BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Perfectionism is Bad

If you choose when you shoot for perfection, that's not perfectionism. Perfectionism is the impulse to constantly adjust until you reach a standard of perfect. If you're never perfect, then we have a problem with things being perfect always, then you have a problem, and this was admitted by my opponent. But not being impulsively perfect isn't perfectionism. Being persistently in attempts to be perfect is perfectionism. If you moderately look for perfection, then you are not perfectionism. And my opponent is stating that if you aren't always perfect or something is too important to waste time trying to make it perfect then that is okay. Everyone wants to be perfect at some things. Trying to be perfect all the time at everything is perfectionism. If a so called "perfectionist" makes a handful of exceptions, then they aren't perfectionists.
Perfectionism is Bad

Perfectionism isn't a time killer unless you take it too seriously, or you indulge it when it's not important. When your writing something like class notes, it doesn't really matter whether or not you have sloppy handwriting. If you're handwriting something for an important test, you might want to be a little neater, but it's up to you whether or not you want to to be a perfectionist about that. Working in a fast food restaurant is a little trickier. Technically the customer is always right, but you could probably choose whether or not to ignore them, because if their order is satisfactory, you don't really have to do anything else for them, and if you did, you could reorganize the pickles after you served them. Also in a work environment, if your boss wants you to shoot for standards above your normal perfect, and you want to keep your job, you would have to temporarily adjust your standards of perfect. The point is that you get to choose when you shoot for perfection. It isn't always rational to use perfectionism, such as when you're writing class notes, but there are other times, like when you're preparing a resume, that you might want to shoot for perfection.
Perfectionism is Bad

Perfectionism is a time killer. Many people, such as myself, are slower than the average person with actions in life. I shall give a personal example: I have sloppy hand writing when I write at a normal pace. If I write slowly, I write neater, but I have slowed myself down in the process of say taking notes. Perfectionism can also drive others crazy. Imagine working in say a fast food place and you make an order with all the right stuff, but someone watching points out that it is not neat enough. It is slowed down, the customer is waiting longer, AND you have the slight urge to kill that person that told you to organize the pickles properly. Also consider that perfection is open to interpretation. Shooting for your idea of perfect may not be shooting for your boss's idea of perfect
Perfectionism is Bad

Your correct, perfectionism differs slightly from person to person, as does everything, but that is irrelevant. The principle is that you are shooting for your individual perfect for the current situation. You are also correct in that perfectionism can't be achieved, that's why it's very important for people aiming for perfection not to be upset when they don't achieve it. The point is that when you aim for perfection, you come closer then when your aiming for good or adequate, because you are trying harder. What perfect means to you isn't important, nor is your ability to achieve perfection.
summer is awsome

///What I mean when connecting with GOD ( capital "G")/// I made it lowercase because of my lack of belief. //different people from different places can connect// But you ignored my question on whether or not all these things can be done during the school year. //I'm sorry that I did not specify "United States" I just figured since you are from here you would get it, apparently not!// There are plenty of people that are from other nations on DDO. // I have a friend from Alaska and she said they loved going swimming in the summer, there is a such thing as water there!/ Fair enough for an anecdote. //I did mention what to do when it is cold. Did you miss that?// What? I will extend my unrefuted arguments and urge a Con ballot.
summer is awsome

What I mean when connecting with GOD ( capital "G") and friends is different people from different places can connect. I'm sorry that I did not specify "United States" I just figured since you are from here you would get it, apparently not! I have a friend from Alaska and she said they loved going swimming in the summer, there is a such thing as water there! Also it isn't always cold there. I did mention what to do when it is cold. Did you miss that?
summer is awsome

//My opponent keeps talking about Australia when I'm talking about United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!// This was never specified. The resolution is "summer is awesome" and in your opening statement you never mentioned America hence I am using Australia. But I will add Alaska. I doubt very much that they go outside and swim. Regarding the question: I do but I assume how I have fun is very different than you. " Whereas we can't do that during school because well we have to go to school." So you mean to tell me that during school you can't connect with friends or "god"? Is this the case? It is a yes or no question. I say the following. My Australia contention still stands because my opponent never mentioned America until now, after I made my case.
summer is awsome

My opponent keeps talking about Australia when I'm talking about United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the United States we usually have nice hot weather. As we are off except summer school kids, we may go swimming vacations and other entertainment places. Or Consider a Staycation. Where you can stay at home/ community and just have fun. I would like my opponent a question, Do you like to have fun??? I do and that's what summer is all about! Even if it is not so hot outside you have the summer off and you can have three months all to yourself! I LOVE SUMMER !!!! :) :) :) :) :0 Students can go to summer camps and connect with other people, God, and what he has made for us to enjoy! Whereas we can't do that during school because well we have to go to school. Summer is awesome because of these reasons ! ~ Thank you and have a good summer! I'll be waiting for your response in a little while. Have a good Day !! :)
summer is awsome

I dare say that since my opponent provided no definition of what Summer is I must do so. Summer is the months June, July and August. Regarding my opponent's points: "nice weather": This is entirely subjective. You may think said weather is nice whereas I may think it's not. Here we are at a standstill. "no school": This is false. In Australia the months we call Summer are their winter and they do have school. "vacations": Same as above. In Australia (or any country below the equator) this is a time of work and school. "happy times": Again this is subjective and no definition is given. "hot weather": 14 degrees C? "we can swim in a nice cool pool": This does not happen in the dead of winter. You can cross apply all the aforementioned reasons to everything else.
summer is awsome

I believe summer is awsome because there is nice weather, no school, vacations, and happy times! There is nice hot weather and so we can swim in a nice cool pool. People are wearing sunglasses and children are laughing and playing. There is no school so children can relax and play for three monthes. People can go on vacations and get away from there ordinary lives, get rid of stress and just relax. These are the reasons why summer is awsome. ~ Let's have a good debate!!
Flag Burning.....

"Burning a flag is not an act of communication, it in no way achieves its goals of protesting the government and it offends Americans of all races and creeds who believe in a strong America." -The act of burning a flag to some can be considered offensive. But in time of revolutionary needs people are always offended by radial protesters. Do you think when we were in need of being free from Britain that certain people who disagree with your views weren't offended when we threw tea over board? This country was born off radical beliefs and it will only change through those thoughts and actions. The act of burning a flag is a radical action calling the people to rise up and defend their liberties from the government who is taking them away. "Everyone has their right to free speech, however if you are involving others by attacking them and their American life then flag burning shouldn't be allowed." -The act of burning a flag does in no way attack the people of America unless interpreted that way. I can't speak for everyone who has burnt a flag, but I'm pretty sure it is done to show their disbelief towards our government, not the country and its people. When a flag is being burnt and you see it, you have to be a little tweaked out to think their hating on you and your country. The flag does represent our personal freedom as a country, but like I have said, who represents this country? The government. "The act of flag burning can be comparable to the burning of the cross by the Ku Klux Klan." I think its a little extreme to compare radical people who burn flags to the KKK who killed thousands of people. The people who burn flags aren't going around and killing Americans, their simply showing their views through radical actions. I do agree with you on one point though, some people do take it really offensively, but most people who do tend to be sheeple(people who follow everything their told by their masters[such as the government] and don't question anything. Much like a herd of sheep). "The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for - and our history demonstrates that they are - it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration. -- Justice John Paul Stevens, from his dissent in Texas v. Johnson (1989)" -Yes their ideas are worth fighting for and are flag do represent those ideas. But when the time comes and we need to stand up and fight for those freedoms again, the act of burning a flag is a tool that we can use. The flag represents those ideas of freedom and the government regulates those ideas through their control, so in a time like now, we need to stand up and fight back. Show are anger towards them.
Flag Burning.....

Burning a flag is not an act of communication, it in no way achieves its goals of protesting the government and it offends Americans of all races and creeds who believe in a strong America. Everyone has their right to free speech, however if you are involving others by attacking them and their American life then flag burning shouldn't be allowed. With Flag burning banned there would still be many ways to protest the government that do not attack or involve any other people. By banning flag burning ones rights to freedom of speech are not being taken away, it is merely protecting the rights of the millions of other people that are openly patriotic and feel flag burning to be highly offensive. The act of flag burning can be comparable to the burning of the cross by the Ku Klux Klan. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by - as one witness here did - according its remains a respectful burial. -- Justice William J. Brennan, from his majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson (1989) The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for - and our history demonstrates that they are - it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration. -- Justice John Paul Stevens, from his dissent in Texas v. Johnson (1989) The flag represents a strong, healthy and free America. And burning it stands to attack everything inside its borders and history. Flag burning SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Flag Burning.....

"The Act of flag burning does not achieve its purpose!, it attacks the nation, the people, and the society within it rather than attacking the governement" -It doesn't attack the nation. The United States uses the American Flag as its symbol, but who represents the U.S.? The Government does. So in times of needed change, the act of burning a flag should be used. "If it is your goal to protest the government then so be it, but flag burning does not achieve this goal in any manor effectively." -How does burning a flag not spread the message of change in a effective manor? It's symbolizing that we need a change in this country, not a hatred towards it. -Flag Burning is a patriotic act done by people who care deeply enough about our freedoms to challenge the government when it becomes a threat to the people. Patriots who love America burn flags in hope that change will come. Just like you have the power to raise your flag at school or at a church, we have the right to burn a flag. Much like raising the flag, it represents something. Raising the flag can represent the praising of this country or support of are imperialistic ways. The burning of a flag to some could represent extreme hatred to this country(and for some burners I'm sure this is the reason) or it could represent a need for change, a sign of hope. The flag itself to some represents freedom. If you agree with that, then you should be a flag burner supporter because our freedom is being slowly taken away in the name of protecting us from terrorist who we originally created and trained to fight the Russians secretly.
Flag Burning.....

The Act of flag burning does not acheive its purpose!, it attacks the nation, the people, and the society within it rather than attacking the governement. If it is your goal to protest the government then so be it, but flag burning does not acheive this goal in any manor effectively. I believe in protesting the government. But the flag burning shows disrespect towards citizens within the country. It is ones own right to disrespect there country but they should not disrespect other people with different points of view. Flag burning is unfocused hatred and is an unnecessary showing of discontent towards the country and its people. "There are many other forms of nonviolent protest that remain available to protesters who seem to have no shortage of creativity," Lynch said. "This is one they can do without." U.S. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-South Boston)
Gun Control In America

I think Con misses the point of a number of my arguments. I'm not saying we need to regulate modern arms simply because they weren't anticipated by the Founders. Sure , there were new guns coming out like the Girandoni Air Rifle that gave the Founders an idea of where weapon technology was headed. (Although, these guns were more likely viewed as mere oddities - the Belton flintlock was never actually produced, none survive to this day, and historians don't actually know how they were intended to work. The Girandoni Air Rifle was impractical and quickly removed from military service and extremely weak, with a muzzle velocity of only 500fps compared with traditional flintlocks that boast up to 1600fps). What I am saying is weapon technology should be regulated based on its destructive potential. I think we can both agree that the Founders probably never fathomed a nuclear device, or a tomahawk missile. Civilians are obviously not allowed to own nukes or missiles, and this is never seen as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because we all intuitively know that access to disproportionate firepower is not the intention behind the 2nd Amendment. Self defense and national defense is (although, I have argued that I believe the latter is no longer relevant). So my argument here is that the Founders could not have anticipated the advancement in destructive power of weaponry, and would certainly favor limiting access to firepower that is unreasonable for the average citizen to possess. An AR-15 is absolutely not the most practical civilian self-defense weapon. Can we agree that most civilian self defense situations occur at close range and in close quarters (a home, store, car, etc...)? AR-15s are completely unnecessary for these situations. They're long (clumsy to maneuver in tight space), difficult to conceal/store (hard to quickly access), and are designed to suppress targets at ranges upwards of 300m (completely unnecessary in a face to face encounter). I think any reasonable person would agree that a hand gun is far more practical for the VAST majority of self defense situations. You say the 2nd Amendment is for deterrence, but I've argued that it deters nothing. The US government is not scared of your AR-15. One SWAT team will take care of that no problem. Even if lots of people get guns, like the Branch Dividians at Waco, just wait for the tanks to roll in and that handles that. You say McVeigh and Koresh were just individuals, not the people. But that's what "the people" are! - a collection of individuals. You have no good answer here - once again I will ask, do we really want individual citizens to have the authority to decide when to overthrow the government? That's anarchy! You say the Civil War wasn't against tyranny. I think "the people" of the South at the time would beg to differ [1]. Once again, what is the criteria for tyranny and who decides? [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
Gun Control In America

For your first counter You're saying due to advance technological firearms from then to now, we must regulate these firearms since the founding fathers never anticipated advancements in technology of firearms? As if they think there will never be advancements? I believe that's nonsense, even before their time weapons have evolved to become more effective and change outcome of battles. When flint locks were invented, that was a great technological advancement in weapons that changed how we fought war. To further prove my point that the founding fathers did anticipate advance technologies of firearms. During the time and before or right after the Constitution was written when the founding fathers were still alive, weapon technology was still advancing with flint locks. Take a look at these firearms back then that I'll provide you with stats and you can look up the pictures: Belton Flintlock: Created during the Revolutionary War that can fire 20 or so rounds in a pull of 1 trigger in about 5 seconds. Girandoni Air Rifle: Where it can take a 22 round capacity magazine that can all be fired in about 30 seconds. Created during the time of the Revolutionary War and was later used by Thomas Jefferson to outfit the Lewis and Clark expedition. Puckle Gun The founding fathers was completely aware of these firearms and were fascinated by them, there's more but I think you can look them up yourself. Back in their days, these were their assault rifles, their AR-15's, their mini-guns, etc. They knew about technological advancements, to think they did not is ignorance. Also the AR-15 is the most practical self-defense rifle in America due to it's modularity and adjustment to the user unlike any shotguns/handguns. This is for the average American. Also the 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting. For the rest of your counters - The need for the militia is still relevant because they are the people, with special organizations to further coordinate as said from George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights. Also you keep talking about the military power of the US as if civilians will go head-on with the US military, it won't be. Insurgencies and guerrilla warfare seems to be our military's kryptonite. it shows in history and it shows in the middle-east. - You mention checks and balances as the first front line and only front line we should have against tyranny. It's not. Prevention and deterrance - US first standing military was on 1784, keep in mind of that. "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1787 - Timothy Mcveigh and David Koresh are individuals not the people. - "well-regulated militia" doesn't mean imposed federal regulation. It meant properly working or functioning back in 1776. - The civil war wasn't against tyranny, it wasn't even the people versus the government.
Gun Control In America

Modern realities the Founders could not anticipate: 1) The firepower and speed of modern weapons. Firearms in the 18th Century could barely fire 3 rounds a minute and were accurate to less than 100m. Modern weapons can fire hundreds of rounds per minute and are accurate to 500m or more. This is a huge jump in technology that requires modern regulation. Such weapons go well beyond the realms of self defense or hunting. Anyone who needs 100's of rounds to defend themselves at 500m has much bigger problems going on.... There is no need for anyone to own an AR-15 type rifle. It's not used for hunting, and it's impractical for civilian self defense. 2) The strength of the modern Regular Army has rendered the need for militias obsolete. The opening of the 2nd Amendment, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." suggests that the amendment was written in order to allow militias to form in the event of a foreign invasion. This was necessary in 1787, because the Regular Army was very small, weak, and poorly organized. This is no longer the case today. America now has the strongest Army, Navy, and Air Force in the world equipped with jets, tanks, and missiles (not to mention a nuclear arsenal). A bunch of civilians with AR-15s and pistols are not going to make a huge impact on national defense. So as for self defense, hunting, and foreign invasion, the 2nd Amendment no longer realistically addresses these concerns. As for resisting a tyrannical government/military takeover, the 2nd Amendment is not meant to stop that. The checks and balances system is. The idea that an armed citizenry can stop the government is a joke. Your AR-15 isn't going to do a thing against a Predator drone, or Abrams tank, or Apache helicopter. A coalition of 11 states armed with a professional army, artillery, and even a navy tried to resist the Federal government in 1861, and they failed. What makes you think you and your band of freedom fighters will succeed? Furthermore, do we really want citizens to have this power? If so, what is the definition of "tyranny" and who gets to decide when the government has violated it? David Koresh thought the government was tyrannical. Timothy McVeigh thought so too. Do we really want people like that to have the right to decide when it's time to overthrow the government? Of course not. That's why saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to resist tyranny makes no sense. Cars, cranes, and jackhammers are not privileges. They are necessities. We need them to transport things, build buildings and fix roads. Our whole economy would fall apart without them. Yes, the 2A does give people the right to bear arms, but they are only allowed to do so under sensible controls and regulations. I'm not arguing to take guns away, I'm saying they need to be more tightly regulated. After all, it is the "well-regulated militia" that shall not be infringed, not the un-regulated one.