BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intillectials cannot handle dirty humor.

Rebuttals: Argument 1- Well, you may find this joke amusing, as may other intellectuals, but you have no proof that the average intellectual would find the joke amusing. Also, I don't think that joking about high birthrates should be classified as "dirty" humor. Argument 2- Yes, but they still can't snipe n00bs on Call of Duty like I can, and this is one of the most useful life skills known to mankind. Argument 3- The Big Bang Theory DOES, in fact, feature some dirty humor. However, the show is very mainstream, and is not exclusively viewed by intellectuals. This isn't to say intellectuals don't watch the show, but it is a show that many common folk watch. This joke was most likely viewed as extremely offensive by most intellectuals. Argument 4- Con has no proof that this would be the average reaction of an intellectual. However, I have anecdotal evidence that my reaction WOULD occur. "Well, the last time this happened to me, I had enough. I started screaming at them, telling them that they were jealous of my skillz, and they were going to get quickscoped if they ever faced me in Call of Duty. " Now, while this evidence is in no way reliable, it still technically is evidence.
Intillectials cannot handle dirty humor.

Its cool, at first glance of this question, I just felt like having a debate with a topic that sounded interesting and like nonsense. I did consider if you were a troll or not since you misspelled intellectual, but was just wondering if that was done on purpose to emphasize the person asking this question as having stupidity/ ignorance in the face of intellectuals. Anyway, I'll play along with your little farce of a controversial/questionable statement *Laughing out loud*. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intellectuals do have a sense of dirty humor in how they joke about the average birth rate of prodigy-level intellectuals compared to the average birth rate of "peasants" who have children like dogs and cats because they cannot control their "id" (Part of Sigmund Freud 's model of psyche) or uncoordinated instinctual trends of the common people. The reason why they "bore" you with their speeches is because if they didn't do that, then they wouldn't be able to show just how much more productive their brains are compared to the hollowness in the heads of the common folk. One big fat piece of evidence for my case that intellectuals have a dirty sense of humor, is "The Big Bang Theory". I mean really, if your going to suggest or imply that intellectuals and dirty jokes don't mix then your very likely in the ignorant category of the "peasants". "Interesting, sex works even better than chocolate to modify behavior. I wonder if anyone else has stumbled onto this?" -Sheldon I am not going to explain this joke because then it would not be as funny, it is said as evidence for dirty humor. Sure, some snooty snoot pretend-to-be intellectuals might laugh at you for telling sex jokes about their dads that they believe will cause your IQ to drop, but the actual intellectuals will ask you to give them the details so they can further conduct research on the possibility if by any chance that their father is a transsexual who will become pregnant and give birth to their new baby siblings. Let this be a lesson to you peasant. Sources utilized:https://www.google.com...
Intillectials cannot handle dirty humor.

Hello, welcome to debate.org, and thanks for accepting. This was intended to be a joke debate. I wasn't originally going to state this, but I thought you should know, because don't want you to have a bad impression of this website. There are some trolls here, but they are in the minority (I, myself have done a fair bit of trolling, but I've never went as far as to accept debates people create just to mess with them. I have made some joke debates myself, though some of them have been removed by customer support. Damn them!). Well, this rant has gone on for far too long, so with out further ado, here are my arguments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this world, there are many evils. Poverty, illness, murder, suicide, and many more. These things, while horrible, cannot compare with the atrocities these people have committed. Yes, I am speaking of intellectuals. They bore us with their stories of science, history, arithmetic, and science. They all use fancy words, and then complain when we can't understand them. (Wtf is a "misanthropic" anyways?). They all wear monocles, and drink champagne. The worst part about them, however, is that they CAN NOT APPRECIATE DIRTY JOKES! Whenever you walk up to an intellectual, and tell them that you had sex with their dad, they will tell you you're being "immature", and that you are "a lowly peasant", and "not worthy of their presence". Then they will laugh at you, while sticking their noses up, with all their intellectual friends. Well, the last time this happened to me, I had enough. I started screaming at them, telling them that they were jealous of my skillz, and they were going to get quickscoped if they ever faced me in Call of Duty. That showed them. No intellectual has dared to approach me since I finally stood up to those intellectuals. In fact, they all cower at the mere sight of me.
Intillectials cannot handle dirty humor.

Hello, this is my 2nd debate on debate.org. I was wondering if there was by any chance, hidden meaning behind your misspelling of the word "intellectuals", but I am guessing probably not right? For this debate, we should consider what means to be an intellectual and who are the intellectuals. As taken from Dictionary.com, One definition of Intellectuals is said to be "possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, especially to a high degree" I believe this is the correct definition of the word,intellectuals, that you had intended right? If so, then there are a multitude of comedians who I can point out on comedy central who can be deemed intellectual and can handle as well as give many jokes on sex, race, porn, gender, and other categories that would be considered "dirty humor". It seems that you do not have to go to a prestigious college to be considered an intellectual. What qualifies a person as an intellectual is if they meet the definition said earlier in the eyes of an individual. The reason I say that is because some people might use the word intellectual in terms of their own ideas of what an intellectual is. Some might believe that they cannot handle dirty humor as your topic says, others might disagree like I do, and that is because the term intellectual is a very broad word in terms of a set designation of categorizing a certain group of people. The main point I am trying to state is that intellectual is too abstract of a word, because people use it respectively for who they think are intellectuals. I look forward to this debate. Thank you for posting this issue. Sources utilized: http://dictionary.reference.com...
love=joy+hate

Not a single word in that incoherent ramble did you refute nor put forth anything worth of value. Everyone reading this I am sorry, you came here in attempt to find an interesting debate but got this. Now then how about we start debating instead of making fun of each others dick sizes, it is quite low of someone to make fun of such thing. However I guess for someone who can't even get the definition of joy right I can't really expect much. Here is a question what is the definition of this "positive emotion," and "Hate," that makes love so lovely. Also pain is not always the opposite of joy an example would be a masochist, they relish in pain and get joy from it, why don't you explain that (without making fun). Also the next time you dare to insult me I will have no mercy with my choice of words! http://www.merriam-webster.com...
love=joy+hate

I am will be on the refuting side of this topic and arguing that Love does not equal joy plus hate as my opponent has put forth. Even though we are dealing with an abstract concept the premise of your argument is wrong. Love does not equal joy plus hate, according to your definitions. You misconstrue joy with pleasure when you say "joy=touch, taste, see... having sex is an intense experience of joy," . There is a difference between the two is that Joy as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: a feeling of great happiness, a source or cause of great happiness : something or someone that gives joy to someone, success in doing, finding, or getting something, has almost nothing to do with the physical sense but mental and emotional sense. However Pleasure is defined as: a feeling of happiness, enjoyment, or satisfaction : a pleasant or pleasing feeling, activity that is done for enjoyment, something or someone that causes a feeling of happiness, enjoyment, or satisfaction, this definition has to do with achieving a happy state by a physical stimulant, your definition of joy is really the definition of Pleasure. You are making love to sound as if it were a physical task, that having sex in a relationship will make it last. However if that was true then one-night stands would work, High school flings would be true love, and people searching for love would only have to get into someone's pants for them to love them. Does that work in real life though, the answer is no. therefore you statement, love=joy+hate, is actually Self-desire=Pleasure+hate.
The Sky Is Blue

Con--I say reason that the sky is not blue. Blue is simply a label. If a person has been blind all his life he cannot have an idea of what color the sky is, therefore, to him the sky is not blue because blue does not exist. I LOL'd I come back to this with this arguement for the last one. --I propose that the sky is not blue because there is no evidence to support it. Sky is blue for the Asians. Call a asian and tell him/her to go outside and look up and say "What is the color of the sky?" --In fact, the sky is black. But black to blind people doesnt exist. --The only reason the sky appears to be blue is because the light of the sun engulfs our atmosphere. But then why isnt the sky white?
The Sky Is Blue

I say reason that the sky is not blue. Blue is simply a label. If a person has been blind all his life he cannot have an idea of what color the sky is, therefore, to him the sky is not blue because blue does not exist. I propose that the sky is not blue because there is no evidence to support it. In fact, the sky is black. The only reason the sky appears to be blue is because the light of the sun engulfs our atmosphere. Good luck Pro.
One must oppose capitalism in order to be an Anarchist.

Really sorry about the forfeit. Rebuttals Premise 2 "A pizza oven is capital. The pizza ingredients are not. While ingredients are inputs, they do not count as capital because they are not durable. The person who owns the pizza oven is, then, a "capitalist". " Capital is distinct from natural resources that capital must itself be produced by human labor before it can be a factor of production. The problem with is not the holding of the capital but how it's use is regulated. My family actually owns a pizza oven but the distinction between us and a capitalist is that we make pizzas for us and friends and don't rent someone and take the pizzas to sell for a profit. (Sports metaphors offend my delicate homosexual sensibilities :p) 2B 'Thus, in order for ownership to be maintained, force must be used. This applies to any item, not solely capital. Clothing, food, water and other such items must sometimes be defended as well, if one wishes to keep them.' Again the opposition to capitalism is the renting of people which is what is implied with private ownership by those who own the mill or whatever the capital is. 2C The organizational structure of some businesses is oppressive. Employees are not valued as people and are easily replaceable. However, this is not inherent to capitalist, as it is not necessary to have a top-down approach or view employees as machines. The wages of working will vary. Unfortunately, some people are more productive, efficient, or valuable to a business. Capitalist enterprises are by nature top-down hierarchies. Co-operative enterprises are socialist. Is a CEO 350 times as valuable as an entry level worker?
One must oppose capitalism in order to be an Anarchist.

Hello everyone! This topic was inspired by MaesterAemon's comment on the debate "Government is unnecessary and unjust and should be abolished". http://tinyurl.com... MaesterAemon states:"While you are obviously trying to associate yourself with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling yourself "anarchists" your ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism as a political as well as a social movement. As a result, any claims that your ideas are anarchist is simply false."To me, this is a pretty interesting claim. I have done some research into the Anarchist tradition; it has not been exhaustive and is still ongoing, of course, but I have not found anything within the anarchist tradition that requires that Anarchists oppose capitalism. It should be an interesting debate. Unfortunately, MaesterAemon deems the dictionary definitions of "Anarchy" to be unfit, to say the least. As such, I will simply use the definition provided by Immanuel Kant. "Anarchy is a form of political organization with Law and Freedom, but without Force."RULES I. Round One will be a simple statement of position, and, if you choose, a BREIF layout of your arguments to come. The layout may not to exceed 30 words. Round Two will be opening arguments ONLY.Round Three will be Rebuttals Round Four will be Counter-Rebuttals and Closing Statements.II. Neither debater will use profanity or derogatory language. "Derogatory language" includes calling an argument nonsensical or silly. Neither debater may attack the definition provided in for this debate. If the definition must be discussed, this can be done in the comments section.III.Breaking any of the above rules in any round (Say I use derogatory language in R1) results the lose of the conduct point. This applies to EACH of the above rules. Burden of Proof is shared in this debate. Each debater needs to make a positive case for their position.---------Position: CON.Statement: One does not need to oppose capitalism in order to be an anarchist.LAYOUT:1. One must oppose forcefulness* to be an anarchist. 2. Capitalism does not require forcefulness.C. One does not need to oppose Capitalism to be an anarchist. * "Forcefulness" in the context above means "initiation of force".
Couples of the same sex should be able to get married, and be recognized by the State.

Would you like the government to tell you that you are not allowed to be heterosexual? They are not allowed to keep people from practicing whatever religion you believe in, and they should not be allowed to keep them from doing whatever they believe in, whether it is centered around religion or anything else. I'm not saying people should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want, but being homosexual affects nobody but themselves and their partner. I am not homosexual. I am also not Jewish, but I have Jewish friends, and what someone believes does not matter to me. Just because someone believes differently than most people does not mean they are wrong. They should not be judged or discriminated against because they think differently than the majority of the people. You are not told by other people or by the government that you are not allowed to be heterosexual, and neither you nor the government should be allowed to tell people they can't be homosexual.
Couples of the same sex should be able to get married, and be recognized by the State.

For some reason, my opponet did not post their argument within the allotted time. To be fair, There is some information out there that try to rebuke what I've listed. The only thing that you have to is do a search on Google for it. You can also find some websites where other people who answer what the people who try to change God's word on the subject. For me, The Bible is very clear on this subject. Granted, I've not done a very indepth study of this but I do not see a reason to sense I am not gay and this does not affect me and because the Bible is very clear on this.
republicanss tend to lack critical thinking

Now time for my rebuttal: 1. First Pro believes that just because a theory is supported by a large group then it is automatically correct. The popular belief is not always the right one, not everyone respected Einstein's theory. 2. I don't see how the wealth of certain groups corresponds to their wealth. 3. Yes their views are not as skewed because their jobs are not as dependent on government policy. 4. Pro continues to say scientist, but this is a very broad term and never specifies on the type of scientist used in the study. We have no idea what scientists were Republicans and which were Democrats and their specific occupation. 5.Pro says that scientist are the most valued in critical thinking, but never elaborates to why and again we don't know what type of scientist. When you think about it memorization and theorizing are better tools for scientist then critical thinking. 6.pro asks shouldn't their meager support of the Republican Party tell us something? Well would you support a party that wants to cut funding to your research that you have been working on for years? No, you will support the party that will expand funding to your research. Everyone has bias, the most important issue to a scientist is science and who is going to fund there research. So far Pro has not given any credible evidence as to why republicans lack critical thinking. I have given numerous studies that suggest jobs that require large amounts of critical thinking are politically equal and in some cases in favor of the republicans. Pro has not lived up to the requirements to win. She also has not given the specific scientists and their occupations in his argument.
republicanss tend to lack critical thinking

con uses evolution as an example. i'm sure he could have used global warming. if so many scientists think a way about those topics, it should say somehtingabout them. that they are probably not the way republicans view them. i notice in your look at lawyers doctors an CEOs, that the richer they get, the more likely they are to be republican. there is certainly an element of self interest involved. plus their views are not so skewed, as it is with scientsits. sure, there might be some bias, given they often rely on funding from more progressive types. and a 'group think' mentality, to some extent. but given their positions and abilities, surely they overcome most of those biases and think objectively. these are some of the most intelligent people we have, and at the very least, the most valued in terms of their critical thinking. shouldn't their meager support of the republican party tell us something?
republicanss tend to lack critical thinking

In order for Pro to win this debate she must prove that there is substantial evidence that clearly shows that Republicans lack a considerable amount of critical thinking, if she doesn't Con wins the debate. Con does not have to prove that Republicans have more critical thinking just that they do not lack a considerable amount of it. To start with here is a definition of critical thinking, Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. A person with good critical thinking skills would then be good at solving problems, reflecting on one's beliefs, assessing the situation, constructing arguments, and identifying the relevance of ideas. Source-http://philosophy.hku.hk.... I will now start to refute my opponent's argument. 1. The data she used was clearly cherry picked as only one study is sited. The study deals with Scientists, an occupation that deals with critical thinking but fails to realize other factors in a lack of Republican scientists. For one many Republicans do not believe in evolution and other scientific theories. Many of these theories go against a lot of Republican values.Another pew research study found that 48% of scientists are atheists. Source-http://www.pewforum.org.... Atheists are far more common to be Democrats than Republicans. Also Democrats generally favor increasing funding to scientific research so scientist might support the democrats just for more funding and not ideology. 2.Pro never linked critical thinking to scientists. 3.Those saying independent and don't know might be pressured into not saying Republican since a large majority of scientist are Democrats. Now on to my points. I will provide statistics for other jobs that require critical thinking like CEOs, physicians, and lawyers. CEOs require critical thinking skills to make tough financial decisions and run companies with thousands of employees. Physicians must assess a person's symptoms and prescribe the best medicine for them. Lawyers must know how the law is applied in certain situations and how to best persuade a jury. As you can see all of these jobs require a certain amount of critical thinking. This graph illustrates the political Orientation of lawyers and physicians, Occupation Liberal Moderate Conservative Lawyer 39.3% 32.2% 28.5% Physician 32.5% 21.4% 46.0% As you can see there is a slight majority in both lawyers and physicians in there political orientation liberal(democrat) and conservative(republican). 46% of doctors are conservative and 32% are liberal. 39% of lawyers are liberal and 28% are conservative. Source-http://anepigone.blogspot.com... Now on to CEOs, according to http://www.statisticbrain.com... 52% are Republican, 17% are independent, 2% are democrat, and 29% did not respond. If we are measuring critical thinking by the job occupation that require it like pro intended then the stats point to no considerable difference.
republicanss tend to lack critical thinking

This is why I have won this debate. To start in order for Pro to win she must prove that there is substantial evidence that clearly shows that Republicans lack a considerable amount of critical thinking which she has failed to do. The only evidence provided is one study that concluded that there are more Democrats that are scientist than Republicans. Pro never gave a source for this research study so the legitimaty of this poll has to be questioned. Pro also fails to consider other factors in Republicans not being scientist like their policy and morals. She also never gives the specific type of scientist in the study. Also she never establishes a link between scientist and critical thinking. For Pros arguement to work scientist must be the only occupation that requires critical thinking. On the other hand I provided the political orientation of multiple jobs that require critical thinking and I explained how these jobs require critical thinking. These studies showed the political affiation of these jobs and that it is pretty equal(Republicans have the majority in a couple studies). Remember that Pro had the Burden of Proof and vote Con. Thank you Dairygirl4u2c for a great debate and my first completed debate.