BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Grammar is more important than conversation skills

In order to persuade somebody, a person is supposed to say his opinion in an understandable way, which is impossible to imagine without grammar. Thus, in order to be persuasive, just the ability to speak isn't enough. It's also essential to speak correctly, to that your interlocutors can see that you are a literate person. In this debate, "grammar is more important than conversation skills", I mean a situation when a person begins learning a new language. What is more important to learn first? Grammar or conversation skills? I think grammar. Yes, maybe those, who began learning conversation skills firstly, will be more fluent in a language. But he or she will speak in a wrong way, with many mistakes. I suppose it would be better to speak less fluent but correctly rather than very fast but using inappropriate tenses and confusing the irregular verbs. If learning grammar is easier than communication skills, it doesn't mean that conversation skills are more important. it just means that more time is required for learning these skills. Also, you said that those who have conversation skills know grammar "by default". But in order to get these knowledge "by default", they have to devote a certain for studying and practicing grammar, because the knowledge doesn't come from nothing.
Grammar is more important than conversation skills

Conversation skills are of utmost importance in persuading. Persuasion is a very important factor in life. From blandishments to coercions, persuasion is the way to get our way. A world without persuasion is a world with every person only accounts their own experiences when making a decision. That would mean chaos. A world without grammar is even worse, because then we would be limited to body language and facial expressions just like animals. But the reality is, a world where grammar doesn't exist among us would be very unlikely given our current circumstances, whereas a world without persuasion (by our grasp of the word) is also not likely, but there is a stubborn tendency within humans to deny other people's statements when they oppose our own. There must be a clarification on the instigator's part in order for this debate to continue without confusion. When he asked of importance, did he mean importance in a hypothetical "world without grammar versus world without conversation skills", or did he mean importance that is applicable to reality? In accordance to reality, conversation skills are more important than grammar. This is due to the grammar of a specific language almost always being learned with ease as a first language. Conversation skills, on the other hand, are developed throughout one's childhood and adulthood alike. This means that most of the time, people need to learn more about conversation skills rather than grammar, as they already have picked up on grammar. Furthermore, if somebody has conversation skills, then they by default know enough grammar to communicate vocally using language. If somebody is comes to the United States from a foreign country with western morals (like France or Germany) and speaks only a little bit of English, we won't judge him or her by his or her usage of grammar, but rather by his or her ability to communicate what he or she does know. The goal of both grammar use and conversation skills is to communicate. Persuasion is, in this scenario, limited to conversation skills. So the question that this argument comes down to is "Is it better to know more of something (grammar), or is it better to put something into practice (conversation skills)?" Universally, it is believed that practice is greater than knowledge. Why would this be any different?
Pulling the Plug

Many are familiar with the conundrum of whether or not to pull the plug for a patient who is in a death-like state in a hospital bed. For anyone who is not familiar, in this situation, there is a patient (could be a friend or family member), who is in some kind of state of sickness and/or state of not being able to move or communicate (ex. a coma). This person is lying in a hospital bed and has not been able to communicate with his/her family members or friends so no one knows how much the person is actually suffering. The conundrum is whether or not to end the person's supposed (but with good reason believed) suffering by pulling the plug on a heart monitor and ending their life or leaving the person be and seeing if/when they wake up. I am arguing that the plug should not be pulled. I believe that the person's life should not be ended on supposed suffering. I look forward to seeing what information my opponent will put forth in this debate.
Gay Marriage

I hope the con is able to add a closing statment, but if not I assume it is as he thinks I have won! Gay marriage is something we must give Gay people. They deserve the right to reap the government benefits of actually being married, for one thing, even if you beleive they shouldn't religiously be aloud to marry you have to agree lifelong couples should get these benefits. Gay people do exist and wether the bible and other religious texts hate them, in a modern society they do not cause harm, other than adopting children without parents and paying taxes. They are more likely to be things such as pedophiles, but that is in a large part because of low acceptance of Gay people as children, many studies have found. It's like how bullies often bully due to their own issues. It does not make it ok, but you cannot bring that against all gay people. You can't bring it against African Americans that they are more likely to be in a gang than a white person, due to them only doing that because of less oportunity (in the majority of cases) than their fellow whites.
Gay Marriage

I accept the format of the debate set out by my opponent.The resolution is: Homosexual marriage is morally correct.I will negate the resolution, my opponent will uphold it. Seeing as the resolution is affirmative, BoP will rest on Pro. Definitions:Homosexual marriage: same as marriage, except between two of the same gender.Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.Correct: free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.You may have the first argument.
Gay Marriage

Round 1: Accept the debate, state your opinion. Round 2: I will start with my opening arguments, you rebuttal and state your arguments. Round 3-4: Rebuttal and bring up new arguments.... Round 5: Finish up and make closing statements. I would like to have a interesting and fair debate. No bashing, or arguing with false sources. I would like to have a debate based on fact and morals, and I will let you choose if we make legal arguments on whether or not gay marriage should be aloud. As a warning for my future arguments, I often surpace the 10,000 character limit, so my formatting may look a little odd (due to me removing spaces between paragraphs if I need too, so that is just a warning....).
The minimum driving age should be raised to 18 in the UK

::My Stance:: The driving age shouldn't be raised to 18 but instead to 21. ::Arguments:: "I feel that the minimum driving age should be raised as this would lower the amount of accidents caused by young drivers" 18 is still too young. http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk... http://www2.potsdam.edu... " If it were 18, in a lot of cases, the person would be going to university, where usually you don't need a car, so they would be learning once they'd finished, when they will have matured" I don't understand this part.
He was a Sk8ter Boi

He was a boyShe was a girlCan I make it any more obvious He was a punkShe did balletWhat more can I say He wanted herShe'd never tell Secretly she wanted him as well But all of her friendsStuck up their noseThey had a problem with his baggy clothes He was a skater boyShe said see you later boyHe wasn't good enough for her She had a pretty faceBut her head was up in spaceShe needed to come back down to earth Five years from nowShe sits at homeFeeding the baby she's all alone She turns on TVGuess who she seesSkater boy rockin' up MTV She calls up her friendsThey already knowAnd they've all got tickets to see his show She tags alongStands in the crowdLooks up at the man that she turned down He was a skater boyShe said see you later boyHe wasn't good enough for her Now he's a super starSlamming on his guitarDoes your pretty face see what he's worth? He was a skater boyShe said see you later boyHe wasn't good enough for her Now he's a super starSlamming on his guitarDoes your pretty face see what he's worth? Sorry girl but you missed outWell tough luck that boy's mine nowWe are more than just good friendsThis is how the story ends Too bad that you couldn't seeSee the man that boy could beThere is more that meets the eyeI see the soul that is inside He's just a boyAnd I'm just a girlCan I make it any more obvious We are in loveHaven't you heardHow we rock each others world I'm with the skater boyI said see you later boyI'll be back stage after the show I'll be at the studioSinging the song we wroteAbout a girl you used to know I'm with the skater boyI said see you later boyI'll be back stage after the show I'll be at the studioSinging the song we wroteAbout a girl you used to know
Semantical arguments are, in general, just.

I think that semantical arguments are just. Semantical - a type of argument in which the Contender of a debate uses the fact that either the Instigator used a resolution that was easily abusable or the Instigator failed to define the resolution so that the Contender could take the debate away from the framer's intent. Argument - "a reason given in proof or rebuttal" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In general - "for the most part" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Just - "being what is merited" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]) Merited - DESERVED I will allow my opponent to either make an opening argument or just accept the debate. Thank you for reading.
The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

"Outside of oratory or public debate (such as this one) in which you propose for the government to provide universal healthcare, what actions do you take in your life toward helping the needy receive medical assistance?" As a high school Junior there is very little I can do at this point. However when I do assist the homeless I do guide them into the way of a health clinic to help them if they are showing signs of illness. This is the action that Iam able to take as a 16 year old .
The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare

Definitions: these are just so certain necessary things are set in stone >United States - United States of America, "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave", etc. That country. >ought - moral obligation. >Universal Healthcare - Government funded healthcare for all citizens. Like a public school system, except for healthcare. I begin the argument against the resolution with a simple question directed at my opponent. His answer to it will be pivotal in deciding which direction I proceed with my side of the argument. So, Shingure. I would like to know. Outside of oratory or public debate (such as this one) in which you propose for the government to provide universal healthcare, what actions do you take in your life toward helping the needy receive medical assistance?
Light form Death Note is evil

Thank you Rebuttal Point one Light is not psychopath, he is a narcissist It is without a doubt that Light is a very disturbed young man. However I still think that he may have ended up in prison. Look at the case of Anders Behring Breivik. Anders who killed at least 70 people. He is also has a narcissistic personality disorder. He was imprisoned in high security prison in total Isolation. Latter on he received slightly less harsh treatment d but he remains imprisoned to his day. (I could be wrong about all this but what I read seemed to point to it.) Beyond that this is a very good point. Point two: Light brings joy to those around him. To some extent Light dose bring joy to those around him. He is kind a pilot to those around him. However there is very specific group of people who he is not so nice to. Those whom he murders. The fact that Light has a likeable personality dose not excuse his crimes against thousands of people. Light dose often fake pleasantness in order to get what he wants. For example in Episode 9 when Light and L first meet face to face Light pretends to be pleased with meeting him, saying he is happy to meet, and immediately befriending him, however as soon has he gets home, Light goes into a rage. Anther good example is Lights relationship with Misa. In episode 13 around 17 minutes in Light right out admits to using Misa, using the exact word "manipulation" in his internal dialog Also in episode 17 when L asks Light if he's serious about Mesa Light responds with "No way, like I told you earlier its completely one sided." Light has no affection for Misa. You say Light dose not relish the pain of others but I disagree. Whenever Light kills he often gets that creepy smile on his face, sometimes fallowed by that bone chilling laugh. Its clear he enjoys using the death note. Also, when he kills Rye Penbers fianc"e in episode 7, he mocks her as she walks to go comet suicide.
Light form Death Note is evil

Thank you for responding. For those of you who don't know Death Note is a show about a young man named Light who finds a note book that lets him kill anyone he wants by writing there name in it. He uses this power in order to kill people he deems evil in the hopes that he can build, "a perfect would" that he will, "rule over like a god." There are many things wrong with Lights actions. For one he kills people who were already imprisoned and were going to be punished for there crimes. He also kills FBI agents who were trying to figure out who he was, people who were just doing there jobs. When one of the FBI agents fiance comes after him, he force her to commit suicide and taunts her as she walks to her death. He also manipulates a young girl who loves him name Mesa in order do is dark deeds, manipulating her in order to get what he wants. Light seems to take joy in his killing laughing as he kills hundreds. One of the major problems with Lights actions is brought up in the first episode when Light, tells Ruyk how he wants to kill all the bad people in the would. Light: At first I wrote the names of the worst criminals I could think of, like I was cleaning up the world one name at a time, so that eventually no one will ever do anything evil again. And while the truly guilty ones who deserve to be punished for their crimes die of heart attacks, the people who are less guilty but who still make trouble for others will slowly be erased through disease and accidental death. Then and only then the world will start moving in the right direction. It'll be new world free of injustice and populated by people who I've judged to be honest, kind, and hardworking. Ryuk: But if you did that, it'd make you the only bad person left. Light: Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a hardworking honors student who's considered to be one of Japan's best and brightest. And I... I will become the God of this new world. Light see's himself as a good person. On the outside it seems so. He gets good grades in school, complements his mom, and helps his little sister with her homework. He dress nicely and is pilot to everyone around him. But even before he got the Death Note, Light had a darkness inside him, a darkness that drove him to kill thousands of people. It makes you wonder if Light had the darkness concealed inside him, then how many others do? Do we are selves have this darkness? If ever one has some evil inside them, then wouldn't the world free of bad people Light described be a would with no people at all? If all of us have a darkness inside of us, then who can really clam to worthy to judge the would as a god?
"Moderates" That Sympathize With Extremists Are Not Moderates

I argue that people who call themselves moderate believers of certain ideologies are not genuine moderates if they tolerate extremists that agree with them. To clarify my opening sentence, I will give key definitions. Moderate: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme Extremist: an advocate of extreme actions or views Tolerate: to refuse to criticize or take action against Contention 1: Extremists are not tolerated by society as a whole. The dictionary states that extremists are characterized by non-mainstream views, but the definition of "mainstream" is always relative. In mid 19th Century America, for example, opposition to slavery was something of an extremist belief system even though to believe otherwise now would be considered insane. Therefore, extremism could be defined as possession of viewpoints that are outside of the mainstream of society. Because extremism is outside the mainstream of society, it is by definition not tolerated by society. Contention 2: To openly sympathize with extremism is to aid it, at least politically. This is because by sympathizing with extremists, they are giving outsiders acceptance, which is something they would not normally have. Without "moderate" sympathizers, there are few in society that would tolerate them. Contention 3: To aid a group is to be a part of it. People can exist as groups without paper records saying that they do. This is especially true of political movements that form based more on shared belief than on physical factors such as gender or ethnicity. Therefore, it only makes sense to include all those who aid the political group within the political group. The law certainly treats group identity as such, since aiding a crime is in itself considered a crime. Because extremist sympathizers aid extremists by providing sympathy they would not normally have, and because providing aid to a group plausibly qualifies one to be classified as a member of the group, "moderates" that sympathize with extremists can not logically be considered moderate.
"Moderates" That Sympathize With Extremists Are Not Moderates

Welcome back, Jason. I think I understand your arguments: 1. Those who side with or tolerate extremists are considered Extremists, not Moderates. 2. Just because someone doesn't identity as an Extremist doesn't mean that their views don't label them as such. My rebuttal: 1. Just because some people are tolerant of others does not automatically affiliate them with a particular group. Taking it a step further and supporting said group doesn't change one's identity either. For example, suppose I identified as a political moderate during the 1960s, in the sense that I was socially liberal but fiscally conservative. The "radicals" that fought in the Civil Rights movement may have made sense to me, and so say I supported their cause and maybe even participated in a march or a rally. Now simply because I sided with the uber-liberal group on the particular issue of racial equality does not 1) Make me black, or 2) Make me a radical or adherent to extremely liberal policies. Instead, I retain my politically moderate beliefs as a whole, and thereby can identify still as a political Moderate. 2. You're right - people can label themselves however they please. Labels, like everything else, are subjective as is one's own perception (especially of themselves). However whether or not one considers themselves a political Moderate, others in society may also consider them moderate based not on one but on several beliefs. The flaw in my opponent's logic is that he feels one particular issue can define one's political identity. I disagree. An otherwise flaming liberal may be completely opposed to abortion, the same way a straight-edge conservative can fully agree with and stand in firm moral support of legalizing gay marriage. However these issues are labeled or regardless of whatever their supporters are called, the fact remains that it takes several opinions to construct a political ideology or conform to a typical political party. That said, even the biggest supporter of the most extreme issue can not easily be identified or automatically pigeonholed or excluded from one label or another. I thank my opponent for clarifying his case and hope I have shed some light on the reality of the issue at hand. Good luck!
"Moderates" That Sympathize With Extremists Are Not Moderates

I admit that I structured my argument poorly, or rather, I did a poor job of explicating exactly what the organization of my argument was. My argument could be more accurately seen as "if a is true then b is true, if b is true then c is true, and a is true, so everything else is true". Contentions 1, 2, and 3 were never meant to stand alone, and I am sorry that my labeling them 3 different contentions gave that false but unmistakable impression. I will amend this problem by rephrasing my argument in the form that it should take. If extremism isn't tolerated by society as a whole, then tolerance of extremists can be considered a form of uncommon support to extremists, since the provision of support that the rest of society does not itself provide is by definition the provision of uncommon support. A good informal criteria to decide whether or not a person is affiliated with a group is if they provide aid to them above and beyond what the rest of society does. Extremism is, by definition, not tolerated by society as a whole, and so tolerating that group can be counted as a form of providing uncommon support for that group. To provide aid to groups that society does not is to be affiliated with those groups. So in a way, to tolerate extremists, to make a social climate in which they can flourish, is to affiliate one's self with them. Because "moderates" that tolerate extremists are a subset of all those who tolerate extremists, said "moderates" are affiliated with extremists. If one is to include a lack of affiliation with extremists to be part of the definition of a moderate, then one can not include those who tolerate extremists in that definition. In my mind, to include those who do affiliate with extremists within the set of moderates is to erode the very definition of a moderate. And if anything is frowned upon on this site, it's the erosion of definitions.
"Moderates" That Sympathize With Extremists Are Not Moderates

Because my opponent has forfeited the round, I'll briefly reiterate or list some main points: - Someone can be sympathetic to one political issue, either to the hard right or the hard left. It doesn't negate their other political beliefs, which may be on the completely opposite end of the spectrum (making their views all together moderate). - One does not have to see moderately on every issue in order to be considered a political moderate. Being a Moderate is a political ideolgy; not a poltical party.