BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Political Correctness has been taken too far.

First off Kwanzaa is an African American holiday, just so you know, and no, African American heritage is not a religion. Moving on to public schools, students should be able to celebrate whatever holiday they want, if they want to celebrate Hanukkah, they can feel free to do so, just as Christians celebrate Christmas. I also agree that schools shouldn't teach religion, or affiliate themselves with religion, but they could respect the fact that it exists, we claim to be a "Cultural melting pot" but yet, we cannot recognize our culture, or recognize the culture(s) of the student body. I think that the students should show their holiday(s) in school as celebration, and respect, and that they can do this without forcing their views on someone else. Moving on to your offensiveness argument, any non-Christian who sees Christmas as a 100% Christian holiday, is either very closed minded, or has spent their whole life in a cave, you cannot seriously believe that people think that Santa is related to Christianity, after all, Christmas is a Pagan holiday, which has nothing to do with Christ, even though it is shared with Christians. Moving on to small business, we are obviously referring to two different types of small business. What I am talking about is the family owned gift shop with maybe two, or three employees, in a small town, the ones that are more worried about quality, an expressing themselves than getting rich, and I am saying that they shouldn't have to worry about offending anyone.
Political Correctness has been taken too far.

Wal-Mart seems to be the most talked-about example when it comes to this subject, but we can certainly branch out. Let's put Wal-Mart aside as a global corporation, and focus on schools and small businesses. I think schools are in an entirely separate category here - public schools at least. Public schools are funded and run by the government, which has an obligation in the U.S. to not endorse any religion. Public school is a place where children are required by law to be (note that many children don't have the choice to be home-schooled or attend private school because of financial circumstances.) In a place where children are forced to be, I see every reason to steer clear of religion altogether. There are so many things that make kids different from another in school - those things lead to cliques and bullying - why should we make religion available as just another dividing factor between schoolchildren? Now onto the small business example. I don't believe that every small business does adopt a Wal-Mart-esque P.C. policy, but certainly some do. I do not, however, think it's ridiculous that some small businesses choose not to mention any specific holiday over another. Why risk offending a co-worker or customer when it can easily be avoided? Which brings me to ways in which "Merry Christmas" can legitimately be offensive. I do realize that Christmas is an extremely secularized holiday to most, but there are still many who associate Christmas with the birth of Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior. To someone who adamantly believes that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, it may legitimately be offensive to wish them a Merry Christmas - after all, it's a holiday dedicated to someone who embodies beliefs they do not hold. This group of people is certainly in the minority, but that's not a reason to take their beliefs lightly, or say that they're being over-sensitive. Finally, I'd just like to point out that this - "If Jewish, or Muslim, or African Americans want a more respected holiday, they need to take the offensive, and show the rest of us how good their holiday really is" - is just a very strange thing to say, and makes entirely too many assumptions, generalizations, and factual mistakes (since when was being African American a religion?)
Political Correctness has been taken too far.

So I will start there. I believe that greeters have the right to say what they believe is a proper greeting. Also, you have stated that they try not to be insulting, on the topic of both school, and Wal-Mart, and I would like for you to explain how people can be insulted for being "excluded", and I would like to break our minds free from strictly focusing on large corporations such as Wal-Mart. I can understand Wal-Mart, who has stores across the globe, wanting to be inclusive, but only because they MUST do it to keep certain PC customers happy. What I don't understand, is why small business has to play non-denominational music, and avoid the term "Christmas" at all cost, simply for fear of an uprising, rather than because they will lose customers. I would like for you to explain how the term "Christmas" is exclusive, it is on every calendar, and is recognized across the globe, regardless of Christianity or lack there of, it IS A DAY, and people should be complimented to hear "Have a nice day", its the same thing, so how can you possibly be offended by "Merry Christmas"? And yes, I am partial to Christmas, but I have heard MANY other greetings, and rather than throwing a fit, I simply say, you too, why can't this be the global standard? Why can't people take the offensive of supporting their holiday, rather than the defensive, of destroying someone elses? If Jewish, or Muslim, or African Americans want a more respected holiday, they need to take the offensive, and show the rest of us how good their holiday really is.
Political Correctness has been taken too far.

The first thing I'd like to point out here is that you're implicitly treating Christmas (and to a lesser extent Hanukkah) as the default holiday in the United States. Let's take the example of Wal-Mart: You say that when we walk into Wal-Mart, instead of Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah, we hear Happy Holidays. I think we can safely presume that the decision to make "Happy Holidays" the default greeting was made by someone either in charge of an individual store, or in charge of the whole chain. If Wal-Mart doesn't use Happy Holidays, what should the standard greeting be? Should it be Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Kwanzaa, Happy Non-Denominational Gift-Giving Day, or what? It's true that to some extent political correctness is adopted out of fear of alienating people - the greeting Happy Holidays encompasses all of the other potential default greetings. Why shouldn't we err on the side of being inclusive? You seem to be making the argument that individual employees should be able to say whatever they want in terms of a holiday greeting, but companies have all sorts of employee conduct standards designed to minimize offensiveness and maximize inclusiveness. Why can't Wal-Mart standardize a holiday greeting, but it can standardize a dress code? There is also an argument to be made that public entities like schools have an obligation to be as non-denominational as possible, and that under certain circumstances, the things you're advocating for could legitimately offend, but I suppose that's what the later rounds are for!
Political Correctness has been taken too far.

Although I believe that every person should have equal opportunities, I believe that people take political correctness too far, and are too easily insulted. If you walk into Wal-Mart, you wont here "Merry Christmas", or "Happy Hanukkah", but rather, a simple, hello, or just "Happy Holidays", I am not saying being inclusive is a bad thing, what I am saying, is the PC (Politically Correct) people have made it impossible to show your personal views, and run a business, and made corporations fearful of being exclusive. There is no arguing the fact that Christmas is a day of the year, and that you can celebrate Christmas, without being religious, in fact, Christmas has become more of a commercial, holiday, where we anticipate "Santa", and presents, than a religious holiday. So what is the harm behind a greeter saying "Merry Christmas"? You can have a Merry Christmas, without believing in Christ, and to say that it is an insult, is, in my opinion, a pathetic cry for attention. If you celebrate Kwanza, or Hanukkah, feel free to say, "Thank you, and a Happy Kwanza to you." It is outrageous that people can not express themselves, for fear of lawsuit, or loss of customers. The terms "Christmas Tree", and "Merry Christmas" have become taboo, in public schools, for fear of an uprising by PC people, and there is no longer "Christmas Formal", but rather "Winter Formal Dance". It is foolish that these words cannot be used, do to not being PC, and even more foolish that people are offended. I think that people have taken the defensive on being political correct, and should show how good their holiday is, if they want to make a point, rather than trying to destroy other peoples holiday, and that corporations, and individuals alike should feel that they have the freedom to express their opinion, regardless of which side of the holiday spectrum they are on.
Christianity has proof

Alrighty, then. In the last round, Pro attempted to prove that God exists. I gave a refutation of her arguments, and she dropped that point. Unfortunately, the existence of God is necessary for the truth of Christianity, but she has dropped that argument. That leaves Christianity unproved.Concerning Jesus being the Christ, she simply told us the story found in the Bible, but she didn't give us any arguments for why we should think it's true.In the last round, I gave an argument for why Christianity is false, and that argument had two premises:1. If Christianity is true, then Judaism is true.If I understand Pro correctly, she agrees with this premise. After all, she claims that Christainity is Judaism. 2. If Judaism is true, then Christianity is false.Pro disagreed with this premise, saying that Christianity is merely a continuation of Judaism. Unfortunately, she ignored my argument to the contrary. I pointed out that if Judaism is true, then sacrifices and offerings will last into the new age, and that refutes Christianity which claims that Jesus was the final sacrifice. With that argument in mind, it can't be the case that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. At best, it's a heretical off-shoot of Judaism.There you have it. Thank you for coming to tonight's debate, and thanks to Pro for her contribution.
Christianity has proof

Before Christ was nailed to the cross he was beaten. He was stripped to the waist and beaten with a long chain attached to a pole. Jesus knew when he was born that he would die; that he would be beaten. But he accepted it. After he had been beaten half to death they placed thorns all around his head. Then the Roman soliders dug the thorns into his skull. After that he was forced to walk up the mountain carrying his own cross, then be nailed to it. The drove the nails into his hands and feet so that he could not move. This ensures that he died. After his death he was moved into a tomb. The entrance was sealed by a boulder. Three days later, two women came in to wrap his body. When they arrived at the entrace, the rock was moved to the side. They entered and Jesus' body was gone. He stood in the entrance, and they felt his hands where the nails had been driven into him. His ressurection was witnissed by hundreds upon thousands of people. http://www.4truth.net... If Christianity is true, then Judaism is true.Jesus was born a Jew. Judaism is true. Judaism was the Christian religion before Christ was born. Once Christ was born, Judiasm wasn't the "updated" version. It became Christianity (hence the Christ). The only difference is that Jews believe that the Son of God has yet to walk the earth. If Judaism is true, then Christianity is false.Not so. Christianity is merely built upon Judaism. Judaism is just the "older version" of Christianity. Sorry my arguements could not be longer. Am running out of Mb on the data plan. Good luck!
Christianity has proof

First off, I can't help but say that I love the Hunger Games reference!Now onto my speech...Big bang theroy; God's creation; both are theroies of how the world came to be. I would like to start off this point by asking if anyone truly believes that there was a bang created by who knows what somewhere in space and that the world was created? Because scientists believe that. Don't you think it makes much more sense to believe in God? There is so much detail in life. Everything breaks down into atoms and particals that make up the atoms. Only God could create such a thing, not an explosion. (1) The famous astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle once did a mathematical analysis and concluded: “The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it…. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”When people say, "There’s not enough evidence", what they mean is "There’s not enough evidence to coerce me out of my indifference. If I choose to ignore it, the evidence isn’t enought to force me to believe." (2) Jesus said: "Keep on asking and you will recieve what you ask for. Keep on seeking and you will find. Keep on knocking and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. Everyone who knocks, the door opens." (Matthew 7:7-8) God doesn't force himself upon us. He has given evidence of Himself that is clearly sufficent to those with open minds and hearts. The French mathmatical genius Blaise Pascal put it this way:Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition. I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge, and await the next speech!1 http://www.creationism.org...;2 http://www.bethinking.org...
Christianity has proof

Temptation got the best of me, and I'm going to play devil's advocate.Since Pro stipulated that I must prove Christianity false, we can assume the burden of proof is shared. She must prove Christianity is true, and I must prove it is false. That means we both must do two things: (1) we must each offer arguments in support of our own point of view, and (2) we must each attempt to refute the other person's arguments.May the odds be ever in your favor.
Short people are better than tall people

"Now, that video was probably that best work of art known 2 man." No. See the YouTube video for a much better work of art. http://www.youtube.com... "Who sang it? a short girl." That would explain why it was unintelligible garble. My opponent lists many advantages of being short. "As a consequence of these physical attributes, shorter people can excel as gymnasts, divers, skiers, martial artists, rock climbers, figure skaters, rodeo riders, soccer players and long distance runners." Tall people can excel in these areas, as well. Height is an obvious advantage in rock climbing, as you can reach further, and goalies want to be tall. Longer legs allow for faster running. "Within their weight classes they are excellent wrestlers, boxers, and weight lifters." However, a tall person is generally heavier, and would therefore defeat a short person. Short people appear to be less likely to suffer from a lot of things. However, a tall person is less likely to die from plenty of things, as well, and can climb taller heights, which could help in a case of being stranded in the wilderness. "Since then we have presented substantial findings showing that shorter, smaller people live longer." Taller people can live better. "Short people are not immune to death from heart disease, cancer, and other causes." Now, why would my opponent bother to say that? Maybe it's because he plagiarized his entire argument from this website: http://www.shortsupport.org... My opponent doesn't even have a real argument of his own. It's entirely plagiarized. "Human height in the present period does have great advantages as to upward mobility" [1]. "Never the less the taller you are the better chances you will make more money in your job and have better upward mobility in society and work and it makes sense that in sports tallness is a positive attribute; that is to say basketball, football and other sports, as there is an obvious advantage to height" [1]. "Tall people get larger salaries, higher status and more respect. Furthermore, the advantage seems to be life-long" [2]. "It is well known that tall people have more success on the labor market..." [3]. So, tall people make much more money than short people. Thus, they are better than short people. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. 1. http://ezinearticles.com... 2. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 3. http://economiclogic.blogspot.com...
Short people are better than tall people

http://www.merriam-webster.com... Better - more advantageous or effective Contention 1: Work Tall people are able to reach high shelves without ladders, and generally have more strength, which helps greatly in physical labor. http://www.youtube.com... Contention 2: Fight "Most of the time, the bigger someone is, the more power they will have." http://www.markstraining.com... Contention 3: Basketball In basketball, or most other sports for that matter, being tall is a huge advantage, because slam-dunks are easier, and it becomes harder to block your shots and passes. "Short people pwn" "Pwned: The total domination or shut down of a person place or thing" http://www.youtube.com... I expect you to provide contentions to live up to this definition. "i rest my case." So far, you don't have a case.
Super Mario Brothers 2 is A Masterpiece.

Ever since the beginning of time, man has been asking one question: "Who am I? What is my purpose in life? Why a human, why not a fox? Will Half-Life 3 ever come out?". It wasn't until the year 1988 when all these questions were answered. It was none else than Shigeru Miyamoto and Koji Kondo who, after years of studying and living the ascetic life, came up with a response so perfect, so fitting, that it even challenges the genius of books like The Gulag Archipelago and the Gospel of Peter. The game was so perfect that it has won Game of the Year 28 times, beating classics such as Knack and NintenDogs. Not only that, but the gameplay mechanics are the most revolutionary to have been devised by any mortal, making researchers wonder if these men were indeed mortals. Moreover, the mechanics are still revolutionizing games such as Call of Duty: Modern Advanced Infinity Warfare. Many have taken the task of writing an account of these things that have happened to us. I will attempt to tell you these things that you may believe, my dear Theophilus. As you know, Super Mario Bros. 2 is a metaphor regarding life. Every level is a theater stage, representing the existentialist question it is trying to answer. This represents what it is that we humans wonder every day of our lives "why am I here?". At the end of every level, the stage starts to fade away, representing the after-life. Mario, knowing that his life is only a play, which is momentary, leaps in the air to grab his reward. Clearly representing that after life there is a reward for the hard job in the 'level'. Yes, I understand that this is very hard to process, yet it is the truth, and I must preach it. -Love, me.
Laptops should be allowed in classrooms!

Wow. My opponent starts off with a forfeit!I'll move straight onto refutations (due to lack of time)."Laptops should be allowed in classrooms!"1.) Supports my SideYes. I completely agree with; laptops SHOULD be allowed in classrooms. As a Neg, my opponent was to negate the resolution. Unfortunately, due to lack of understanding, my opponent supported my side.2.) Laptops are Useful for EducationA. Statistics prove that Laptops increase the quality of education."A 2004 study reported in USA Today claims that laptops and hand-held computers help with schoolwork and improve grades. Scientists gave laptops to 25 students from Yankton High School in South Dakota during the first quarter of the year, and found that test averages of students with laptops increased, on average, by 5.7 percent.Test scores rose 3.2 percentage points for students without laptops, although a teacher at Yankton High School said, 'Those with laptops may have simply been better students.'The 24 students with laptops had higher grade-point averages than the students who didn't use laptops -- a 3.26 GPA, compared to 2.82 among 21 students without laptops." [1]This statistic proves how students with laptops usually do better, during school.For all these reasons, please vote for the Affirmative side of this debate. Thank you.
Are adolescent equivalent mature to an adult in cognitive maturity

Like I said before, the teenage brain is still in the process of development.It's true that there is a significant gap between cognitive development and psychosocial immaturity in adolescents and this is because the adolescents' brains are still developing and growing social and intellectual abilities. These social and intellectual abilities increase the more you learn and the more you grow, which is one of the biggest reasons why school exists. School increases a teenager's social and intellectual abilities because the teenager is learning new information, which makes the brain process and analyze that information, and engaging in a wide variety of educational and productive activites.Without cognition, all living organisms would be dumb because then they wouldn't know how to think, learn, or understand things in order to make smart and reasonable decisions.
Are adolescent equivalent mature to an adult in cognitive maturity

Yes but it's true that teenage brain aren´t fully developed until 25 years old but why many of them are as competent as adult in decision-making capabilities such as (hypothetical medical decision) and stand on trial as an adult ?Deficit in abilities or lack of competence are usually associate with mental retardation,low IQ,and mental illness rather than biological age.You could become intellectual mature at young age or immature until 25 years old or older,that doesn't matter. Because juvenile detention are more likely to have low IQ than in community the greater risk of incompetent to stand on trial are more likely to be.That´s is not much different than young adult.Scientific scholar has been proven that adolescent could make decision that are on par of young adults. Cognitive capacities such as ability to reason and process information ,shape the decision making process. Logical reasoning skills such as deductive and inductive reasoning,short-long term memory,and the capacities to process information are all improved during early adolescent ( Steinberg ,2008) .Such as laboratory studies have shown that adolescent pure cognitive capacities are very close to an adult level by age 14 or 16 ( Caufmann & Steinberg 2000,Kambam & Thompson 2009). Overall cognitive capacities increase linear with age.Mental Health & and Juvenile Justice One study found that all but two of 50 surveyed youth had experience severe trauma prior to their involvment in the court system and 42 % had at least mental disabilites ( Beyer 2006).Today about two-third of youth in custody meet the criteria for at least one mental health diagnoses which is two to three times higher than average community rate (Grisso,2004).While all adolescent are going to through normative development change,behaviors health challenges may excaberate problem behaviors. Psychosocial Development :Maturity in handling real-life situationWhile many adolescent may have cognitive capacity to process information at an adult level,psychosocial immaturity can significant hinder their judgment and decision-making in real life scenario..There is a significant gap between cognitive devlopment and psychoscial immaturity in adolescent.This devevlopment gap inhibit adolescent ability to make mature decision in heat momemt eventhough most teen by age 16 and older have to cognitive capacity to reason logically (steinberg 2007