BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Conclusion: You have not rebutted the fact that MORE people die if you stop abortions The fact that it is alive is meaningless. A mosquito is a living thing, a bot fly is a living thing and an ISIS member is a living thing! I dont see you protesting the drone strike program that kills thousands of innocent people and i dont see you protesting insecticide that kills billions of insects. Also why bring God into this? I don't care what your God thinks. He kills billions of people in your holy book most for absolutely no reason. Saying God is moral is hilarious because even HE COMMITTED ABORTION. Hosea 13:16 and he sets guidelines for abortion read Numbers 5 Without abortion poverty levels would tremendously increase. The number of unwanted pregancies in the south correlates with its poverty Here watch this video everyone who is watching this debate.
Fox NEWS vs Scholastic

Fox NEWS’s Eric Bolling was recently criticized in a Huffington Post article for accusing school textbook publisher Scholastic of “pushing a liberal agenda. ” Bolling had supported his claim by characterizing statements he found in Scholastic 5th grade textbooks (such as “George Bush went in [Iraq] because he heard there were weapons of mass destruction and they were never found”) as “very liberally biased. ” After linking to the Huffington Post article that called him out for his stupidity, Bolling made the following claim: We (America) ‘went into’ Iraq because radical Islamists killed 3k of ours + Saddam financed. ” Who is correct? Scholastic, the publisher of the 5th grade textbooks in question? Or Fox NEWS’s Eric Bolling? I want to discuss the following claim that has now been propagated on Fox NEWS: “Did we (America) ‘go into’ Iraq because Saddam financed the 9/11 attacks? ” I will play the role of “Pro,” and defend the premise that Scholastic is correct in asserting that the American invasion of Iraq was prompted by the search for weapons of mass destruction. Con will assume the Burden of Proof and defend Fox NEWS’s claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for funding the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed “3k” Americans – and the Iraq War was retaliation for this act. In order to meet the BOP, Con will need to demonstrate that Fox NEWS’s Eric Bolling is correct, and that Scholastic is wrong. I ask that R1 be set aside for acceptance only. I also ask that we not resort to semantic games or “lawyering. ” If these tactics are used, I ask that the judges and readers award their scores accordingly.
Freedom of Speech

It is completely fair that, as humans, we have the right to express ourselves. However, does it justify the continuous misuse of freedom of speech, that some people nowadays are using it to be harmful and/or generate chaos to a nations, as mentioned in the example above? The case here is that we are not only using our right of freedom of speech just to express or inform our opinions towards rape, drugs or murder, as you mentioned, but also to be extremely mean towards people around us, spreading hate about religions, ethnicity, etc. Many people do not measure their words, before saying them out loud to the whole world. Especially on the internet, where anybody can be whoever they want to and say as many absurd things as they feel like saying. There are no limits anymore, and this is not only bad, but also dangerous. How far can it go?
Freedom of Speech

The right to free speech is the foundation of America some people say things that should not be said but that's not just a right as an American that's our right as humans the freedom of speech allows us to understand the feelings of the nation to better the U.S. the right to free speech simply cannot be taken away we need ouir voices to speak out against things such as rape drugs murder without freedom of speech we could never protect the kids of this nation because we couldn't let them know what is out there that they need to watch out for and if we can't tell them then who will freedom of spech isn't just to let people talk it's to protect and secure our nation.
Freedom of Speech

Many might think that there are multiple reasons why we should be for the freedom of speech, but I do not think that our society can see the real struggle behind it. Taking the occurrence in Pakistan back in 2012 as an example, where more than 50 people were murdered, inclusive the U.S. ambassador to Libya, we can see a clear example of where freedom of speech got completely misinterpreted and had a tragic ending. The mainly reason was a hateful Youtube video made in the United States about Islam. "The world is shaken by the depravity of fanatics who have committed acts of insult against the faith of over 1.5 billion Muslims. We strongly condemn these offensive acts, whether it involves the production of a film, the publication of cartoons, or indeed any other acts of insult and provocation. Such acts can never be justified as freedom of speech or expression." - quote by the Afghan President Hamid Karzai Taking this quote in consideration, we can easily relate it to two very recent events in Europe. The shooting in France and Denmark, where freedom of speech took many innocent's lives and shocked the whole world. So the question here is: To what extent is freedom of speech is a good thing?
KFC Burgers are better than its chicken

First off, I have to admit that I haven't had a KFC burger yet. I'm not that fond of burgers generally, But I am a frequent eater-outer and am familiar with KFC chicken. I took an internet peek at the KFC burgers (they look pretty good as presented, Not quite as much in personal photos). I promise to try one by the end of this debate. Okay, Intro out of the way: Let me begin with the comparison I CAN accurately represent. KFC brand chicken is both iconoclast and probably the ultimate in taste of fried chicken almost anywhere, Including the near-second "Heaven-Scent" brand. KFC's primary product is chicken, Specifically the recipie, And that is what made KFC what it is today: There are no "KFC burgers" without Kentucky Fried Chicken resturaunts to offshoot from. KFC chicken is also some of the least expensive per-pound chicken in fast-food (depending on where you live, Of course). It keeps rather well in moisture-constraining containers, Good to reheat. In my area, They offer free delivery with an extra roll-item. This all makes it some of the most convenient but economically tolerable fast-food. For anyone who is worried about cholesterol or caloric intake, The skin can easily be stripped off the chicken or you can order grilled. This is not so easy with the burger, Which looks like it features sauce on BOTH sides of the bun, Making it harder to eat your burger open-faced. For a burger-to-burger comparison: KFC burgers also look to have a larger height-to-breadth ratio than most burgers, Marking them as a side-item on the menu and inferior to the ease of Wendy's burgers or the quality and adaptable form of the Burger King Whopper.
On balance, Euphemistic language causes more damage to our culture than it does good In the USA.

http://www.youtube.com... (10 minutes into video) This debate is supposed to be a debate on euphemisms rather than cancer. Though cancers are diseases involving your cells they very much take on a life of their own. I rest my emphasis on the point of cancer not being a 'part' rather than not being 'yours'. Although there are a few transmittable cancers (among dogs and devils), it's not a point to discuss in the limited venue. Unlike cancer euphemisms are a part of our culture. My point however stands, euphemisms are an integral point of language. Without euphemisms people would be required to say what they mean, and so much of what people mean is in what people don't say rather than what they do. You note that profanity and euphemisms are opposites and that's entirely the point, if you don't have euphemisms you only have profanity left. There's no ability to be coy with your insults or make understandable to one group that comprehends the euphemism and the other ironically lost in the literal meaning. We could only call people apt bits of profanity rather than save those to add oomph in places where they are needed. Our ability to layer things, is a benefit to English and all language. It's a way of saying without saying, of being coy, of keeping a plausible deniability about us. "I do not bite my thumb at you sir, but I do bite my thumb!" The vagueness of language the ability to have euphemisms to say something that we mean in toned down language and wording, is an asset to language rather than a defect. Euphemisms don't damage our culture, euphemisms are an integral part of our culture. It's like saying our livers damage our bodies, when our livers are part of our bodies. You silly goose, bless your heart. Thanks for reading.
On balance, Euphemistic language causes more damage to our culture than it does good In the USA.

My original points have yet to be addressed. extend 1. Wikipedia definition for cancer: Cancer is a class of diseases in which a group of cells display uncontrolled growth. These are YOUR cells that went haywire and started dividing; you cannot successfully argue that the cancerous cells are not part of your body. In essence, your own cells start dividing and your own body works to kill itself. Besides, there are plenty of other examples where a part can damaged the whole. Criminals are part of society, yet they can and do damage the whole (Columbine). If society can damage society, then why can't culture damage culture? 2. "There'd be no shock value at all ..." Why, exactly, would "everybody" be walking around calling people "retarded cunt[s]" just because euphemisms are no longer used? You allude to the fact that euphemisms save the potency of vulgarities, but I do not see the connection. They are opposites; what does trying not to offend someone with a word have to do with trying to offend someone with a word? Why exactly would vulgarities lose potency? 3. Our ability to hide things that are uncomfortable with euphemisms is a weakness, not a strength. Great Poets and writers do not hide behind non-offensive euphemistic language when creating their art; the best art is provocative; not designed not to offend. Our culture would improve if we tried LESS to not offend the sensitive. The vitality of culture is actually harmed by the euphemism; those who offend easily are sated by the euphemism much as those who do not wish not to exercise are sated by a desk job. In both cases fortitude is lacking. Debating the finer points of culture with me is great. But the damage done when the euphemism "concentration camp" is circulated by a government so people don't realize that "death camps" are stripping people of their most basic human rights is more potent than the benefit of someone asking if you want her coffee. Please discuss your link, not just post it.
On balance, Euphemistic language causes more damage to our culture than it does good In the USA.

1) Cancer is not part of your body. There is no cancer part of your body. Cancer is a set of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cellular reproduction. 2) If people didn't use euphemisms then the power of swear words would decrease. The oomph of swear words are directly related to their common usage. If people were unable to use toned down words, then saying what you mean would have no shock value at all. For example: you're a retarded cunt for offering this topic. *GASP* There'd be no shock value at all if everybody went around talking like that instead of using euphemisms as such. 3) Much of the vitality of culture exists in the levels. It's one thing for a girl to ask if you want some coffee and another thing to ask if you want some coffee. If not for euphemisms we'd lose these various levels and much of the coyness of culture. The ambiguity and the euphemisms and the doubletalk are all invaluable parts of culture. Integral and required for the overall health of our ideas. So much of what is said is unsaid. Sure some huckster's use confusing things like "late model" cars to trip up people and draw in customers. But, these people are used car salesmen after all. That isn't a euphemism as much as it's a sales technique. You're asking us to discard a major section of our culture because you wrongly think it's harmful because some some used car salesman decides to use language. Bless your heart, but your wrong. http://www.offthekuff.com...
On balance, Euphemistic language causes more damage to our culture than it does good In the USA.

Pardon me, I should have given a formal definition of euphemistic language, here is a quote from the GOD of reference and reliable foundation of truth, Wikipedia: "A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener". Con made three points which were not directed at my contentions: 1. Can't damage culture with culture. Yes, euphemisms are part of the culture. This doesn't mean that a part of something can't harm the whole. Cancer is part of the body and it definitely can harm it. 2. Ability to be profane. Your point is backfiring on you. Profanity is the exact opposite of euphemistic language. If euphemistic language means to use a less offensive phrase, than please explain exactly how this hurts our ability to be profane. 3. Culture would be duller. Trying to be less offensive is dull? Please extrapolate on this point; I don't follow. You can still have fun with language without euphemisms, can't you? To continue with my unchallenged points, I believe that our euphemisms are damaging our ideas and our ability to communicate. If we are making up new words and phrases that are less offensive, we lose some of the essence of the concept that we are protecting against. My confusion about the "late model" cars, for example. This is inefficient and confusing; it impairs our ability to communicate. Our ideas suffer as well. Our ideas are held in place by exact, clear definitions. If we start to replace our ideas with euphemistic expressions, we are damaging our understanding of these ideas. For example, the dog trainer telling me that the dog is only being "corrected" doesn't convey the full meaning of the phrase "electrically shocked". Perhaps I don't think "correction" is that bad, so I'll be less sensitive to the needs of my puppy and she will be shocked unnecessarily :( -please see profile pics of Caramel for full emotional impact of this contention
On balance, Euphemistic language causes more damage to our culture than it does good In the USA.

Please be aware of the 2,000 character limit. Euphemisms cause more harm than good in our culture. I just bought an invisible fence for my dog. Instead of telling me the dog would be electrically shocked when she nears the edge of my yard, the trainer told me she would be "issued a correction". I saw a tow truck last year that caught my eye. Apparently the owner of it wants to advertise that he services "late model" automobiles (old cars). Isn't "late" supposed to mean "later"? Like as in newer? Toilet paper is now called bathroom tissue. I am getting annoyed by the softening of our language. I believe that marketing by business interests is causing subtle damage to our culture by redefining ideas and changing perspectives. This causes fault and subjectiveness in our ideologies, beliefs, and practices.
A $15 dollar national minimum wage is a poor policy for the US economy

Since pro forfeited the last round, I'm just going to keep going because I'm not satisfied with my argument yet and there are only 3 rounds. It seems obvious that large companies like Walmart, Target, and McDonald's are taking advantage of the minimum wage to make huge profits, and there is no way these companies are going to pay their unskilled laborers any more then the government mandates. Since large companies currently employ the vast majority of minimum wage workers, it makes sense to increase the minimum wage. Full-time employees making minimum wage would no longer receive government assistance, because they would not need it. All companies should be obligated to pay their employees a living wage without the government's assistance. If all full-time employees no longer needed government assistance, that money could be spent elsewhere. http://economicrt.org... Poverty is linked to a number of social issues including obesity, poor health, crime, and many others. Imagine if you could get out of poverty by simply finding any full-time job. You would be able to move to a better neighborhood with better schools, buy healthier food, or further your education and earning power. In other words, we could reduce poverty and crime while improving the health and education opportunities for those who need it most. Increasing minimum wage would have a huge impact on the poorest members of our society and only a small impact on the cost of goods and services. Totally worth it.
A $15 dollar national minimum wage is a poor policy for the US economy

Hello, I'm fairly new to the website as well. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject of raising the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour, but I believe that it would be beneficial to everyone. At first, I was worried that the companies would just absorb the increase by charging their customers more (which they probably will), hiring less people to do more work, and reduce other benefits. It would also mean that people who earn minimum wage would no longer qualify for government assistance programs, which would mean that would have just as much or possibly even less disposable income. That sounds pretty grime, but there are good things that can happen as well. Aetna is a great example of what happens when a company puts a higher value on its lowest paid employees. To summarize, Aetna decided that all of their employees should be paid enough money to live comfortably, so they increased the pay of 5,700 employees. The results were that the company started to save money in a lot of ways. The employees were less stressed, so they delivered better customer service. Their overall health improved, which saves the company money on paid sick leave as well as medical insurance. Of course, there was less employee turnover, which is very costly to employers. http://www.npr.org... When companies invest in their employees, great things happen that benefit everyone.
A $15 dollar national minimum wage is a poor policy for the US economy

Hello All, I just want to begin by saying that this is my first debate on this website so I may be a little hazy on the rules and proper etiquette. For my first debate I decided to choose a policy topic that has been given enormous media attention recently especially with regard to the stance of Presidential candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders. After conducting background research on this topic I have concluded that an increase in the national wage floor to $15 an hour would be a poor policy choice, and I would love to debate this issue with someone knowledgeable on the topic and willing to have a mature discussion. Thank You!
hunting is bad

My opponent says we shouldn't "betray" our own species, but that is not a good defense to why following his logic, we shouldn't be able to kill humans. Why do humans deserve to and animals not, just because we are part of the human species? That is a selfish mentality and a bad excuse for killing a animals. "As far as I know no reputable study has ever shown that plants can "feel pain". They lack the nervous system and brain necessary for this to happen. A plant can respond to stimuli, for example by turning towards the light or closing over a fly, but that is not the same thing." Pain can not happen to plants without these perquisites, my opponent says plants give out distress calls, and therefore that means they feel pain. But that's not true at all because someone giving a distress call means simply they are in danger, not that they feel pain. Unless my opponent is saying distress can not happen without pain. http://www.theguardian.com... I never said life give something the right to live, my opponent just interpreted as that and has used that as his last chance at winning, but it fails to do so. See there is a difference between hunting and self defense which is what my opponent here is confusing. What we do with humans when they attack us, we protect ourselves and the same goes for animals. My opponent says animals are not the same as humans, and yes they aren't, but that doesn't mean lose their right to live due to the selfish mentality revolving around the idea of "only our own have the right to live". Then says they exist for our benefits, says who? What makes you think they exist for our benefit? Because they are made of food, if this is the reason they we go back to where humans have that same things, which by his logic we would kill. Plants don't feel pain, there has been no evidence to say so, and self defense isn't prohibited.
hunting is bad

We can't betray our own species, can we? Although I am not averse to murder. Videos won't have the same effect as they are not real and moreover, the army men didn't cause the death of that animal. Intelligence makes us superior. Have you seen any other organic with guns and cities? No, you haven't. This link shows that plants give distress calls (communicate) when under danger, i.e. in probable pain. http://science.howstuffworks.com... Furthermore, science has sadly classified them under living. And "life is the right of all living beings" Then from the same logic, don't eat plants. "wouldn't they get eaten before they eat all the grass to the point where it's even?" I read in this link there are 50 billion chickens on this planet. They won't kill 50 billion of them at the same time in the wild. And we have cattle to add to that number. While it may not be precise, the actual figure would still be large. Furthermore, thye would raid city supplies as well, and we won't be able to kill them "because they feel pain". http://www.animalethics.org.uk... My opponent only refutes my arguments by saying kill humans as well. But animals are not the same as humans, and they exist for our benefits. We must utilize them before they destroy the world!
hunting is bad

Firstly, my opponent's refutation to my point about how hunting promotes human killing was, "no it doesn't" and then he just stated why hunting was done which is a non sequitur. Then my opponents claim that we are superior because we are more intelligent than animals but fails to provide a reason why intelligence means someone is more superior, because I could think someone is the smartest person in the world, but if he is powerless then how is he superior. And addressing the point about hunting helps the army and police become used to blood, not only does not justify killing an animal, but they can get use to it through videos just as much. And my opponent assumes that I think animals eating other animals isn't barbaric. Which I do think it is. Then he brings up the example that "A lion hunts a deer, we shot the lion. Haven't we done a good favor to the deer?" You also did injustice to the lion, even if he was going to kill the deer. Because killing going against the principle, which is killing is bad. You don't kill a murderer, because you are then just as bad as he is. And my opponent says that since I said animals have the right to live, plants should too, but the difference is that plants don't feel pain. The concept behind this is that animals have feelings, pain, and they even communicate. And my opponent says that cattle and chicken would eat up all the grass and also get eaten by carnivorous animals, but wouldn't they get eaten before they eat all the grass to the point where it's even? Then my opponent says the reason why he thinks it's justified to kill animals is because they will provide us food and much more which by that logic, again humans should be able to be hunted. Then he also says that we have the right to kill them because they have to get hurt and will die anyways. Again by that logic we should be able to kill humans unless my opponent thinks that humans are immortal and never get hurt.