BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It"s time to crackdown on cash-point cretins

Regarding my opponent's remarks, I should like to respond as follows: Rather than being grammatically incorrect, "a mental defective" is a shorthand way of saying "a person with learning difficulties". It may not be very formal but, in real life, people waiting in line for a cashpoint are more likely to say "I wish that mental defective would hurry up and get their cash, they're wasting my valuable drinking time," than they are to say "I wish that person with learning difficulties would expedite their transaction and withdraw their funds without any further delay because this is time I could be spending more profitably consuming alcoholic beverages in a nearby hostelry. " Moving on, naturally, I believe that, as a society, we be should be tolerant of all people with disabilities and that imbeciles ought to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. Having said that, however, it is very irresponsible of banks to issue cards to people who are unable of using them properly, and it is also highly negligent of the lunatics' carers to allow them out unsupervised. Of course, the bank messages I proposed are not what you would expect to read on an ATM, they are designed to have impact, and the use of slang words and strong language reinforces the point the banks are trying to make - and let's not forget that many of these time-wasters are drug addicts who only understand the language of "the street". With this in mind, it is only right, just as a bank customer has to justify his responsibility to repay a loan, that a bank cardholder should have to prove his ability to use it without unduly inconveniencing other customers. In conclusion, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and I believe that now is time for the banks to get tough with cashpoint cretins. Thank you.
Commodity money (i.e. a gold standard) is beneficial to long-term, sustainable free trade

Money predates governments. In fact, there is actually no such thing as a "barter system," because in any unregulated system of trade, "money" naturally arises in the marketplace. "Money," under this definition, is "the most commonly accepted means of exchange." For example, millennia ago when a shoemaker wanted meat, he may have tried to trade some shoes to the butcher. But if the butcher didn't want shoes, then the shoemaker would have to resort to another means of exchange. Perhaps the butcher had all of the things he needed at the moment, but had a surplus of beef. Thus he would accept gold in exchange for several steaks, because he would know that he could trade the gold to someone else for something he needed later. This is how gold and silver became money. It was not via force, but through voluntary exchange. Later, gold and silver were reinforced by governments, but the governments did not "make them money" by fiat or decree -- they were already widely accepted as money. Once one develops this understanding of monetary history, it is easy to see how commodity money (i.e. free-market money) is an aid to long-term, sustainable free trade. In fact, from a technical standpoint, "free trade" is impossible under a regime of fiat money and legal-tender laws, since no legal transaction is truly "free" (we are forced to accepted Federal Reserve Notes for all debts public and private, and thus, our consent is made for us). But from a more pragmatic standpoint, commodity money -- which is typically gold or silver -- supports free trade by minimizing the trade imbalances that often lead to protectionist legislation. Under a gold standard, for example, a country must produce goods or services in order to trade them to another country. But under the Federal Reserve System, it is much easier to simply print money to buy foreign goods -- which has led to a massive redistribution of wealth from the U.S. to foreign nations, and led to the widely held popular misconception that free trade is "bad." Commodity money is superior to fiat money for a wide variety of reasons that have nothing to do with international trade. And yes, I will concede that in the short run, a widely accepted U.S. dollar unbacked by gold facilitates imports -- but this is in no way sustainable. This is artificial manipulation of trade, not "free trade." But in order to truly understand free trade, one must not think of it in terms of countries trading with one another, but instead, as individuals trading across borders. "We" don't trade with China -- YOU buy goods produced in China. There is a major distinction. A gold standard only enforces the laws of economic reality -- that you cannot create wealth by firing up a printing press -- and that leads to much greater stability and long-term growth.
Commodity money (i.e. a gold standard) is beneficial to long-term, sustainable free trade

My opponent failed to post a response. His Round 1 response did not address the topic at hand. This is not a debate about a "gold standard" vs. fiat money. It is about whether or not COMMODITY MONEY is beneficial to long-term, sustainable free trade. Hopefully, my opponent will return for Round 3 and actually address the topic at hand.
BLM should focus on black-black crime in poor neighborhoods instead of police brutality

This shouldn't be too difficult. "In 2015 102 black people were killed by police in all of the US" My opponent's only argument is that because black-on-black crime has a higher fatality rate for blacks than state-sponsored killings of blacks, then BLM should switch gears and forget about police brutality. First, the stats are wrong -- multiple sources claim that more than 100 blacks were killed by police in 2015, Washington Post cites 258 [https://www.washingtonpost.com...], Guardian cites 306 [http://www.theguardian.com...]. That's not important. The issue is that my opponent doesn't understand that there are already organizations that deal with intraracial crime within the community. There are state programs like Survive Alive, grassroots programs like Running Rebels, and larger orgs like the Rainbow PUSH coalition. Black Lives Matter joining those would be fairly irrelevant, especially considering that intraracial crime within the black community isn't an anomaly; rather, most violent crime is intraracial. [http://usuncut.com...] "They only protest cops shooting black people claiming "racism" is a foot [sic]." Well, that's just objectively not true. Black Lives Matter does talk about black-on-black crime; it's not zero sum. BLM can and has done both, so... [http://www.vox.com...] If you can name one other group talking about black death by proxy, I'd love to hear it. Other wise, there's no reason for there to be an instead. Rather, there should be a connection between black life and black death, in all instances. It's simple. BLM protests both, no one else protests police brutality in the context of blackness, and God is dead. prf.
BLM should focus on black-black crime in poor neighborhoods instead of police brutality

Black Lives Matter is a pretty self explanatory movement. Going by their name they are fighting to show that black lives matter. However, their actions show otherwise. They only protest cops shooting black people claiming "racism" is a foot. If BLM cared about black lives they would be speaking out against black-on-black murder.In 2015 102 black people were killed by police in all of the US. That's about 2 a week, pretty staggering right? No, not really considering only 1/3 of these people were unarmed in official reports. Even worse, between 2009 and 2012 4,472 black people were killed by other black people annually. That means, at the current rate, cops would need 44 years to kill as many black men as black men have been killed by black men.Now I want to stress that I do think police brutality against any race is a problem. However, if BLM is claiming they care about black lives isn't it logical that they focus on the biggest killer of black people, other black people?Sources:mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devastating-facts-black-black-crime/
RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

I think I got the acceptance part done. I'm not big into making rules and figure any problems with such things can be resolved along the way as they may become relevant. The same goes for definitions. Clarifications? OK, let me clarify what I am interested in doing in this discussion. My acceptance of the invitation should not be interpreted in any way to mean that I endorse all that my opponent posted in his round 1. I believe that there are false and misleading claims made therein. We may get to them in due course should the conversation here continue. Otherwise, folks interested in such things may review the record of my previous history with Mangani here which I have preserved at my place: . http://groups.yahoo.com... If anyone wants to reply to anything they find there, they can do so simply by addressing their email reply to the following address; substituting @ for the (at): Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups. com As I understand from the posting of this challenge, the proposition to be discussed is as follows: RLBATY's EXERCISE IS POINTLESS Affirmd: Mangani Denied: RLBaty That proposition is the one posted at the top of the challenge. If that is not the proposition to be discussed here, then I propose that my opponent withdraw from this discussion and consider posting a challenge that actually reflects the proposition he wants to affirm regarding me, my arguments and/or my claims. I may or may not wish to discuss any such alternative proposition(s). For now, I will look forward to my opponent's round 2 "opening statement" affirming that "RLBaty's exercise is pointless".
RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

My opponent has consistently shown his inability to defend the effectiveness of his exercise. His exercise, named "Goliath of GRAS which stands for Gene Robert Argument Supreme. His belief is that his argument, a Goliath, will stand up to any "David" presented by YECS, thus illustrating why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills. His arguments have simply been that his argument is valid, and that his major premise is true. He has not argued the effectiveness of GOG in showing how YECS have ailed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, nor does GOG demonstrate the extent of their basic critical thinking skills. You, as the judge, must determine the following from this debate: 1) Is GOG essential and/or necessary in showing that YECS have flawed logic? - I have argued that the exercise itself embraces flawed logic. The exercise is not necessary for reaching the only conclusions reached- that some people misinterpret the bible. This is common sense, and I have shown how this is common sense. My opponent did not defend his exercise as essential or necessary in reaching the ONLY conclusion his exercise reaches. If this argument is presented to YECS, and they read the conclusion: The text is misinterpreted by some, the rational response is "Obviously." If YECS interpret the bible one way, and Mr. Baty interprets the bible another- this is exercise enough to show that the bible will be misinterpreted by some. The exercise is neither essential nor necessary in reaching this conclusion. 2) Is GOG sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic? - No, it is not. Mr. Baty presupposes everyone will disagree with the function of his exercise... however, the exercise doesn't actually attack YECS as having flawed logic- it merely admits they interpret the bible literally. GOG does not show the bible is infallible, nor does it make this argument. GOG offers no alternative interpretation of the creation passages in the bible, and is therefore insufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic in literally interpreting the bible. Can it be shown that YECS have flawed logic? Yes. We know through scientific evidence that the universe is about 14 billion years old, and the Earth is about 4 billion years old. Can this evidence be challenged? Sure it can... but in the process of challenging this evidence, YECS are much more likely to demonstrate their flawed logic than through completing GOG. GOG is not sufficient in showing YECS have flawed logic. If GOG states that it's goal is to "illustrate why it is that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges, and to demonstrate the extent of their basic, critical thinking skills," yet it fails in doing so, then GOG is pointless. I rest my case. Thank you.
RLBaty's Exercise is pointless

Mangani begins his 3rd round presentation with another false statement: - The only argument presented by - my opponent (RLBaty) is the following: - ... What he claims as an argument presented by me was not an argument. It was a statement indicating my willingness to consider a more appropriate discussion of his problems if we could work out the logistical details necessary. From there, Mangani goes on to further convince me that he has abandoned the proposition I agreed to discuss here and that he is not up to admitting that he cannot sustain his affirmation that: - RLBaty's Exercise is pointless He needs to explicitly admit to that and then consider whether he's up to coming out, coming clean and openly, honestly negotiating for a further, more formal discussion of his problems with fundamental, critical thinking skills. Mangani has touched on "100 issues" and I can't get him to settle on one that we both might have a bonafide interest in discussing (i.e., my truth claim regarding the major premise of my argument). Mangani has already accepted my positions as to Step #1 and Step #3 of my exercise and this Step #2 issue has him blundering all over the place. (Had Mangani been a more willing, more worthy correspondent, we might have actually worked through all of his "Gish Gallop" failings regarding this very simple exercise and the claims I make for it and my argument.) On that one issue, which has an open, outstanding debate challenge that Mangani could accept, Mangani has thrice declined. If he doesn't like how that issue is framed there, he's welcome to come out, come clean and openly, honestly engage me in negotiating for a format designed with his specific problems in mind. Mangani clearly fails to demonstrate an understanding of conditional statements as they relate to the issue before us. Similarly, Mangani fails to demonstrate an understanding of the nature of stipulations and how they are used in such situations. These and his other problems can be fully explored at such time as Mangani is willing to come out, come clean and openly, honestly negotiate for an appropriate discussion of his multitude of problems. I would be glad to try to help Mangani with his fundamental problems on those issues and come to understand and accept my truth claim as to the major premise of my argument. It really is quite simple as I have repeatedly explain over the last few days here on Debate.Org and, more specifically, within the last few minutes. It is not necessary for me to establish the truth of my major premise here in order to establish that Mangani has failed to even try to sustain the affirmative: - RLBaty's Exercise is pointless I think Mangani, by now, has realized that that was a hopelessly lost cause as far as his ability to establish it. Mangani's efforts in evading the proposition here is an implicit concession of the proposition I agreed to discuss here. See my Round 1 and Round 2 postings for further details.
The cookie stand IS part of the food court

Eateries have everything to do with the food court. It does matter where the eateries are because a food court is a designated square of eateries with tables and chairs in the middle of it to eat the food on. The fact that someone could go upstairs, purchase a cookie from the cookie stand, and then take it downstairs so that they can eat it in the food court does not change the fact that the cookie stand does not operate inside of the food court. If someone asked me to meet them in the food court (which is downstairs), it wouldn't make any sense for me to wait for them at the cookie stand which is an autonomous unit that operates upstairs.
The cookie stand IS part of the food court

My point is that the eateries have nothing to do with the food court. It doesn't matter where the eateries are in the mall, as long as they can be taken to the food court to be eaten. When someone says hey let's eat in the food court, they are not talking about a specific eatery, they are talking about the physical tables and chairs. If that is the food court (the actual tables and chairs) then any eatery would be a part of it, because anyone could get food from that eatery and eat it in the food court.
The cookie stand IS part of the food court

My opponent proves me right in round 2 when he says "The principle feature of the food court is the actual court. The court is the area with tables and chairs where people come to sit to consume their food." He goes on to say "Since one could easily take food from the cookie stand and eat it downstairs at the food court, the cookie stand (and all eateries inside the mall) must be considered part of the food court." This statement doesn't make sense because you wouldn't have to take your order anywhere if the cookie stand was part of the food court because you would already be in the food court.
The cookie stand IS part of the food court

The principle feature of the food court is the actual court. The court is the area with tables and chairs where people come to sit to consume their food. Since one could easily take food from the cookie stand and eat it downstairs at the food court, the cookie stand (and all eateries inside the mall) must be considered part of the food court. It is the relative proximity of the cookie stand to the food court that makes it a part of the food court. For instance an eatery at another mall (such as the Menlo Park mall) would not be considered part of the food court of Our Mall. But since all the eateries are under one roof and since it is easily possible to take cookies from the cookie stand and eat them in the food court, the cookie stand must be considered part of the food court.
The cookie stand IS part of the food court

The cookie stand couldn't be part of the food court if it is upstairs and the food court is downstairs. A food court is a designated square of eateries. Eateries that operate outside of that square have to be considered an autonomous unit. Otherwise the entire mall would have to be considered a food court. It would be like saying "Fairway Chevrolet is on Sahara and the Valley Auto Mall is on Warm Springs but Fairway Chevrolet is a dealership and a dealership is part of the Auto Mall." That would be ridiculous because, like a food court, an Auto Mall is a designated square of dealerships.
The cookie stand IS part of the food court

I would like to define the cookie stand as being the one upstairs in The Mall. I would further like to define the food court as a common area within a mall or other building where people sit down to eat their food. I will concede that in The Mall the food court is located downstairs. I will proceed to argue this debate wolvie-bazerk style. When the debate is over I expect the son of Jor-El to kneel before Zod and remember parents, teach your children to fear and respect that escalator.
Excess cat populations should be eaten as dinner as opposed to euthanasia.

The humane society calls our cat numbers at 74 million owned cats and 50 million strays. There are 75 million of us with food insecurity. First. Your food aid comes out as two thirds of a dead cat for everybody in food distress. A little more than a cat if we completely destroyed all cats. Second, there would be a certain fascination with what would happen to you if you went to any city in America and offered hungry people dead cat meat. Try it and make sure you let me know where to send flowers.
Excess cat populations should be eaten as dinner as opposed to euthanasia.

Con agrees with me that feral cats are a problem. The implementation would be easy. Just like supermarkets all sorts of dead animal corpses that look appealing. I'm sure the ingenious food corporations could do the same with cats. Imagine sending out people to round up stray cats. After a few steps in between, hot dogs appear in the supermarket. Except these hot dogs aren't 100% beef. How about cat burgers? Or Fluffy chops? The pawsibilities are endless. There is always soup. To the casual customer they wouldn't even know they were served feline. We already eat: 0. Cow 1. Pig 2. Sheep 3. Chicken 4. Turkey 5. Duck 6. Trout 7. Salmon 8. Shark 9. Tuna 10. Cod 11. deer 12. rabbit 13. squirrel 14. Oyster 15. Lobster If you look at the long list of rotting animal corpses we eat already, what would be one more?
Excess cat populations should be eaten as dinner as opposed to euthanasia.

We aren't arguing about whether we should radically reduce the stray cat population. You don't need a link to know that feral domestic house cats are an invasive species or that eating carnivores carries extra health risks. These things are common knowledge. Your definition of "should" seems to be that we coerce and/or encourage the worlds hungry into eating stray cats. I'd stop with saying go for it if you have to. Cook it well. Let's see if we can figure out how to get you a Philly steak and a beer. There are a lot of feral cats in this neighborhood. You go first pal :)
Excess cat populations should be eaten as dinner as opposed to euthanasia.

There is a reason humans don't eat carnivores. The disease transmission risk is a lot higher. A carnivore is much more likely to carry plague, rabies and trichinosis than herbivore. Even in China, their health officials are cautioning against eating dogs. Then there would be taste. If you're in Oregon, you'd notice coastal ducks. They have been eating garbage and seafood. They are inedible because they taste so nasty. It's kind of a chicken/garbage/rotten seafood taste that will definitely make you stop eating. How much better could a cat taste when it's been eating rats. mice and garbage? The size of a cat is also a problem. Most of them are only a pound of meat. It's kind of slim pickings for feeding your family of 4. If cats were good to eat, there wouldn't be strays all over the place. People will just about starve before they eat a cat. It's not even popular in places where eating a dog is no big deal. Pigs are an exception we make to a cultural taboo against eating carnivores and only modern technology makes it reasonably safe. Eating bears is also a little on the dangerous side. Your idea is more obnoxious than Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat cat!" "Let them eat cake" was bad enough. I'm sure starving people in the world would eat cats if they possible could. That there are no takers tells me that your domestic house cat must be pretty close to inedible.