BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cunt is not a vulgar word

con says "3) Just because something is, er, "beautiful", does not make it not vulgar. C*nt=swear word=indecent=vulgar." note con says "C*nt=swear word=indecent=vulgar." " I told con that in the poem it is obvious that c*nt is not a swear word I asked con " to tell us why the word 'c*nt' is vulgar when it used to refer to the female genitalia and why it is vulgar when used in a very obvious beautiful way con has not told us again "'c*nt' is vulgar when it used to refer to the female genitalia and why it is vulgar when used in a very obvious beautiful way" con says "1). I did tell you which standard. I said I live in America, so obviously I going off an American culture. However, I did show that even in England, c*nt is vulgar as it cannot be said on TV. " which America you talking about - so con are you telling us that American standards of decency should be the whole worlds which America you talking about the: religious middle class working class underclass subculture if you say the majority of Americans then a real lot of Americans and UK look at a lot of porn on the net -make them hypocrites dont you think if they object to the word c*nt if con is refering to the majority of Americans are these Americans part of your majority http://newsfeed.time.com... "In 2013, 12 percent of American adults reported to watching porn on the Internet, twice as many as reported doing so in 2006. 25 percent of men copped to watching porn, while only 8 percent of women admitted to it. Those are pretty low numbers considering the ubiquity of the genre. Pew does note that its own numbers probably underestimate the real total of online porn-watching Americans due to a possible "reluctance to report the behavior among some adults." not being aloud on TV means nothing as TV caters for the lower dumb nut just like DDO does they dont want hassells from idiots so they take the lowest dumb nut as a guide to standards -from all accounts a real lot of Americans and UK look at a lot of porn on the net -make them e hypocrites dont you think if they object to the word c*nt when asked why c*nt is vulgar when it refers to a beautiful thing all con says is "C*nt=swear word=indecent=vulgar." " but I have told con that the word c*nt is not used as a swear word in the poem but again just tell us why when not used as a swear word "'c*nt' is vulgar when it used to refer to the female genitalia and why it is vulgar when used in a very obvious beautiful way" if you want then I must win the debate
cunt is not a vulgar word

Oh my god. What is even the point of debating you when you don't even read my response, or half of it. Either that, or you are being purposefully misleading, and I wouldn't put it past you.1). I did tell you which standard. I said I live in America, so obviously I going off an American culture. However, I did show that even in England, c*nt is vulgar as it cannot be said on TV. 2) Yeah, you really don't understand what a cuss word is, do you? No matter if it is being, um, "beautifully" (the idea of CLD's poem being beautiful s laughable at best) used. Just like dick is a swear word, and penis is not. Dick is vulgar, and penis is not. Dick, even if referring to a penis, is a vulgar word. Do I have to show you the chart, again? Dick=swear word=indecent=vulgar.3) Just because something is, er, "beautiful", does not make it not vulgar. C*nt=swear word=indecent=vulgar.I see you didn't even try to correct your spelling and grammar.
cunt is not a vulgar word

con says "My position is elitist? I listed a dictionary definition, but I apologize for that... I guess? " you cant back step now you used that definition and I replied so 1) tell us WHOSE STANDARDS are offended and in WHICH country and which of a particular groups standards are you saying should be the norm if you cant then you have not proved your position- and I must win 2) you ask me "So please, please, show why c*nt is not a vulgar word" the word 'cunt" was used in the poem referred to http://www.scribd.com... it is not used as a swear word it obviously refers to the female genitalia the female genitalia is not vulgar so the word referring to it cant be vulgar in the context of the poem c*nt is described as a very beautiful thing-it is used in a very beauty way and context -so it cant be vulgar as that would be inconsistent with the poem itself now you have to tell us why the word 'c*nt' is vulgar when it used to refer to the female genitalia and why it is vulgar when used in a very obvious beautiful way
Marijuana should be decriminalized.

Nothing that you have used to defend your stance is fact. You really don't know what your talking. Most of what you have used to defend your argument is a lie. I am going to continue stating the facts. One fact that surley deserves attention is that in these times of fiscal belt-tightening and tight state budgets, marijuana decriminalization makes good economic sense. For example, a 2002 study conducted by Boston University professor and economist Jeffrey Miron found that decriminalizing marijuana would save Massachusetts law enforcement an estimated $24.3 million. Also, today one in every eight inmates incarcerated for drug crimes is behind bars for pot, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion per year. I urge everyone to support marijuana decriminalization. It is just common sense. We need to stop calling peacefull marijuana smokers criminals.
Marijuana should be decriminalized.

If you have been smoking the drug for 2 years and just stop, you will go through withdrawl. I know this because I also have been for a while too, and eventually just quit. After i stopped I nocticed that my grades have been improving and now I am almost an straight A student in Highschool. The NIDA state facts about Marijuana annualy, here are some to take into consideration. Marijuana has serious harmful effects on the skills required to drive safely: alertness, concentration, coordination, and reaction time. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road. Marijuana may play a role in car accidents. In one study conducted in Memphis, TN, researchers found that, of 150 reckless drivers who were tested for drugs at the arrest scene, 33 percent tested positive for marijuana, and 12 percent tested positive for both marijuana and cocaine. Data have also shown that while smoking marijuana, people show the same lack of coordination on standard "drunk driver" tests as do people who have had too much to drink. This proves that Marijuana can alter the human brain and cause things to happen when they shouldn't. Heres antother fact to take into consideration: Some studies show that when people have smoked large amounts of marijuana for years, the drug takes its toll on mental functions (4). Heavy or daily use of marijuana affects the parts of the brain that control memory, attention, and learning. A working short-term memory is needed to learn and perform tasks that call for more than one or two steps. Smoking marijuana causes some changes in the brain that are like those caused by cocaine, heroin, and alcohol. Scientists are still learning about the many ways that marijuana can affect the brain.
Marijuana should be decriminalized.

Let me first respond to your argument. Smoking marijuana does not make people stupid. It does not destory lives and health. I have been smoking for 2 years and have not seen any effect on my health or thought process. Even if it did, the effects of marijuana are far less worse than those of tabbacco and alcohol. People should be able to chose wether or not they want to hurt their health. Otherwise law-abiding citizens who smoke marijuana responsibly are not part of the crime problem, and we must stop treating them like criminals. In 2005, the last year for which we have data, law enforcement arrested over 785,000 persons for marijuana violations. This total far exceeds the total number of arrests for all violent crime combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Surely, our limited law enforcement resources would be better served targeting more serious and violent crimes. Marijuana decriminalization currently enjoys support from the majority of Americans. According to the latest CNN/Time Magazine poll on the subject, 72% of Americans favor a fine over criminal penalties for the possession of marijuana. According to government statistics, approximately 80 million Americans self-identify as having used cannabis at some point in their lives, and relatively few acknowledge having suffered significant deleterious health effects due to their use. America's public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.
Marijuana should be decriminalized.

Well to start off, legalizing Marijuana can jepordize the education of many kids in public and private schooling. When legalizing Marjiuana many people can get addicted and ruin their chances of potential opportunties of their life. There is no positive side of Marijuana and even medicinal marijuana has no positive effect. Marijuana side effects come from smoking or consuming the drug and marijuana side effects influence the mind and body of the user. Marijuana side effects can be as seemingly innocent as an increased appetite to as life threatening as lung cancer. Increased likelihood for accidents is also one of the marijuana side effects. Studies show that 6 to 11 percent of fatal accidents are contributed to by marijuana side effects. Other external marijuana side effects include legal problems, work and financial problems and troubles at home.
Marijuana should be decriminalized.

Thirty-five years ago, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse – chaired by former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer – recommended Congress amend federal law so that the use and possession of pot would no longer be a criminal offense. The Commission concluded: "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. … It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance." The Commission recommended, for the first time, that Congress enact a national policy of marijuana ‘decriminalization,' whereby the possession of cannabis for personal use as well as the casual distribution of small amounts of marijuana for little-or-no remuneration would no longer be a criminal offense. Marijuana isn't harmless and the proponents of decriminalization do not claim that it is. However, pot's relative risks to the user and society are less than those of alcohol, and do not warrant the continued arrest of more than 785,000 Americans on marijuana charges every year.
Liberal(pro) vs Conservative(con)

Researchers say that domestic terrorism is more common than international terrorism. The shooting in Florida came from a U. S citizen and we have been taking 75,000 Syrian refugees per year since 2011. If it was such problem like you said it was, then that's why we have gun control. Usually Liberal ideology states that Syrian Refugees can't have guns, so they can't do anything. Now I am to address liberal vs conservative moral rights. (Round 3 is going to be economic rights). I believe that gay marriage should be legal and there should be more secularism in this country. For gay marriage, I believe that it should be legal because it's not causing any problems. Conservatives say that gay marriage is "not natural" while there was gay marriage for a long time. Also being gay is a birth defect, it's not a choice and they can't help it. For more secularism, I believe that schools should stop teaching about religion. Religion is ruining humanity. If religion didn't exist than we would be 1,000 years ahead of our time. Plus all 3 major religions teach bad morals, and lessons about the world that are simply not true. For example, in the bible(including the Jewish bible and the Quran) it is said that the world is 6,000 years old. Now we both know that is simply not true and there is evidence against that. But there is many people who believe that. Fun fact: In this country there are more churches, temples, and mosque than there are schools. If we never had religion we wouldn't be wasting money on these churches. These religions are stopping people from becoming doctors and scientists with there lies. For example, people believe that cells, and dinosaurs aren't real while they believe in a huge flood that flooded most of the earth. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that one book is the evidence for all humanity's origins or thousands of scientific research and experiments is the evidence for humanity's origins? I would stop all funding to anything religion related and I would make public schools ban practicing religion. Write your response in the next box
Liberal(pro) vs Conservative(con)

Conservative beliefs are more beneficial to modern America. First, we don't believe in open borders. One thing we are currently doing that is not so great is taking in so many Syrian refugees. Why aren't any Middle Eastern countries carrying the load? Why does Europe have to suffer because of something unrelated to them? France and Germany are becoming worser by the hour. Multiple attacks gave been carried out on innocent citizens. Now, we're doing the same. The result? One of the largest mass shootings in American history. The man had several ties to ISIS. We are letting in people that we have no clue who they are. Its terrible what's going on in Syria, but we have other problems, such as homelessness. We need to start treating our citizens better than potentially dangerous immigrants.
People should not celebrate Columbus day, and not look up to him

Since Pro has forfeited two rounds rather than actually concede the round, despite the fact that I commented and PMd her asking to do so because she's been debating on other rounds, and because she said sources were a must and yet never provided them, I respectfully ask for the conduct vote.Because my opponent did not provide any sources and I provided seven, I respectfully ask for the Sources vote.Because the S/G vote is mostly opinionated, I can't ask for it.Because My case negates my opponent's by proving she cannot fulfill Burden of Proof through showing reasons why Columbus Day should be celebrated in America and why he should be looked up to, I respectufully ask for the arguments vote.
People should not celebrate Columbus day, and not look up to him

I'll take this one, I can imagine some of your arguments but it should be interesting to see your stance. I suggest a shared Burden of Proof in the round, where you have to prove why shouldn't celebrate/idolize him and I have to prove why we should. Furthermore, as the resolution clearly states "and", in order for the resolution to stand you must prove that we should both prove we shouldn't celebrate his holiday AND that we shouldn't look up to him, and I only have to prove one of those two stances wrong in order for the resolution to be negated. That being said, good luck and I'm looking forward to the debate :)
If one rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, they can not be considered a Christian.

I would just like to quickly define the Trinity, so there is no misunderstanding. Trinity -- Trinity simply means "triunity. " When properly understood, Trinitarians believe that the Trinity is one God but three separate persons. This means that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit, but the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. This is not one God in three different offices, as some pseudo-Christian sects believe. And this is not tritheism, three separate gods. Trying to accuse Trinitarians of holding a disguised "polytheistic" belief is a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. As Norman Geisler would add, "The Trinity is one of the great mysteries of the Christian faith. * Unlike an antinomy** or paradox, which is a logical contradiction, the Trinity goes beyond reason but not against reason. It is known only by divine revelation, so the Trinity is not the subject of natural theology but of revelation. " [1]*By mystery, it is not meant in a "mysterious" sort of way, but rather something of which "there is no contradiction, but we do not have total comprehension. " [2]**An antinomy is an actual contradiction, paradox, or antithesis. [3] Geisler's usage of antinomy in this passage is to contrast it with one of Kant's reasons for his Agnosticism, that reality apparently contains antinomies, or logical contradictions. [4][1] Geisler, Norman L. , Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, 2000), p. 730. [2] ibid. , p. 515. [3] ibid. , p. 28. [4] ibid. , p. 402.
If one rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, they can not be considered a Christian.

I first want to start by thanking KeytarHero for his consideration of this debate and hope he kindly accepts. I have recently come across a debate where KeytarHero debated that Mormons are not Christians. A main justification of reasoning was that Mormons rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and therefore could not be considered orthodox Christians. I will take the stance that rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity is actually more rooted in original Christianity than acceptance of it. I will address the origins of the Trinity including its tie to the Council of Nicaea, its doctrinal issues from the Bible and how overall the belief is flawed. I look forward to this debate and your prompt acceptance.
We should spank our children and our cats

Children need to be spanked when they act out of line. So do animals. Animals are instinctive creatures. A momma bear will spank her cub when it misbehaves! We should do the same for small children. Human children act instinctively at such a young age (children meaning 4 or younger) too. They should get spanked when they misbehave so they can know that it is unacceptable behavior because they are unable to fully grasp the magnitude of their misbehaving actons!
Should there be an amendment to ban abortion

The questions you pose are good ones, but not issues that any government is qualified to answer. Does a human life begin at birth? At conception? Or after it has survived a hundred days? All of those are accepted standards somewhere in the world. According to common law and tradition in the Western world, life begins when a baby takes it's first breath. Before that it's a fetus with no rights, civil or otherwise. Inserting a government into a theological argument is to move the nation towards theocracy.
Should there be an amendment to ban abortion

I would to first say that the government does is in fact qualified to pass an amendment or law to ban abortion, because it doesn't infringe on any rights. Now my opponent will combat this by saying what about a women's right to choose, to answer that I say what if the baby is a girl, does she get a choice? Also anther question is what if rapes involved or it's a teenage girl whose pregnant, adoption is a much better option. As for his statement that no one gets an abortion unless they need one, that is utterly wrong, most people go straight to this option.
Should there be an amendment to ban abortion

Nobody gets an abortion except if there is no other choice. If there is anyone who is actually pro-abortion, I've never seen or heard of them. Abortion is sometimes the best of a menu of bad choices, and for that reason it must be an available choice. Population growth is a terrible argument, since we are already over-populated even today, and we have exceeded the natural carrying capacity for humans in the US. http://www.carryingcapacity.org... But the real deciding argument against abortion laws is that no govt is qualified to pass such laws.
Is it better to an optimist or a pessimist

In the Pro's last round, he claimed that, in theory, when facing the truth of knowing one probably won't live through a disease of some sort, they should just give up and accept it, while also living out their dreams to the best of their ability. With this statement, many could argue that living out one's dreams is the ideal objective of an optimist: To enjoy life to its fullest while becoming happy in the process. That being said, I won't ramble on in this round since the Pro did not use his 1st round to debate his side, so I will now conclude my final words and leave this up to the voters. Thank you TBSmothers for the debate and the voters for voicing their opinions.
Is it better to an optimist or a pessimist

The con stated that "people can still make the 'rational choice' of being positive about their lives by being optimistic" in the previous round. My question is, are you really making the "rational choice" by being an optimist? Since the con brought up FDR last round lets talk about people diagnosed with fatal illnesses. In my opinion if you are diagnosed with a fatal illness you should accept that you most likely won't be around long. People who do this(who may be called pessimistic) will begin to spend much more time with their family, and do the things that they have always dreamed of. This is much better than unrealistically believing that you will get better, which will cause you to not use your limited time left wisely. So I guess the question I want the voters to think about is, is it better to sacrifice long term goals for your short term happiness? I would choose the former, but that is up for you to decide.
Is it better to an optimist or a pessimist

Pro brought up some valid points in their last argument, such as pessimists making more "rational choices", with "rational choices" being defined as more reasonable than those of an optimist. However, when it comes down to it, isn't being a pessimist a choice in itself? Some might argue that people are in general clinically depressed or diagnosed with a certain disorder or something to that effect, but many of these people tend to look on the bright side of things and be thankful for what they have instead of what their missing. Just take Franklin D. Roosevelt for example, one of our many great presidents of the United States, he was diagnosed with infantile paralysis, or better known as Polio. In spite of his many challenges that he had to overcome because of this unfortunate happening, FDR still managed to look on the better side of things according to this quote from http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu..., "Due to his bright personality, FDR insisted that he be surrounded by 'good cheer' throughout his rehab process'. So, even in the grimmest circumstances, people can still make the "rational choice" of being positive about their lives by being optimistic instead of being the constant downer that pessimists are known for. I shall now stand by for the Pro's response to my claims.
Is it better to an optimist or a pessimist

Con's major argument in round one was that "optimism leads to a much happier life", and this is something that I can agree with. Though there is much more to life than being happy, in fact being happy is just icing on the cake, and although icing is nice it will never be the flour needed to make the cake. Optimist often times sugar-coat life, which prevents them from making the more reasonable choices that a pessimist would make. For example optimist will always see their cups as being half full(and will be completely content with this), but pessimist will see their cup being half empty and will do the smart thing which is getting a refill. In other words pessimist are much more rational when making life choices, while optimist, with their super positive, will never do what is necessary since they don't think anything is wrong to begin with. The con also stated that " bystanders would be much thankful that they crossed paths with an optimist". This is only true because people don't like hearing the truth that pessimist often times offer. So in conclusion pessimist may not be as happy as optimist, but they live much better lives due to their rational view of things. I await your response getREKT420. Really, half alive?