BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class.

the way you made it sound you were suggested to write them but , why not ? you nkow they will never be read and they are like football tops there to be looked at in there hundreds , teaches children these days that shwoign support for somebody is good, I mean the cards werent for her , shes dead. The cards were for the kid to show that everybody cares , and im sure theeres not a person in your school that didnt care ? I have been to countless amounts of funerals because I was forced into going as a kid , i never meet the person nor the realtives , my parents new them , but it didnt bother me i went there to show to these people that they do care. Its nice when a school becomes a community like that , fair enough i suppose forcing them to write one is unfair , but it is just in teachign children something . remember only one or two of these cards will be looked at.
Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class.

"you said that you were not required you were suggested to write one , so simple answer if you do not want to write one don't. " What I said earlier: "We weren't asked to do it. We weren't suggested to do it. We were required to write a card to someone most of us didn't even know about how we feel sorry for the person for his mom dying. " It seems as if you misread what I said. The fact is, everyone was REQUIRED to write the letter. "On the other hand , its a nice gesture and I'm sure the kid will ultimately appreciate everybody support , as do a lot of people who have just lost somebody , Take Phil O'Donnell widow ( a football player who died on the pitch here in Scotland , or a soccer player as you Americans call it ) everybody criticized the sending of football tops to her family and ones being laid outside the ground , saying it will only add to her grief , a while after this she came out with a public statement saying thank you to everybody who showed their support because it helped her get through it all . Now I don't know if this kid will appreciate the gesture by the whole school showing their support , most people would , because after a while you accept somebody gone and there's nothing you can do and support from people always helps . " I'm sure that everyone who sent football tops to the widow knew who Phil O'Donnell (spelled Donnell, not Donnel . http://www.sundaymail.co.uk...) was, and had watched him play football, and admired him for his football playing. I, on the other hand, in addition to a large number of students in my class, didn't know who it was whose mom had died. As I said earlier, the card ended up sounding very apathetic, which kills the entire point of a sympathy card. Everyone who sent football tops had the option to do so, and were probably crying as they did so. I, however, was not very concerned; rather, I was concerned about how I could put together a sympathy card for a person who until recently I hadn't known to exist. Another key difference is the fact that with football tops, you can just look at them all and know how much support you have. With cards, though, you actually have to read them, one after the other, apathetic card after apathetic card, and frustration builds up in you. And so, students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class because they probably won't know the person they're writing to and will sound apathetic.
Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class.

you said that you were not required you were suggested to write one , so simple answer if you do not want to write one don't. On the other hand , its a nice gesture and I'm sure the kid will ultimately appreciate everybody support , as do a lot of people who have just lost somebody , Take Phil O'Donnell widow ( a football player who died on the pitch here in Scotland , or a soccer player as you Americans call it ) everybody criticized the sending of football tops to her family and ones being laid outside the ground , saying it will only add to her grief , a while after this she came out with a public statement saying thank you to everybody who showed their support because it helped her get through it all . Now I don't know if this kid will appreciate the gesture by the whole school showing their support , most people would , because after a while you accept somebody gone and there's nothing you can do and support from people always helps .
Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class.

Alright, in the 6th grade, someone in my class's LC (Learning Community) had a mom who died of some disease. I had no clue who that person was, and I doubt I ever talked to that person. Then one of the teachers of the LC walked into our classroom and told everyone how the kid's mom died, and the kid wasn't going to show up for a few days, and about how nobody should try to start a conversation about the subject. And then, every student in the LC (that's about a hundred kids) is required to write a little sympathy card by folding a piece of paper in half and writing something on each of the four rectangles formed by the card. We weren't asked to do it. We weren't suggested to do it. We were required to write a card to someone most of us didn't even know about how we feel sorry for the person for his mom dying. Now, if I were that kid, reading through a hundred cards from people I didn't know constantly mentioning my mom being dead would only make the pain worse. I didn't even know what to write on the card, so it ended up sounding very apathetic, which was even worse. The point is, I think that a group of students should never be required to write sympathy cards to anybody.
Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class.

i did not conceed you point , please look at my follow up to that. look there not asking you to do much they are asking you to write a quick crappy card once a year tops i bet you , i never said dont pout anything in them , its the fact that they are there showing the person you sympthasises with them. No offecne but you have the attitude of most children , "why should I ???" because its the right thing to do. also remember this school cant really force you to do these sort of things if you have a problem comforting a kid who jsut lost his mum , tell your parents to go to the school and it will quickly stop.
Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class.

"the way you made it sound you were suggested to write them but , why not ? " Because I didn't really care enough to want to add an apathetic card to his pile of cards, and because. .. "you nkow they will never be read " . .. they'll never be read. Why write something not meant to be read? There's no point. I might as well write "SYMPATHY CARD" on the front and leave the inside blank, but then I run the risk of the person opening it and realizing that I actually left it blank, and then the person gets very upset and starts crying, and that wouldn't be very good, now, would it? "The cards were for the kid to show that everybody cares , and im sure theeres not a person in your school that didnt care ? " I felt just as bad for him as I would for anybody who I heard had a relative who died. And I can't send cards to everybody whose relative died, because then I'd spend my afternoons writing notes to people I hear about in the news. Some people at my school are even more apathetic than I am. I doubt they'd care about someone they'd never even met. "fair enough i suppose forcing them to write one is unfair" Well, I think that you just conceded my point. "remember only one or two of these cards will be looked at. " Then why did I just write it? CONCLUSION: Students should never be required to write sympathy cards in class.
Trayvon Martin was a racist, and had it coming.

I'm here to debate you on the fact that you called him a racist, not the other thing. While it's true that he assaulted Zimmerman, and was a lowlife and a paradisaical scum looking for trouble, there is no evidence to show that he was a racist, just as there is no evidence to prove Zimmerman was a racist. Can you provide proof that Martin said anything racist?
Dualism is likely true.

Knowledge/Zombies.First, Pro makes the mistake of jumping to a conclusion that he couldn't possibly arrive at simply given that he doesn't possess the amount of knowledge that the hypothetical "Mary" does. If he did he could give us a perfect answer to the problem of qualia. However, since he doesn't, his argument is simply circular. Pro is essentially arguing that if we had knowledge of all physical facts, then we wouldn't have knowledge of the sensation of color *because* color isn't contained within the set of physical facts. One can't actually know what Mary would be able to understand and what she wouldn't because the hypothetical scenario is as yet incapable of coming to fruition.On the zombie argument Pro makes, he is again guilty of arguing circularly. His whole concept of metaphysical conceivability rests on the presupposition that physicalism is false. If physicalism is true though than zombies aren't conceivable without contradiction. So Pro is really just guilty of presupposing the falsity of the position in order to argue against it. Reason argument.Pro's argument, even if successful, doesn't affirm dualism since physicalism isn't the only non-dualist metaphysic. On the contrary, pantheism[1] (the view that God and the world are essentially the same substance), panpsychism[2] (the view that the world is made up of one substance, that being mind), and neutral monism[3] (the view that one substance permeates the world, being neither mental nor physical) are all still alternatives to dualism in the case that Pro is successful in his refutation of physicalism. To put it simply, I can completely concede this argument yet still maintain that dualism is false.===Sources===[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Dualism is likely true.

Resolution: Dualism is likely true.Dualism:the theory that the mental and the physical—or mind and body or mind and brain—are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing Substance: a bearer of properties capable of undergoing change(Thanks to popculturepooka) BOP is shared, with the Negative/Con arguing for Physicalism.No semantic arguments.No intentionally fallacious arguments.
what is comunism

I will be representing why communism is bad for the people and business. Communism is the a social and economic system in which all property is owned by a classless individuals society this may seem bad but it houses a lot of disadvantages. The business have very strict limitations which can hinder productivity and innovation no matter how specialize the field each worker will be paid the same, the business will be fund the same and cause emotional unrest because they are feeling there hard work isn't accomplishing anything. It can ruin the entrepreneurial like the US capitalism it has great improved because of the use of business. Communism has no price mechanism,supply,or demand in which can have difficulty to balance. Also the central government owns everything that means production which is bad. Communism doesn't take the needs for the consumer while in capitalism. The consumer needs are very important large and diverse population make it difficult to have a common goal or set of rules and efforts and of course resources. Efficiency and productivity is difficult to maintain when the worker and business don't have the need for profit to improve.
Bill Clinton's Surplus was bad.

Apologies for not posting, very busy in real life. We can look to history to conclude that surpluses/debt reduction leads to undesirable economic results. Every time the government has run a surplus or undergone "debt" reduction, a recession has followed. The clinton surplus is the recent example that also spilled over to the recent recession, with the private sector debt accumulation we're all so fondly aware of. I suppose I will take this time to explain modern monetary theory and some other stuff since I'm sure that's what my "opponent" is looking for :) First, dollars are debt. We can touch on this later if you want to. The "money multiplier theory" is false. Banks don't loan out deposits, nor do they have to set aside anything to lend. There is no limited pile of capital. Banks can't create money without loans. Loans create deposits. The us government faces no solvency risk. The US has no foreign debt. The "national debt" is simply the accounting offset for the private sectors savings.
Bill Clinton's Surplus was bad.

I am going to argue that Bill clinton's balanced budget led to a recession, and, if one reads deeper, argue that a federal surplus is harmful to the economy. I am sure my opponent is familiar with the equation for GDP: C + I + G + (X-M) A federal surplus simply shows the government taxing more then it's spending. If we look at the 90's, we see the US trade deficit exploding. This, obviously, caused the trade deficit to subtract from the GDP, and the government, running the "surplus" kept sucking dollars out of the private sector when it needed them. What compensated? Private consumption. Notice how household savings collapsed during the Clinton years? Household debt also began to surge. Because when the federal government takes on a "surplus" private sector savings are directly affected. The private sector can't survive in negative territory, the private sector, unlike a currency issuer such as the us govt, can't continue to spend more then it brings in. I feel like adding something else to this: When the government is running a surplus, it's not issuing as many bonds. But various entities like treasury payouts and a safe place to park earned dollars. Isn't it funny that fannie and freddie insurance surged in the 90's? This is where debt started being sold like never before, due to a lack of bonds. The surplus went hand in hand with low household savings, high household debt, and the revving up of the fannie and freddie debt boom.
This is immoral on every level, Let's do it

Before you assault someone, Think about how you are harming that person. And even if you don't think about them, Think about the child's parents. How do you think they will feel when they find out what you did to their child And even if you don't think about EITHER of those things, You'll answer to the cops. You might be able to assault someone half your size, But good luck assaulting the S. W. A. T team when you answer to them. In this country, We actually care for our people. We will do everything we can to protect our citizen from people like you.
This is immoral on every level, Let's do it

This is immoral on every level, Let's do it Molesting children is horrible I like it Molesting children is morally wrong on every level I will do it Molesting children is truly the worst thing ever I have done it again and again I will go to prison But that won't stop me from molesting a child I have already molested children And I will molest more children Nothing can stop me from molesting children It is already too late to stop me Because the beast has already left it's mark I have already molested a child And you haven't stopped me I will molest more children And you won't stop me I might be punished I might be put under sanctions But I will always be a child molester Because you haven't stopped me You haven't stopped me from molesting a child It is morally wrong, Reprehensible I probably shouldn't do it But I will do it And I have already done it
Cop brutality and racism

"AMERIKKKA" is going after anyone that commits crimes. You just happen to be part of the one that commits more violent crimes. The more violent you are, the more violence you receive in response. As for your "You never been in our shoes" comment, here is a black man that sees things the same way I have just pointed out to you - .A279; So your race card just got trumped. They aren't attempting genocide on anyone. Exaggerating does not help you prove any points. Have with your skits. I'm sure your 91 followers (who are probably also social justice warriors) are real proud of you.
Cop brutality and racism

Ummm yeah I'm thinking only bout black ppl . Because AMERIKKKA is not going after no one else like they do us. You never been in our shoes of course you don't know where I'm coming from :). They are not trying to genocide no other race like they doing the AFRO AMERICAN RACE. And as far as u keep saying keep my mouth shut. Oh I only just started bro. You will see more skits of these coming soon. 😎c94;🏾
Cop brutality and racism

I am already aware of what racism is. The dictionary does not cover it's full context. You are exhibiting racial bias or racial favoritism. That IS racism. The law isn't 100% fair to any race, moron. Stop thinking only about black people. Look at the other sides of an issue before you run your mouth. Evidence is not proof. Learn how the legal system works. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. You can not prove if he was provoked or not. The term is subjective. If a person feels provoked, then they have been provoked. The guy could have moved his hand too quickly in the general direction of his pocket which would give the impression of reaching for a gun. If someone did that near me while in an area that has a certain amount of criminal activity, I would think they could be reaching for a gun too.
Debate Instigators Should Never Be Con

Debate: A discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something. – Merriam-Webster dictionary. Resolution: The act of finding an answer or solution to a conflict, problem, etc : the act of resolving something. – Merriam-Webster dictionary. The flow of my round will simply address the pros points in the order that they were presented, I will still number them for clarity in reading.1. Debate resolutions, by my definition which is the standing definition as pro did not provide any predetermined examples or definitions themselves, are as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Therefore, the pro is stating a purely subjective statement that lacks reasonable support. By my definition, the resolution is merely the topic to be debated. The resolution is not inherently tied to the standpoint of the instigator but is a topic to be resolved. In fact, Debate.org lacks any form of rule set declaring that the instigator must be in affirmation of the resolution. Their only specific rule is this, “The "Instigator" is the person who initially starts the debate, and the "Contender" is the person whom accepts the challenge to debate.” Using this definition by the site hosting this debate, I will assert that this is in fact evidence that the ability of the instigator to be a con is not in fact illogical, but reasonable and supported by the sites rules and external definitions. 2. For simplicity, the con will use the pros example. In their argument, they claimed that the resolution, “The Russian City of Volgograd should be renamed to Stalingrad”, was illogical in that the instigator of the debate decided to take a standpoint in negation. Using my definitions and previous statements, this is disproven. The pro has their main evidence as personal assumptions on the logical solutions humans would come to. They lack any evidence to prove that this is true other than their opinion, which is not proven to be representative of humans in general. 3. The pro states as their third point that because all resolutions can be written from an affirmative standpoint, they should be. They claim that “There is no reason for a debate to be instigated by Con as all resolutions can be written to fit a Pro position.” [sic] without stating how this is anything other than their opinion on the subject. In fact, the con would like to argue that this point and even this debate can be entirely reversed using their logic and some minor changes. It could easily be changed to declare that all resolutions should be written from a negative standpoint because it is reasonable to assume that debate topics should be defended by others. Conclusions Therefore, the con must conclude that the pro is taking an opinionated standpoint without evidence as to the logic of it. The only possible result of this is that the voters must vote against them due to their lack of providing any sources outside of their subjective reasoning to fulfil their burden of proof. There is nothing inherently wrong with instigators deciding to argue against a resolution for the purpose of a debate.
Debate Instigators Should Never Be Con

IllogicalDebate resolutions are statements of affirmation. No matter how they are worded (as long as they are not a question) they are a defensible position. For example: We Should Colonize Mars or We Should Not Colonize Mars. These are standard debate resolutions. When someone initiates a debate, or initiates a statement in general, you automatically assume that they are in agreement or at least not in disagreement with what they are saying. For example: Vegetables Are DeliciousIf someone were to say that you are not going to wonder if they are Pro or Con on that statement, since the statement was initiated it is assumed that the initiator has some sort of conviction towards the statement. It would be illogical for someone to say "Vegetables are delicious" and when asked "Really? " they say "No they're actually disgusting, I'm Con on that statement". It's completely illogical. 2. No Different For Debates This principle of assumption and the illogical nature of affirming something then taking the Con side of it is no different when initiating a debate. Example:The Russian City of Volgograd should be renamed to Stalingrad [sic]This is a current debate that is in the challenge period. When you read the title you think that the person initiating the debate is for this statement just as you assume the guy praising vegetables is for his statement. Then when you look at the debate more carefully the instigator is the Con. This is misleading due to the logical assumption that someone affirming a statement agrees with it. If we do not assume this then things get really misleading which is deceptive and irritating.3. All Debate Resolutions Can Be Written For ProThere is no reason for a debate to be instigated by Con as all resolutions can be written to fit a Pro position. Take our previous example: The Russian City of Volgograd should be renamed to Stalingrad. The rewrite looks like this: The Russian City of Volgograd should not be renamed to StalingradorThe Name Change of the Russian City of Volgograd Was GoodThese are two statements that are good resolutions that could be defended from the Pro position. This would clear up the illogical and confusing nature of not knowing if the initiator is defending or attacking their own resolution. ConclusionIt is illogical, deceptive and counterproductive to initiate a debate resolution (or any affirmative statement) and then turn around and take the Con side. All debate resolutions can be rewritten so that the Pro can defend the position they want. Therefore, there is no excuse for illogical, deceptive and counterproductive behavior. Debate instigators should never be Con. Thank you.
Debate Instigators Should Never Be Con

I am starting this debate as I have recently been continuously frustrated in that I click on debate topics that I would be interested in taking only to find that the instigator has taken CON on the position. This is not how debates should be instigated and I will be arguing that point.The definitions should be self explanatory. The person who instigates the debate is the one who has issued the public challenge. They should take the PRO and not the CON when instigating. Simple. If there are any questions comment or raise them in the first round.First Round: AcceptanceSecond Round: ArgumentsThird Round: ConclusionsI want this debate to be a rather short one as the topic is exhaustive. Thank you.