BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The authorities should not seek to inhibit the evolution of the English language

As to Pro's question on how I would respond in this situation, I would respond with an option 'C'. The message can easily be amended to have the same meaning without using terms that can be considered offensive, and the honourable Member meant no disrespect. After all, a society must try to work together in unity for the best results. Any strife only removes a society from it's full potential. Authorities who provide dictionary definitions can include simple notes, as I have shown previously, making people aware that a term is generally considered offensive. These notes will help prevent people who would have unknowingly used the word otherwise. This action of creating a note serves to inhibit the evolution of English by encouraging someone to use a different, non-offensive word. Similarly, if a group comes up with a derogatory term for a group of individuals, it would be in the best interest of society to attempt to inhibit that natural evolution by discouraging use of that word. In some cases, words become so inflammatory that they are associated with hate crimes and extreme violence. So in conclusion, I assert that authorities should seek to inhibit the evolution of the English language anytime such evolution starts leading toward conflict in society.
The authorities should not seek to inhibit the evolution of the English language

However, I would like to add one more: Retard - verb, to make something slower . http://dictionary.cambridge.org... My opponent made a clear distinction between "inhibit" and "prevent" evolution of English in his rebuttal and I am happy to argue on that basis since this was part of my resolution. Before I address his argument directly, however, please imagine you are the Speaker (chairperson) of a parliamentary assembly and a Member of the Opposition is addressing the House: "This nation's economy is severely handicapped by the cost of unemployment. The billions being paid to jobless people in welfare benefits, put together with the reduction in income tax receipts, is crippling the public finances. It is vital, therefore, that we do all we can to retard the growth of unemployment. That's why the Government's proposal to lay off hundreds of thousands of public sector workers at this critical time is so utterly moronic. " At this juncture a Member from the Government benches jumps up and shrieks: "Mr Speaker! My son has severe restricted mobility issues and profound learning difficulties and I strongly object to the honourable gentleman's use of the verbs 'handicap', 'cripple' and 'retard', together with his use of the adjective form of the word 'moron'. I find the use of these words highly offensive and I demand the honourable gentleman withdraws his remarks forthwith. " As the Speaker of the House, how would you respond? A – "Your objection is unreasonable, Madam, the honourable Member was clearly referring to the economy and not to your son, so the use of these words, given the context, should not be considered offensive. " B – "Your objection is a reasonable one, Madam, the words the honourable Member used were ill-advised and divisive; they have the potential to cause conflict and, in the interests of maintaining a stable society, I insist that he duly withdraws his remarks as the honourable lady requests. " I leave this decision to you but I would choose option A, and I politely invite my opponent to choose an option, or provide his own option C in the next round. My point is that certain individuals and organisations feel entitled to bully people into refraining from using words they consider offensive, even when they are used out of the context where they may cause offence. Of course, if somebody wheeled a physically and mentally disabled person in wheelchair into a pub and the landlord said: "Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to leave, we don't serve spastics here", he should, quite rightly be admonished for his unsympathetic views and, moreover, his crass use of an outdated term for people with disabilities, but if he referred to one of the regular punters who, say, had spilt his pint over himself, as a "spastic", then that remark should not attract criticism. Thank you.
Rematch rap battle

Battlin you has never been so easy to snap ya neck Callin' yourself a rap when you haven't won this yet I'm slaughterin' you like you had no defenses Got no money to defend your heart with fences You got no healthcare to pay for all these expenses I'm relentless I can diss you all day n' night, it's endless All you talk is violence, but all you do is silence All i do is guidance n' all you do is compliance Get out of my way, your such a hindrance to make up for your mistakes, you need penance You make the science of rap look like pseudoscience
Rematch rap battle

Yo this guy is mentally ill, he needs to get in a quarantine Son of God is eternal, this is a new year, you outdated in 2013 You ride around away from battle like a scared horse on a saddle Screw a castle, i stay within a tabernacle n' stay in 140 degrees tranquil Cuz you can't handle the heat like Daniel get a better angle I ain't even tryin dawg, you can't gamble or ramble You broke your word as you did this rematch Time to put you back in a hatch cuz you lost this match
Rematch rap battle

This guy said he got a battle, what happened, no show? Claims he enlightened well let's see if his light'll glow Getting slow in his replies, losing a good promo If he can't practice, he never get on the radio I spit multis as well as i throw pies at your face like a clown in disguise You are like Astro boy who dreams of flying high in skies, but it's all lies You say good luck, when you need it more than I do Cuz after this is over, you will be pork stew Those 1st punchlines knocked the winds out and I'm still waiting to shout out toa ll my homies who know what I rep about as you pout n pout So I suggest you get your game up n take a better route See you next round
Rematch rap battle

Alright lets get some things out of the way: I know you might use the "girly girl cut ur curls" jokes, so lets rectify We all know cancer patients lose all their hair, your mother can testify True i might look like a hobo, old enough to get sued by you in court Difference is: I'm accountable for my life, you still on child support Now that that's out of the way, i'ma make you feel the real burn Turn you into chop liver, i devour rappers til my stomach churn This is a sick battle, your bones will rattle as you feel human chills Doin' time again in the pen cuz i'm doin the same rap drills Your name i find offensive cuz under biblical law, it's blasphemy You'd be put in the wrong place if you were in the holy Trinity Under the Law of Moses, I think you should be stoned! As if you weren't already there when i broke your backbone! I crush your pride like i crushed a thousand eggs You'll go to church prayin' for many more hugs During revival, i'm the worst arrival against your survival Have you wishin' you were on trial n' put away your personal rival Your mother was unfortunate to search yellow pages for an altar call Your the 1st man to take hard hits against your state since THIS fall Maul your voice was a bitter choice as i leave you to eat through a straw Your so ignorant, you made Satan cry a fiery river! All who look upon you shall forever shiver! I ain't Jesus Christ, but you already know i deliver!
Embryonic Stem Cell Use

New technology has been introduced so we wouldn't have to use embryonic stem cells.. In fact, this "new technology allows the creation of identical embryonic stem cells without the use of embryos, cloning or human eggs" then, it'll help the ethical issue by dismaying it in all and creating less of a problem for women. Using embryonic stem cells would be wasting resources that could be used elsewhere, or not used at all. Not like embryonic researchers will find any advancement soon, seeing as they haven't in the last 27 years... -Dr. David Prentice. cell biologist, the founding member of Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics
Embryonic Stem Cell Use

Just because something is illegal that doesn't mean that it is morally or ethically responsible. "The debate about embryonic stem cell research isn't about the potential benefits that this field could produce. It is about the ethics and morality of how stem cells are made." Either you believe that life is given when pregnancy occurs or you think life is given at conception. Stem cells are cells that develop at any rate into several cells. The fact, however, that it is an embryonic stem cell means tat it is initially received at the stages of development. SO. Whether it is legal or not, the fact is that it is morally irresponsible to some parents of these aborted babies and even bystanders. -healthresearchfunding.org
Embryonic Stem Cell Use

Even though it is able to cure diseases and other such things, there hasn't been any research found since the discovery of the usage of Embryonic Stem cells. That means that thousands of embryos have been put to no use that has actually cured something. In the last 27 years there has been absolutely no further research and decades of researching has been thrown away. Scientists do not even have control of the cells according to healthresearchfunding.org... This puts people who have experimented with embryonic stem cell use to be more at risk with tumors and can cause other problems aside from diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's.
Embryonic Stem Cell Use

The "man made Vagina" was created from their own cells. Matter of fact, they were engineered from using muscle and epithelial cells (the cells that line the body's cavities) from a small biopsy of each patients external genitals. And all the vagina's that were made were four of them implanted into teenagers with their own consent... So they were not taken from a dead baby or an aborted baby. They were made out of cells the teens already had. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Barack Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy.

Hello, this debate is open to anyone. The debate will last 3 rounds. 1st round is acceptance. 2nd round is arguments. 3rd round is counter arguments and closing statements. 7,000 character max per round. The resolution is: Barack Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy. I will be arguing in favor of the resolution (Pro), my opponent will be arguing against the resolution (Con).
box one vs ps4

So,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
box one vs ps4

I will not hold it against my opponent for the "taken ... long to reply" but I will begin my arguments in an introductury manner, and will post the main arguments when my opponent posts his or hers.......It is clear that the Playstation 4 provides many more options and activites than the Xbox One. The following list ([1]) shows an example: This is only a small portion of the list, which contains many more reasons as to why the Playstation 4 is better.....I will extend arguments when my opponent posts his or hers....[1] http://www.ign.com...;
Schools should serve healthier lunches

"Apparently you aren't, though because all you are doing is insulting me just because you have no valid arguments. In fact, that's exactly why I didn't address your arguments, because none or them were even valid!"I did not insult you. I simply asked a question.And how is my argument not valid? I provided two diagrams comparing school food in the past and school food in the present. I marked that there are no noticible changes.I also refutted your argument with these diagrams that you have yet to refute. "The school is required by law to provide lunch, obviously. But yes, a student is more than capable of bringing their own lunch from school. That isn't even the point, though. The school should care enough to provide healthy lunches to ensure that each student is getting proper nutrition."I understand that the school has to and should provide lunch for those who can't afford it. But if the lunch gets healtier then that means:1) The students that can't afford it will have to pay more; but he/she gets it for free = more government debt and economic failure.2) Since more and more students will join food stamps because of the increasing costs = more tax for those who bring their own lunch.How will that be fair?And the student on food stamp gets free lunch paid by the taxpayers! He shouldn't complain that the lunch is un-healthy! He gets it for free! My argument stands.
Schools should serve healthier lunches

To answer your question, yes I am taking this seriously. Apparently you aren't, though because all you are doing is insulting me just because you have no valid arguments. In fact, that's exactly why I didn't address your arguments, because none or them were even valid! To address your only argument, "And if the student or parent is worried about obesity, why not just simply bring a lunch from home?" The school is required by law to provide lunch, obviously. But yes, a student is more than capable of bringing their own lunch from school. That isn't even the point, though. The school should care enough to provide healthy lunches to ensure that each student is getting proper nutrition.
Schools should serve healthier lunches

Many of the lunches if not all of the lunches at schools are very unhealthy. Almost all of the food is pre-made and then heated up when the student goes to order it. For instance, something like pizza which isn't too unhealthy is much u healthier at schools. The pizzas at school of full of grease and fat. Almost all of he lunches at school are carbs, too. Probably the only healthy thing you can buy at school is an apple or an orange.
We should keep out illegal immagrants and secure our border

Where are you getting your facts? I gave you the sources of my information, and they were reliable. You are just spurting out random numbers. So ill just pick apart your made up numbers with some cold hard backed up facts. For example, you said "84% pay income tax and none of them file a return." Really? Where did you hear that? 84% pay income taxes? According to the Federation For American Immigration, most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury. You said "An illegal immigrant will contribute $80,000 more to the government than he consumes in services. The government is really the one whose making money." At first i thought you were joking. What source would tell you that we MAKE money on illegal immigration? According to the Federation For American Immigration, Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. With many state budgets in deficit, policymakers have an obligation to look for ways to reduce the fiscal burden of illegal migration. California, facing a budget deficit of $14.4 billion in 2010-2011, is hit with an estimated $21.8 billion in annual expenditures on illegal aliens.Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens. You also said "2% of Mexican immigrants have ever used welfare or social security and only 3% have ever used food stamps." I don't know where you got that ridiculous number that only 2% of these immigrants use welfare or social security. Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs. According to the Center Of Immigration Studies, In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant with children, used at least one welfare program. Compared to 39 percent for native households with children. You asked me "please tell me, you do not believe that the place that has a 16 trillion dollars in debt, will simply let $8.4 billion in sales taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $1.2 billion in personal income taxes walk away" Yes, you know why? If you add up all the money that they bring in. Like i said before, its about $11.2 billion dollars. That nothing compared to the overall cost it takes to have them here which is about $338.5 billion a year. Yes, it looks good saying it would add $1.5 trillion to our GDP in a decade. But thats just it, it would take a decade. You know how much we could save in a decade without them? $3.5 trillion dollars. Thats almost twice the size of your number
We should keep out illegal immagrants and secure our border

An illegal immigrant will contribute $80,000 more to the government than he consumes in services. The government is really the one whose making money. 2% of Mexican immigrants have ever used welfare or social security and only 3% have ever used food stamps. In comparison, 84% pay income tax and none of them file a return. How are illegals causing high unemployment if they can't even work with out papers or proof of Social security. They take the jobs that no one else wants. Also, you can't deport over 70 million people, it is impossible, even if you wanted to. Also, please tell me, you do not believe that the place that has a 16 trillion dollars in debt, will simply let $8.4 billion in sales taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $1.2 billion in personal income taxes walk away. okay, so let's say 2.5% of the debt is for caring for illegals. It's still less money than that owed by colleges, for example, the economic crisis has nothing to do with illegals, they contribute just like college debt, our debt to many countries and such. legalizing undocumented immigrant would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to U.S. GDP over a decade. This occurs because legalized workers earn higher wages than undocumented workers, and they use those wages to buy things such as houses, cars, phones, and clothing. As more money flows through the U.S. economy, businesses grow to meet the demand for more goods and services, and more jobs and economic value are created. tax benefits alone from legalization would be between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion in the first three years.passing the DREAM Act (The act that woud allow aliens to attend college and get jobs and stuff) would add $329 billion to the U.S. economy by 2030. The Dream Act provides a double boost to the economy: First, "dreamers" will be able to work legally (generally at higher wages), and second, because of the requirements to complete high school and some college or military service, they will have more education and training, which translates into better and higher-paying jobs. All of these extra wages circulate through the economy, supporting new job creation for the native born as well. A large body of literature illustrates that naturalized citizens are more economically beneficial than even legal permanent residents. naturalized citizens earn between 8 percent and 11 percent higher wages after naturalization. an analysis of the 2012 March Current Population Survey data also indicates that immigrants who receive Social Security get less in benefits than native-born recipients.
We should keep out illegal immagrants and secure our border

That's interesting, because according to the center of immigration studies, 71% of illegal immigrants are on welfare. That means that these people come in undocumented, and take our money. Yes, they work for less money, but that means they they would more likely get hired for a job (illegally because they are illegal and its below the minimum wage) which takes those jobs away from actual Americans. People that were born here and are legal citizens. You know who else it takes jobs away from? Those people who waited in line for a long time, so they could actually become a real citizen of the United States. They are not here and looking for jobs, but its harder because people that bypassed them illegally, took those jobs from them, and their not even legal! Back to your point about "the people you would need to support are those in jail." Yes, we do half to support them, thank you for bringing that up. 29% of the entire U.S. prison population is made up of illegal immigrants according to the The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in an article entitled "Criminal Aliens" on its website (accessed July 10, 2010). Yes, 29%. It costs so much money to support an inmate. On average it costs about $168,000 a year to house an inmate according to The California State Prisons Association. If there is roughly 70,000 illegal inmates, that's around 11.5 billion dollars a year. Really? Just in the category of prison inmates, we lose 11.5 billion dollars a year from illegal immigrants. Plus the 71% on welfare. But your right, some immigrants do pay taxes. About 50% of them do. But you know what's funny? Based on estimates compiled by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the Immigration Policy Center reported that there was $11.2 billion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants in 2010 . So even if you take all the money we get from the illegal immigrants, its still less than the costs of prison inmates. Then you add welfare(It is estimated that states spend between 11 billion to 22 billion dollars on welfare for illegal aliens every year ), and the education system (It is estimated that 12 billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary education for illegal immigrants), and the welfare system (Research reveals that 2.5 billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for people who have immigrated to the U.S. unlawfully). All in all, we spend $338.3 on illegal immigrants. Ok, just to make you feel better, I will subtract the 11.2 billion that they pay in taxes, so its really $327.1 billion that we spend. That's 2.5% of our entire national debt! We could be using that money to stimulate the economy! Lets just let the people who play by the rules in here, and not the ones who cheat to get ahead.