BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

Per the comment section prior to Round 5, I had realized my error in not seeing round 5. This was my error that I apologized for, and will apologize again. No my final rebuttal and Closing:In Round 1 you defined trolling. I have stated this in R2, and R4. I will do so one final time. "Trolling is normal with whoever takes a side as someone on the other side of serious issues will have an emotional response even if the instigator dumbs it down with PC language"This is your quote. I then affirmed the defintion in R4 : "To simply this: you are stating someone takes the opposing side of a debate and argues against someone for the purpose of creating an emotional response, other than relying on the facts of the debate. "This is my quote. You defined trolling, I affirmed it, you did not refute the definition. Therefore trolling has a clear definition listed above. You have stated words with clear definitions can be used to label a person not resulting in a insult. "Facts are 100%, as are actions that result in a label"Since you have defined, and I have affirmed a clear definition of "trolling", by your logic this can not be an insult. You in no way have said troll=fool until the final round. You cannot change the definition of a word to fit your argument this late in the debate.
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

I assume you will rebut as the debate is not over yet, but the fact remains that no matter how many times you compare the word troll or trolling to other words with clear definitions you cannot define what trolling is or who is a troll. Facts are 100%, as are actions that result in a label, such as your example of murderer, they killed someone, fact. Troll is more similar to the label fool, which could be used by anyone as a demeaning term for their adversary. Troll is exactly like that, it is a judgement and not a fact. http://thoughtcatalog.com... I guess when I call Al Gore a green hypocrite, I may be trolling, but more likely that is a fact, however the Al Gore fans would say I am trolling or call me troll most likely. Troll is a defamatory name calling approach to a debate, fact, but it is unable to be proven or defined unless the trolls statements can be disproved with 100% accuracy. Con has continually used the same examples so this should clearly be a win for Pro, and they even tried to end the debate 1 round early. That was fun, Thanks!
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

Your definition of troll was loosely laid out in your R1 opening. I reiterated your defintion in R2. This went unopposed, therefore the definition stands. Troll: "Trolling is normal with whoever takes a side as someone on the other side of serious issues will have an emotional response even if the instigator dumbs it down with PC language"\To simply this: you are stating someone takes the opposing side of a debate and argues against someone for the purpose of creating an emotional response, other than relying on the facts of the debate. Murder and Lying are actions. Murderer and Liar are titles of a person who ahs committed the acts. Not insults. You misinterpretting Connotation vs. Denotation. Connation: what a word impliesDenotation: what a word literally means. http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com...If someone is trolling, and you call them a troll, you are stating the literally fit the description of their action. Pro has stated they have trolled. Therefore Pro is a troll by literal defintiion (denotation). " Troll is purely subjective " Incorrect. There is nothing subjective about calling someone a troll who has committed "trolling". Pro has failed to meet BoP by his own defintions of "troll" and "trolling". Troll is a label, but not for the purpose of name-calling. It is a label to identify the actions of trolling. Thank you for the debate.
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com... It is unfortunate that you are unable determine the meaning of insult so here is some help. I do find the terms liar, murder and troll insulting however liars must lie, murderers must kill, now please define trolling and what an act of trolling is. It is perfectly subjective, there is no true or false to trolling, it is in the eye of the beholder, or he who calls the name. I could suggest that someone writing a strong opinion for abortion is trolling, but someone who is for abortion would say the are not. Would the person I called troll feel insulted? Most likely they would because they did not feel that was their intent, their intent was to promote their opinion, whether they used harsh words or not. The fact is that anyone can feel insulted by any label if it is not 100% accurate which would be liar or murderer, they are or are not. Troll is purely subjective and your comparisons leave much to be desired as far as being valid.
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

My references are not invalid. Dahmer committed murder. Therefore he is a murderer. Murderer is not an insult. Muderer describes someone who has committed murder. If you call someone a troll, who is not trolling, that is not an insult, it is simply incorrect.If you call someone a troll, who is/has been a part of a trolling argument, is a description of the person and their actions. It is not an insult. Now if you're argument was on an overuse of the word troll, I would agree with you as it does not apply to some debates on this website.If I call you a biker, and you have never ridden a bike I am not insulting you, I am solely incorrect.(to apply this term to a word with a less than favorable connotation to society)...If I call you a liar, I believe you are lying. I am not insulting you, I am describing your action. If you did not lie, I am still not insulting you, I am just descriving you wrong. People may not agree on what is exactly trolling in a given situation, but if they believe they have been "trolled" by another person, calling them a trol is based solely on their actions (most likely in a debate scenario). Pro has only used one source, a Wikipedia entry on the term Trolling (based on the internet slang).Pro has not used any sources, polls, or surveys to describe how describing how many people use the term troll to "increase their own self esteem". Nor has Pro refuted my point that describing someone by the action they have done is not insulting.
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

The point of my argument is that anyone can call anyone a troll, and if they call that person a troll, and the person is not intentionally trolling, then it is a pejorative term as it is meant to stereotype and diminish the argument of the troll. I have sarcastically said that I am proud to be a troll, only because that means my argument has resulted in the inability of the other debater to come with an intelligent argument and has created a situation where they must resort to name calling to increase their own self esteem. I would never consider stating my opinion to be intentionally trolling, however that is the label that is applied when some of my comments are read by people that disagree. Trolling is not necessarily intentional by anyone that is labeled troll, however depending what side of the argument a person is on, someone supporting one side or the other is free to call the other a troll. Does that mean that they are trolling or is it just a subjective label that anyone could apply to anyone? As far as Dahmer goes, it is indisputable that he was a murderer, that is not open to opinion, so I hope the voters appreciate that your reference is invalid.
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

Pro has stated in R1: "I am proud to troll" Therefore if someone is to call him a troll, he is proud of that fact, not insulted by it. Nevertheless my argument still shows "Troll" is not an insult, but a description. "Trolling is a pejorative term and subjective therefore it is simply a name calling strategy to diminish the validity of a persons comments." Trolling is an act, as admitted by Pro, therefore it is not pejorative[1] (disapproving or contempt) or subjective, as an action, of trolling is clearly defined by Pro in R1. The term "troll" can certainly be considered pejorative. You may disagree with the action someone committed, but describing someone by that action is not an insult. Pejorative is a subjective term, as not every may find a certain act disapproving. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer[2] is a murderer. The term murderer is not an insult, as I am just describing Dahmer by one of the actions he committed; murder. I have complete disapproval of murder, making the term murderer pejorative in my eyes. In a less extreme scenario, vegetarians may disapprove of someone eating meat. Therefore the term 'meat-eaters' is pejorative to the vegetarian, but this is not an insult, just a description of the action. If you were to be "trolling" this debate currently (which you are not) I most certainly can call you a troll without it being an insult because you are acting out the verb. I have given several examples of the informal noun describing a verb in R2. In conclusion, my argument still stands as follows, if someone has "trolled" a debate (which you admit to previously doing and being proud of that) and said person is called a "troll" it is merely a description of action, not an insult. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://crime.about.com...
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

I have admitted to the act of trolling as that is what I have been labeled by those that feel I am a troll. That fact does not excuse or change the basis of the debate that trolls, or trolling for that matter is a name calling response to an argument that doesn't meet the politically correct criteria of the name caller. Con has not submitted an argument yet that has any valid points to disprove my statements. Trolling is a pejorative term and subjective therefore it is simply a name calling strategy to diminish the validity of a persons comments. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

I will accept the Con argument and argue the calling someone a 'Troll' is not an insult.Pro has inferred the definition of troll as " Trolling is normal with whoever takes a side as someone on the other side of serious issues will have an emotional response even if the instigator dumbs it down with PC language"He has used the associated verb 'trolling' thereby creating trolling into an action. The person doing the action of the verb can be called the informal noun form of the verb. Someone whois biking is a biker. is playing is a playeris sleeping is a sleeperis watching is a watcheris killing is a killeris trolling is a troller.A troll is someone who has commited that act of trolling. Therefore troll is not an insult, simply a statement of actions of a troller.Pro has admitted to the act of trolling. And therefore can be considered a troll in a descriptive manner.
Trolling is just a label, a name calling kind of thing.

Most debaters are trolls, unless they are debating an inconsequential issue with humor or another featherweight issue. Trolling is normal with whoever takes a side as someone on the other side of serious issues will have an emotional response even if the instigator dumbs it down with PC language. I am proud to troll, but calling me a troll is insulting, however offensive and stupid the anti troll's beliefs are. Calling someone a troll is a defense mechanism, it is basically saying that the troll is tougher then me and called me out so I will label them. Good luck, here is your chance to troll, may the best troll win!
Im_always_right dislikes Solarman1969 more than Padfo0t does.

Your logic is not logical. Dear Im_always_right. I really hate Solarman1969, i do. He is a 'rood', arrogant bas**** than needs to be terminated from his position as a debater. Yes. Also, Solarman1969 is a good addition to debate.org. Kinda like the joker and batman. He completes us. It is very very amusing to defeat him in a debate in which he cannot win, and it is even more amusing to watch him get crushed in rather easy debates against inexperianced opponents. He is so ready to hate anyone he talks to. This completion almost completely counteracts my hatred of him, leaving me with the slightest dislike of Solarman1969. In conclusion, you dislike Solarman1969 more than i do.
Im_always_right dislikes Solarman1969 more than Padfo0t does.

LOL... Okay, I strongly hate Solerman1969, along with other insulting people, such as ps2boy. Who now has no account. However I believe we are tied in our dislike for him, if not padfo0t hates him more. My reasoning, when I expreced a dislike for him, my opponent, padfo0t, said I was a good person. Therefore PAdfo0t must dislike him more than I do.
Women registering for Selective Service

I do not support women being forced to register for the Selective Service. In fact, I do not support the Selective Service agency at all. Forcing anybody at any age to leave their homes and families to go off to a foreign nation to fight people who aren't actively attacking the nation is an absolutely barbaric system that needs to be stopped. Not since World War Two has there been a time in which Americans were in any real danger of being attacked. However, the system remained, likely due to the paranoia during the Cold War and after 9/11. Not once, however, did a Soviet bomb California, and while there have been terrorist attacks after 9/11 in America, the total number of people killed by violent jihadists since 9/11 has been 95, including the recent Orlando nightclub shooting. This means that yesterday, there were more deaths caused by violent right wing shooters than there were deaths caused by terrorists. (1) America does not need more soldiers than they already have. (1) http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
Women registering for Selective Service

"In a perfect world we wouldn't need insurance right? Well that's why car Insurance, life insurance, medical insurance etc exist. Selective Service is like an insurance, we hope it never has to come to that but if need be we will have some form of coverage if a necessity arises." The primary difference here is that car and health insurance only gives you money to help you go buy a new car or pay your medical bills or whatever. The Selective Service is a type of insurance that switches money for people's lives... "You're very right it's an inhumane system that should be stopped. However it is a necessity, what if a conflict actually arises that puts the US in danger? Well without Selective Service the military would be delayed in drawing necessary manpower to defend the US. You have to understand if politicians actually impose the draft it'd be political suicide unless it is actually a legitimate reason." If they'll never use the soldiers in Selective Service, which is basically a draft with all the paperwork filled out ahead of the time, then why should it exist? Sure, it's good to have some of them, like with money in the bank or being insured, but these are people, with loved ones who don't want to hear about them being destroyed in some sort of raid... "We had to draft 11,535,000 men to fight WWII, does it mean all of them faced combat or were deployed? No. Again there is a difference between the draft and Selective Service." No, not all of them faced combat. But they all could have. That's my main issue, the possibility. Gambling is not a good way to decide who should be given what chance of being blown to bits... There is very little difference between the draft or selective service. "Selective Service has nothing to do with violent jihadists or the recent Orlando shooting, we fought two wars Afghanistan and Iraq with an all volunteer force. We did not have to use Selective Service to draft men as enough men and women volunteered to serve in the military. Again Selective Service is a very cheap insurance, it doesn't mean there will actually be a draft. But if we ever need one Selective Service will be there." Violent jihadists are, according to many people today, the greatest threat to America. They would be who the draft would be getting people to go kill if it happened today. I did not know that all soldiers during the Afghanistan and Iraq war were volunteers, but doesn't that just strengthen my point that we don't need Selective Service? In order to hunt down the group that killed over 2,000 people in New York, all we needed were people who were up for it and willing to go do it. We don't need a draft, or any standby soldiers who have already signed up against their will to go do it. And that's what the Selective Service is, a group of standby, ready to go soldiers who didn't have a choice in the matter...
God is Alive

I personally don't believe in god because there are no facts to prove that he does or ever did exist. Although I think the idea of god is ridiculous I don't, nor have I ever, condemned those who believe otherwise. I find it difficult to believe something that is in this world impossible to prove especially in a scientific fashion. Furthermore, I understand that certain religions believe that god placed us on this planet, but there are many other more plausible answers. Even though we currently do not posses this knowledge, and its very likely we never will, we should not jump to conclusions. In conclusion, I believe that god has not been proven and is NOT alive.
abortion should be legal if rape or incest

I think that abortion should be legal if you have been raped by a relative or a random stranger. Imagine if you got raped and pregnant then you had to carry that baby for NINE months. Waking up everyday with that child having to relive that situation over and over again. Yes, God wouldn't want you to kill a child but he wouldn't want this to happen to you also. F.Y.I- I am not saying that killing a baby is alright. I am against killing a baby if you are just playing around.
Whether or not Donald Trump should be president.

I am not a Trump supporter. I don't like his attitude or his policies. He is a buffoon. BUT...This is America. We are a democracy. He has the support in the Republican party and will most likely get the nomination. Now if he can win the general is another debate, but if he does...he won it fair and square. That is democracy. Sometimes we get bad leaders. But let's look deeper. We have elected worse and people with less qualifications. Herbert Hoover was a businessman. He gave food, ammo, and money to the government during WWI, became apart of president Harding's and Coolidge's cabinet. He was the equivalent of Bill Gates in his fame. He became president...Great Depression...did nothing...bad president. We elected James Buchanan who has one of the most impressive resumes in history. He did everything. Ambassadors to many countries and lawmaker on major legislation. Became president...Bloody Kansas...did nothing...bad president. Resume doesn't really matter. George Washington has no political experience and SUCKED as a British officer. Lincoln was just a junior Senator. Should and shouldn't on this cannot be about qualifications. It is about support. I support democracy. How about you?
it is possible to travel a finite distance for an infinite amount of time

I have looked at many sources and can refute all her points except one. That time exists. While argue that time exists and she argues that it is man made I cannot find any substantial proof to support my claim. The sources of information that I have looked at and might be able to use could also all be used by my opponent. So based on this I cannot refute her argument. Because of this I cannot prove that it is actually possible but only theoretically possible. Because I cant prove it is actually possible I concede the debate to my opponent however I do wish to get some points on certain areas as I believe I have not done so horrible a job as to deserve zero points.
it is possible to travel a finite distance for an infinite amount of time

My argument as stated as the topic is that it is possible for an object to travel for an infinite amount of time towards another object. My opening point will be a mathematical one. If you only ever travel half the distance then you will never reach your end point thus making it possible to travel forever towards one point. In order for my opponent to win he has to prove that it is absolutely impossible for one object to travel a finite distance for an infinite amount of time.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

I disagree. The Death Penalty should not be abolished. Many will argue that asserting the Death Penalty is cruel and inhumane, however, the people that the Death Penalty is given to have more often than not committed some crime that is also cruel and inhumane. Life without parole is really giving the people that have committed those heinous crimes a life with free food, free television, free housing, free medical care, and a free gym membership. The government's money goes into keeping prisons running to keep those dangerous to our society locked up so we Americans can try to live the safest life possible. Allowing every serial killer, rapist, and homicidal maniac the ability to stay alive and well under the housing of the American's people money that they are a danger to is actually quite ironic. "Do Unto Others" right? Then what goes around, comes around, I suppose. They eat up American money, and let's be honest, the government doesn't do such a great job with money, and there is not enough room to keep everyone there. If they have done something so heinous that a jury of their peers think they should be put to death, then that is saying something. You cannot rehabilitate every criminal that gets arrested, especially people that get the Death Penalty. With that being said, the best way to keep Americans safe is to remove those people completely.