BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The use of politically incorrect language should be avoided.

Why, thank you! We have not only the legal right to say whatever we want, but also the moral right. Why should I not say something that's "politically incorrect" simply because it's going to offend someone? Why should I care? As for our social standing, it probably wouldn't effect it as much as you seem to assume. First, if someone is causing offense to another being, then they don't care about their social standing with that person in the first place. Take your example. Your teenage cousins obviously didn't care about their social standing with that person or the people around them, or else they wouldn't have offended him in the first place. Also, it's important to realize that the degradation of others can also help your social standing among others. Say, for example, there's a group of bullies beating on a little boy. When the leader of the bullies throws the first punch, it increases his social standing with his buddies, rather than decreasing it. The word "slut" or "whore" are only degrading to women if you use them to describe a woman. These terms, and others of the sort, can be used to describe men as well. Regardless of whether or not you want to take it to the extremes or not, you're not actually arguing what your contention states. Your contention is whether or not politically incorrect language should be avoided. You have provided no evidence as to *why* it should be avoided, just different ways we could avoid it. You say that you might insult someone, but provide no evidence or reasoning as to WHY this should be avoided. So, for all these reasons, I suggest a negative vote in this debate.
Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

Note: Before I begin I would like to point out that my opponent has 0 points. He has not stated any reasons supporting his case except his refutations. Now to begin with refutations 1. \\\opening a large number of arms manufacturing plants. Which subsequently lead to the power rushing to Adolf's head and instigating the holocaust and World War II. However, had that German government been a democracy, either representative or direct, than there could have been a check on his power, possibly preventing his actions. So while you believe Hitler's achievements in the economy have helped Germany, and that because he is a sovereign leader that this proves your point, (not to be completely rude) but you are wrong. Hitler is just a fine example of why there SHOULD be democratic principles worldwide, so that no more tyrannous activities can occur. The system of checks and balances which democratic ideals create are there to ensure a leader cannot get out of hand.// I do see where you are coming from, but Hitler is not the only example. For example, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Louis XIV, the list goes on and on. Julius Caesar and Alexander the great weren't the nicest leaders around, but at least they kept the common person safe from invading armies! Here's an analogy, if a country is a wall around you, and a democratic country is a wall that lets you choose it's defender. Which would you rather have, a wall or no wall. Simple. 2. \\\A country just doesn't lose its organization over night due to nothing. Because they lost, their going to belong to the country that beat them. So for one, not only is the example unrealistic, meaning country X would not just be left behind once being defeated, but also that it would not immediately install a monarchic government from the get-go./// You misinterpreted my argument. What I was trying to say was that the country met some sort of doom and was all disorganized and loose, then wouldn't it be better to have a government protecting you than no government at all? (Use the wall analogy again) Conclusion: Having a government (even a non democratic one) is better than having no government at all. If the US sank into Chaos tomorrow, answer me this, would you rather have no government and have complete chaos and madness, or have a monarchy and at least have some bit of order? Your choice... I urge a con vote Thank you
Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

THIS IS A ROUND 2 DEBATE! Definitions: Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. Democratic Principles: Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). Therefore democratic principles are defined as principles of a democratic government. ------------------------------------- 1. Sovereignty is more important than democracy Let me use a few examples, 1930's, Germany. Germany was in an extreme economic depression, people were looking for jobs, their currency was worth close to nothing. This was fixed when Hitler took over the country. If he had not, the country might have not survived for long. (I DO NOT agree with what Hitler did! This is just trying to prove my point!) 2. A democratic government is a bonus Yes, here in America we are enjoying the benefits of a democratic government. But this government is a bonus. Example: Lets say country X is an unorganized group of cities and towns after a great war, no governing body, no order what so ever. Eventually sovereignty in the form of monarchy replaces this chaos. It may not be perfect, but it's at least under control! Maybe later after Country X has some order that you could insert democratic principles, but not at this point. My point is, would you rather have no government, or a government that didn't let you vote but kept you safe from invading armies. I'll expand on these points, and bring in new points in my next speech. I await my opponent's rebuttals. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
i is here

No mate, I don"t think of you as unworthy. To be unworthy, you would have to be unworthy to something, except there is nothing to do. How can you still not understand"? There is nothing you need to do. Before you said you were going to save Humanity now you are saying you"re not going to save Humanity. There is no competition. All that you have said so far is just a waste of time. I tried being friendly, but your just chaotic. THERE IS NO JOB. You said "your actually just projecting as if I need your support in order for me to do what I know I need to do.""What you are doing is exactly that, but with God. You think God needs help. That"s where blasphemy comes in There is no leader in Christianity. What are you talking about? There is only one Leader, and that"s Jesus. What are Jesus" unspoken words. Jesus has spoken they"re in the bible" There is no righteousness except God"s. Isiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean"thing, and all our righteousnesses"are"as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. What are you on about, mate? "This is a competition and anyone is free to claim the title of the Christ, remember Jesus was just the Son of Man." Stop blaspheming. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." He is Lord of all. Don"t follow what I say, Follow what He says. Litteraly Wrote this in 20 mins.
People who have high rankings should be put in jail.

Success in this forum is based on the points system which is not entirely a democratic system. The points are distributed according to conduct, agreement with topic before and after debate, quality of grammar, quality of reference material and best argument. From my experience so far, I have noticed that people use their friends to cast votes for them. This is not what I would call a democratic system. This website is like a class of students which doesn't have a teacher out the front of the class room to keep order and discipline. This results in the students going berserk and ruining the furniture, throwing food at one another and generally making a mess. (analogy only) I have tried to register for voting purposes but it appears they don't send activation codes to Australia. I would suggest a better voting system should be employed so that a fairer result could be achieved. It would be much fairer if voting was anonymous and compulsory to a roster system of voters. Each person who posts a debate would be obliged to vote on one other debate as a kind of payback to ensure system integrity is maintained. In this way, voting would be done by regular contributors and not by Adolf Hitler impersonators. At the moment, I would say that people that have very high rankings are those that know how to rort the system and are not particularly good debaters. The reasons for voting section is just a sham, and does little to justify any decision.
People who have high rankings should be put in jail.

Thanks for starting this topic. Hopefully this discussion goes somewhere. 1) High rank is too ambigous. We can't judge it by percentile, because you can be literally the worst debater on the site and still be in the 99.5th percentile, which is only .5 away from being the best. I bring up the example of Vi_Spex who has lost nearly 300 debates and won less than 50 [1]. So in this percentile you have people who are awful and still accused of being awful people. We can't judge based on ELO because you can just accept debates from people who will most likely forfeit most of their debates for an extended period of time and win a lot. We can't just based on debates won, because that fails to take into account the caliber of debaters that they debated. And trying to judge their caliber runs into the same problems I'm listing, making this all circular and implosive. We can't just based on public opinion, because appeal to people is a logical fallacy. People can be wrong about their opinions. We can't judge based on the skills they demonstrate, because we can't rank that, and if we did it would most likely be highly flawed. Plus there's the reason I will mention below. 2) People who are good at debate have many desirable qualities. They are generally very analytical, logical, and intelligent. These are not things to shun in the real world. In the real world we need people who are analytical, logical, and intelligent unless we want a society run completely by idiots. So generalizing people with these skills as being personally flawed in my opponent's unfounded opinion is ludicrous. 3) The law There is no legal provision to throw people in jail because they have crappy personalities. Another law would have to exist to support this, otherwise this law fails to even exist because there's no provision for it. It would be like that law in Tennessee that restricts you from whale hunting from land. So my opponent's case has zero foundation. Thank you for reading. Source: [1] www.debate.org/vi_spex/
People who have high rankings should be put in jail.

People who have high rankings are obviously rorting the system. These people are posting very short, one or two word debates and then usually win by 15-20 votes while their opponents get no points. So, obviously there is a scam going on here. Example - Mikal who has the hihest ranking of 9,000. Debate - We can create a religion His reply - I will make a cup cake. He then proceeds to cut and paste the recipe for a cup cake. Mikal wins by 22 points to zero. Now, what the hell is that? I would not call that a debate! This is just someone who is rorting the system with absolute nonsense and garbage. Thus, I have proven that the safe guards that have been put into place are not working and that idiots are running riot by posting absolute garbage and then winning. It appears that complaints about system abuse go unheeded. I have complained about a number of members and no action has been taken on these members. Thus, I have clearly proven that people who are rorting the system should be put into some kind of jail. This jail may be in the form of a temporary exclusion zone.
People who have high rankings should be put in jail.

First I will address the resolution. Let's stay on topic please. Nothing in the last round clarified why people who have friends to support them (even if the support isn't always morally sound) should be thrown in jail. Thus, the last round is essentially a forfeit as far as the debate goes. Second I will address my opponent's complaints. 1) This is a theres where you can post enhancement suggestions and Juggle can ignore it. http://www.debate.org... 2) Judges can be elected so that only the ones you want voting on your debate will vote on your debate. This means that no matter who you debate, you don't have to worry about having the other guy's friends vote against you just because they're the friends. You can even be civil and ask the opponent to pick an equal number of voters for their debate. Avoiding vote bombs is very easy if you care enough. 3) You can set the voting standards so that high caliber debaters/voters can't vote on your debate. So under no circumstances is my opponent right. The voting system can be adjusted by someone who cares. Therefore since the voting system can be adjusted by anyone to make it more fair, the fault is on no one but my opponent. My opponent has literally no ground to stand on. Thank you for reading.
The Law of Bio-genesis is Sound

Yes, You were very clear this time around - thank you! :) You said, "What I am saying exactly is that, Essentially, A penguin isn't going to give birth to a cockatoo. A kind will not give birth to another kind. " You're absolutely correct and we agree. If this was all you were saying in your original declaration, Then I apologize - I misunderstood what you meant. I read your comments and evolution and I thought you were saying evolution is not possible due to bio-genesis. That being said, I wrote some rebuttals to your proposition that evolution is wrong: Evolution is change over time. There is never a point in evolution where a species will instantly give birth to another species, That is not how speciation works. Over time, Changes will accumulate in species and often times species become geographically separated due to various natural reasons. The separated species will continue to "change" over time slowly as the generations progress. Eventually those separated species have had enough isolated changes that they are no longer able to breed with one another if they were reunited. In this instance, Speciation has occurred. This is not the only way speciation can occur, But it's one example and it's easy to illustrate. Your example of kinds is not compatible with science, And here is why. If God created birds, For example, Birds would all fall under a single ancestor. God would have had to have created a single original bird, Or at least an original bird kind, Even if he made several of them simultaneously. All modern birds would have descended sharing the same common ancestor of the original "bird" archetype. That archetype would be the highest level for that "kind" and it would not share a common ancestor with anything else. This is simply not the case. Using genome sequencing science has shown all life shares common ancestors in their phylogeny. For example, You and I both share DNA with trees, And worms, And all other known forms of life. The DNA was compounded over millions of years of evolution and you can see how it slowly built itself into what it is today. To see more on this, Google the phylogeny tree and genome projects. The evidence does not stop there. Morphology studies the anatomical changes of phylogeny overtime. Fossils clearly show the transitions from various species. It doesn't stop there. Numerous forms of radiometric dating also verify and corroborate the fossil and geological records. It doesn't stop there. Geology also corroborates all the other evidence. Fossils are always found in chronological order in the geological strata. The layers of strata also map to the expected timelines for that species via the radiometric dating methods. There is additional evidence for evolution such as vestigial developments. These are the biological "left overs" as a byproduct of evolution. In addition to all this, Evolution is demonstrable. It has been tested, Documented and recorded in the lab in and controlled groups. It is fact.
The Law of Bio-genesis is Sound

What I am saying exactly is that, Essentially, A penguin isn't going to give birth to a cockatoo. A kind will not give birth to another kind. I do believe that evolution is wrong, But that isn't what I'm trying to debate here. All I want you to prove is that the Law itself is not sound. Now, To define "kind. " I think it can best be described with an example. Birds are all one "kind. " Snakes are all one "kind. " Lizards are all one "kind. " Do you see the pattern here? For example, If evolution is true, Then at some point in history a "kind" of animal had to generate another "kind" of animal. Is what I'm saying more clear now? If not, Please let me know. But if it is clear, Then let the debate commence. Back to you!
The Law of Bio-genesis is Sound

Before we start this debate I want to clear up some terms with you. We might not disagree afterall. I agree that all "complex" organisms come from other complex organisms, As far as we know, And an organism cannot birth something that is less complex than itself. That is biogenesis as I understand it, And if that is all you are saying, We agree. I am getting the impression that you are saying evolution is not possible. Is that your argument or am I misrepresenting you? If this is not what you're arguing, Then disregard this. I am not trying to straw man you. Only get you to clarify your position better. What is a kind? Can you provide me with a definition and an example. If you are referring to a clade, Then I understand what you mean. If you're not, Please explain.
A comet impacted the Earth in 10,900 BC which had devastating results for the planet

While my opponent's claim and evidence provided is standalone, the evidence I provided to support my claim also support other hypotheses devised by scientific figures, such as the hypothesis that the circulation of warm tropical weather in the North Atlantic was shutdown by an influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz in mid-North America and deglaciation. It is also important to mention my initial evidence came to fruition by reviewing the sediments on the 29 sites that supposedly suggests of a comet impact. While my opponent mentioned the fact that scientific findings are constantly being changed, it is perhaps important to note that my initial evidence is most likely the update on the scientific finding that follows my opponent's initial claim.
A comet impacted the Earth in 10,900 BC which had devastating results for the planet

This is deeper than just one paper. There have been over a dozen papers from multiple different groups published showing positive evidence for the impact. One possible reason for the papers outcome that is cited above is the Clovis-era radiocarbon plateau. Fiedel, S., 2015, The Clovis-era radiocarbon plateau. In A. M. Smallwood and T. A. Jennings, eds., pp. 11-19, Clovis : on the edge of a new understanding. College Station : Texas A&M University Press. 364 pp. This calls your reference into question. I feel the body of evidence still is in favor of a comet. The stories from Native Americans living in the mid-northern US around this time support what we would expect if a comet impact happened. Black rain, darkened skies with no sun for a long time, etc...
A comet impacted the Earth in 10,900 BC which had devastating results for the planet

Firsty, my opponent is taking the side that the North American comet catastrophe did happen over 12,000 years ago. Secondly, and lastly, this did not happen, as a new study in 2014 found out that the 29 sediment layers that indicate the effects of the comet appears to be much younger or much older and "Chronological evidence fails to support claim of an isochronous widespread layer of cosmic impact indicators dated to 12,800 years ago" [0]. [0] - https://www.sciencedaily.com...
Non-sexual nudity should be legal in public places

CONTENTION 1: Banning non-sexual nudity in public violates the right to our bodies. The phrase "my body, my choice" is often repeated in the abortion debate; however, it also proves a good argument in the public nudity debate. It is simply wrong for a government to force its citizens to put something on their bodies against their will. This violates one of the most basic rights we have: the right to our own bodies. CONTENTION 2: Banning non-sexual nudity in public violates the right to freedom of expression. Another basic right violated by the outlaw of public nudity is freedom of speech/expression. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. CONTENTION 3: Nudity is healthy. Clothes, by their nature, restrict movement and blood flow in the human body. The ability to be nude in public also allows for increased intake of sunlight, resulting in higher Vitamin D production levels. Clothes even harbor the growth of fungi and bacteria on the body. Pants can lower sperm count in men, and clothes in general mess up the body's natural temperature-regulating systems. [1] Now, think for a moment. If Con were to have his way, all of these health benefits would be inaccessible to everyone. A government that bans public nudity is not simply disallowing a healthy activity, but forcing its citizens to do something unhealthy! Imagine if a government passed a regulation requiring the drinking of soda in public. That is simply not a government's role. Not only is nudity physically healthy, but psychologically healthy, too. Teens that grew up in a nudist camp were reported to be very well-adjusted in terms of body image, as well as thoughtful and happy. Children who grow up feeling no taboo about nudity are free of body shame and view the bodies of the opposite gender in a more wholesome, non-sexualized way. I cannot stress this enough. Any government that bans nudity is inadvertently propagating body shame, sexualization of women, and poorer health among its citizens. This is simply an outrage. That about covers my main points. I await Con's rebuttal. SOURCES: [1]- . http://immortallife.info...
Donald Trump's Idea for a Border Wall is a Good Idea

The BoP for this debate is shared, meaning both sides will have to provide evidence to support their side of the argument. I will be arguing that Donald Trump's border wall is *not* a good idea, while my opponent will argue that it is. Round 1: Acceptance, opening statement Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Counter-rebuttals, closing statement No kritiks or trolling. Don't accept if you can't be sure you won't forfeit every round. By accepting this debate, you agree to these conditions. Opening Statement: Donald Trump's wall will be a waste of time, money, resources, and will do more harm than good.
Religion, Opponent chooses topic and states their side. Atheists or Christians welcome.

As predicted, Con is trapped in past legends of what a God is supposed to be. I [Pro] had two choices to enter this debate, Christian or Atheist. I selected Christian, for the one thing I have in common with Christians is, the understanding that God created the universe. I shared my reality in the perception of God being the event-identity before the Big Bang. Con has a problem with my reality and seems to be in distressed over it. And in saying that, I'm sorry to upset Con's god-philosophy. This is what debates are all about, the exchange of ideas in the evolution of knowledge. In closing, I look forward in meeting Con again on the debating floor, and wish Con a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the Moral “pursuit of Happiness.”