. Dr. Walker Martin has said that John 1:1 could read "the Logos(Jesus/Word) was "face-to face with God; the Word was God." He then says that the Deity of Christ is inescapable from the Greek text 4. You"re interpreting your theology into the text!!!! No where does firstborn imply that Christ is a created being. John 17:5. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.." . Also, "For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" Colossians 1:16 5. You said that because wisdom was created, therefore Jesus is created. This is illogical because, just because Jesus is the wisdom of God; doesn"t make him a created being. 6. Because Jesus said he and his Father are one (Jn 10:30) 7. No, Christ is never called a Spirit creature. Col 1:16, Jn 1:3 all affirm Jesus created all things