BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cause and effect is plus and minus, plus is minus, and mins is plus

PRO has said quite a bit with so few words, let's review: "Cause and effect is plus and minus" Plus: Having, receiving, or being in addition to what is anticipated. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Minus: to be diminished by, deprived of, or without. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Cause:something that brings about an effect or a result. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Effect:Something produced by an agent or cause. http://www.merriam-webster.com... While a cause may indeed bring forth an addition to a scenario, it could just as easily subtract, the same applying to an effect. For example: A man climbs a ladder to change a light bulb. The ladder slides out from under him, and he falls to the ground. Nothing has been added into this scenario, and in fact, the cause was a subtraction, the effect of which was a nasty fall. "plus and minus are the same" Plus is an addition to something, and minus is a subtraction from something, they couldn't be more different. Following PRO's line of thinking, this would also mean that cause and effect are also the same thing. A cause is the initial producer of an effect, while the effect is a consequence of the cause, while they are "symbiotic" in nature, they are anything but the same. "giving is taking, and taking is giving." While this is potentially true when discussing physical objects, such as apples, it is not necessarily true when discussing less tangible concepts. For example, I could give a handshake without losing a handshake for someone else. By giving one man a handshake, I've not prevented myself from giving the same to someone else. PRO again makes the mistake of thinking that because a consequence occurs, the action leading to that consequence are one in the same. While the consequence of giving may result in taking, it does not make them one in the same regardless. " plus is where i can move my hand to" The potential location of any part of your body is not "plus", it is simply potential. "minus is how my hand got to where it is" Using electrical impulses traveling through his nervous system, PRO sent a command from his brain to his muscles, causing the effect of his hand moving to the desired location. This has nothing to do with minus. "where ever my hand is, is equal" Wherever one's hand is is it's present location, and in no way is "equal" in the sense of a mathematical formula. "i equal because i can plus and minus" Equal: of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another; identical in mathematical value or logical denotation. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Although this fails grammatically, it is potentially true. One can reach balance by adding or subtracting, unfortunately, PRO does not use the true definitions of addition, subtraction, or equal, and therefor has not provided sufficient evidence for his case, as we have no idea what he's talking about.
cause and effect is plus and minus, plus is minus, and mins is plus

I am CON. PRO's assertion: plus is where one can move his hand minus is how the hand arrived at it's present location plus IS minus and minus IS plus. Equal is wherever the hand presently is. PRO goes on to say that giving and taking are the same thing. In the next round, I'll explain why these statements are little more than a fast and loose manipulation of the English language.
cause and effect is plus and minus, plus is minus, and mins is plus

PRO has provided no arguments the entire debate, and only demonstrates a failed grasp of the English language. He simply replaces words and demands the new words hold the same meaning and value and expects everyone reading to apply these ramblings as not only truth, but some sort of revelation. You, voter, may see that I have forfeited and penalize me if you wish, however I believe that my arguments from Round 2 were never challenged, and have extended without any resistance. I ask instead that you vote based on the merit of our arguments and disregard my forfeits, as my words went uncontested by my opponent during his monologues. Thanks for reading!
Reality T.V. gives kids and adults a false viewing of life.

Think about this for a second, if you were a father, would you let your daughter watch all of the "reality" shows that portray to young girls that you can go around all day acting like a slut and drinking and having sex. Some people may not be smart enough to figure out the difference between the two. Either way, it's not fair for anyone to have to see others acting a mess in public and them getting rich for it's not how life works.
Reality T.V. gives kids and adults a false viewing of life.

Well first of all, I believe that while the things portrayed in "reality" TV are usually so out of the ordinary that most people can realize that that is not how the real world works. The people watching should be able to distinguish between reality, and the "reality" of the TV show. Also, some shows are the like that because the people in them are very rich or famous, and therefor get some what of a pass on things like that.
Freedom is not free and the cost is war. Freedom is the reason we are in Iraq.

What you are proposing is a temporary solution to the problem of Terrorism. I agree we might be able to chase the Terrorists out of Iraq but we will never be able to completely change their ideals with the use of war. The only way to completely solve this problem is through education and removing the Terrorist ideology from the society and this cannot be completely achieved through the use of war. In addition let me remind all voters that vinavinx said that "Freedom is not free and the cost is war" and he did not prove that in all circumstances this is true therefore I have won the debate. Any vote that goes against this is a vote on opinion and not the facts and arguments of the debate. Please keep this in mind as you vote on the debate.
Freedom is not free and the cost is war. Freedom is the reason we are in Iraq.

I agree that education is not an act of war. But how do you educate a radical people who throw away lives for their ideals. These radical islamic terrorists care nothing for life outside their ideals. You cant stop suicide bombings and plane crashes by sitting and talking to people who would shoot you as soon as they look at you just because you believe differently. These same people have torchered and oppressed the innocent peaceful people of iraq. The only way to stop them is to chase them out of the country. We can not do this by talking!
Freedom is not free and the cost is war. Freedom is the reason we are in Iraq.

Since when has a boycott become an act of war, it is our choice as a country not to buy oil from Iraq. We are not blockading them from receiving imports as stated in your example; we are choosing not to buy their exports. I have no idea what you are talking about. You may believe that the method I presented was not effective but it is not an act of war. All I am saying with my example is there is more than one way to gain your freedom. War is not always the cost of freedom as stated in your topic. For example Gandhi employed peaceful civil disobedience in the Indian community's struggle for civil rights in South Africa. In Africa, he organized poor farmers and labourers to protest against oppressive taxation and widespread discrimination. Gandhi led his nation in the disobedience of the British salt tax imposed in India with a 248 mile Dandi Salt March in 1930. These are all examples of freedom gained without the use of war. "In order for the Iraqis to completely be free you need to remove the terrorists." I agree with this statement but there is no way we can achieve this goal with the use of war. This is the definition of terrorism as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." By this definition the reason for the terrorist's use of force is ideological reasons, how can you fight a war to stop an ideology. It would be like fighting a literal war against racism, sexism, any set of ideals you can think of. The only actual way to stop ideologies is through education and let me assure you that is not an act of war.
Freedom is not free and the cost is war. Freedom is the reason we are in Iraq.

Your before statement was a total contradiction. In the middle ages one of the tacticts of war was to cut off a castle from recieving food or money. This was a blockade. To quit buying oil and slowing a nations income for a political purpose is an ACT of war. Doing this would probably cause more problems cause it would also affect the income of the un-free citizens. It would actually probably affect them more than the high government we have overthrown. Taking away their income is an act of war. Also taking away a supply of money would not get rid of the terrorist threat in that country. In order for the Iraqis to completely be free you need to remove the terrorists.
Freedom is not free and the cost is war. Freedom is the reason we are in Iraq.

I agree freedom is not free however I do not believe the cost of freedom has to be war. I believe there are more effective ways than war to gain freedom for the people of Iraq. A more effective way to get what you want out of country is to cut off their source of income. For example we could have chosen not to purchase oil from Iraq until they guaranteed freedom for their citizens. I believe this could have been a rather effective method considering Iraq's main export is oil and the US consumes more oil than any other country. Iraq would have been forced to change something or suffer the economic consequences. You could argue that the US would have suffered dramatically from this decision. I mean we need oil to run our country if we lose the imports from Iraq how can we still run. Here is the problem with the previous statement. What is more important a life or a barrel of oil? If you choose a barrel of oil we should be having an entirely different debate, however, I suspect that you choose a life. In that case it is more effective to force Iraq to do what we want through economic means rather than using force and wasting soldier's lives.
Freedom is not free and the cost is war. Freedom is the reason we are in Iraq.

All of us have heard the term "Freedom isn`t free.". It is commonly said and we read it on cars everywhere! So I am guessing that this simple fact is "common knowledge". If it is common knowledge then why do so many people (*cough* liberals *cough*) act like its not a fact?! The war over in Iraq is all about FREEDOM! The Iraqi people WANT FREEDOM! The one problem is, is that they dont have the streangth to take it for themselves, so we are helping them! Freedom is not free! War is the price we have payed for freedom. Why not help another nation get theirs?
Rap Battle Tournament - Semi-finals

I'm here to finish this last act, are you ready "RayP"? defeat for you is a flashback. try and spit like you hate me, and once again get laughed at. Too many rhymes, without the proper use. you spit like I'm battling Dr. Suess! This isn't the little leagues. it's do or die. At least it was here until you arrived! I just summed you up in 2 lines.. who am I!? I'm the one to finish you. call me the Russian. right now, you may as well be Ukraine. cause you'll be nothing as soon as I rush in. think you stand a chance? Are you sane!? You'll look like Slovakia. after I crushed 'em! I roll my eyes whenever this guy recites. You spit enough lines to maybe leave some flea bites. before you f*ck up your facts, then apologize to me, right? You go into pure hate as soon as we fight. Do me a favor, scrap your first verse and rewrite. I'll blow you to pieces then stack you neatly. Only so I can stomp it down completely. you'll regret the day you tried to meet me. I don't care if you're gone forever or only briefly. every time you look at me, it'll be from beneath me.
Rap Battle Tournament - Semi-finals

Really? First thing you do is take my name? Is this how you try to steal my fame? You are just a pawn in this endless game, now turn and run before you get maimed, I have already ignited the flame that will leave you writhing in pain. I'm afraid I have to put you down, lethal injection, I'm not clownin' around, bury you six feet under the ground, and leave you to the hell hounds. The Russian bear has awakened from sleep, and already scents a boy, frail and weak, who can do nothing but sit down and weep, the smallest growl will make him shriek. Get on your knees, you should know your place, you are incapable of keeping the pace, prepare yourself to be simply aced, crushed, beaten, and left without a trace. Your lyrics do not scare, but disgust me, accomplish nothing but still cussed me, your resistance is futile, trust me, get some WD-40, your style is rusty. Rappy's brain is engulfed in the shadow of mine, it overloads and shuts down upon reading my lines, unable to handle the pure genius, I'm Einstein, but to rappers like you, I'm a glorious shrine. Dude, just put down your mic right now, save yourself some embarrassment next round, if rap was a battleship, I'm the prow, waves gettin' sliced like dirt by a plough. Want my spot? Think you're tough enough? The sea is about to storm and get rough, and it looks like you're just a buffed bluff, who's actually just a delicate little puff. It's frustrating just reading your bars, so dim and weak like a black star, retreat to Mars before you get scars, from the King of all czars. You can't run away from my turf, because you're nothing more than a serf. In fact, to me you are forever enslaved, so don't get too brave so close to your grave, I have the power to lock you in a cave, and take away from you all that you crave. Now that you've heard my words ring out, you little lout know what I'm all about, I need nothing but pure thought to clout weaklings like you and force you to rout.
death penalty

I'd like to begin by greeting my opponent and thanking him for providing this chance to debate! My opponent opens with the assertion that it "costs too much to keep these prisoners" (grammar corrected.) However, this is actually false. In fact, as deathpenalty.org notes, it actually costs more because "the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases." Several appeals are invariably made in cases where capital punishment is recommended to avoid the execution of the innocent. According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the average appeal process is "17 years." During all that time, taxpayer money funnels into the prison system and those inmates placed on death row. According to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice. the average cost of keeping inmates on death row is "$90,000 per year per inmate" on top of the general prison costs. That's a lot of extra money that taxpayers would save without the costs of death row - and that's just waiting for the actual executions. The execution methods themselves, as they are legally obligated (in the United States) to be humane, are also expensive. A 2005 Los Angeles Time study found that the state of California spent "$250 million per execution." Again, we actually save money by not utilizing the death penalty. Because the death penalty costs more than keeping prisoners in prison, and because it is fully possible that there are some inmates whom it would never be safe to release into society, I propose, as an alternative to the death penalty. life in prison without parole (LWOP). As the ACLU of Northern California says, serving life without parole is cheaper than keeping prisoners on death row, it prevents the possibility of accidently executing innocents, and it is actually preferred by many families of the inmates' victims. As this is only the first round, I will now allow my opponent to respond to my arguments and present some of his own. I anticipate his responses, and I look forward to a great debate! Source 1: http://www.deathpenalty.org... Source 2: https://www.aclunc.org...
Schools should block social media and video sharing websites

Rewards or not, students would still abuse the system because of their amateurism. They are simply too young to be given complete responsibility over something that can behave as a distraction or a resource. Because of their amateurism they will always choose to entertain themselves by using these websites. If schools were to block them then students have fewer distractions and more resources making them feel and think that they are educated. This way they could practice being responsible by completing assignments on time, behaving themselves, etc. By giving them multiple opportunities to be responsible they would feel and think that they are responsible. They would feel and think that teachers find them being responsible enough to sustain and develop in an academic environment. Students understand that the reason behind blocking websites is that schools care about their students' future and well being. Students give up part of their privacy in return for security, and a chance to become successful. In order to make an omelet you need to crack some eggs.
Schools should block social media and video sharing websites

In my statements I have not denied the use of these websites as a resource by the teachers and for the students. Ofcourse these websites can be used to collaborate, communicate, and learn, because they could be used as much a distraction as they would a resource. Schools are looking for ways to enhance their learning expirience by finding resources, such as textbooks, phylosophies, policies, and in this case social mediums and videos. I am for the use of these websites as a resource if and only if staff members are allowed to access them and students are not. Staff members like teachers should act as middle-men or filters separating the students from these websites, and even if these students were to access them they would need to be granted access, supervised, and given trusted articles to study. All this would be done by teachers as they act as facilitators and filters.
Schools should block social media and video sharing websites

Schools should block social media and video sharing websites on all school premises seeing as they serve as distractions toward students. Students should be denied access to all social media and video sharing websites, although the staff of the school should be granted access to these sites, because these networks could also serve as resources. If a mature certified adult would supervise the students whenever they would access these websites. Also these certified adults ,or simply teachers, would be the ones responsible for browsing and showing school related material from the web if they deem the source a resource. This way students would only be exposed to school related material, due to the fact that teachers are the filter, and facilitator that only allows the students to view trusted sources respectively. If students were to be allowed to access these websites then they would abuse the system by exploring other sources they deem entertaining. In short, students wouldn't learn as much with access to these websites as they would without. Without access to these websites the student's learning capabilities are met, because of their being more resources than their are distractions.
prostitusion is morrally wrong

My opponent states sex before marriage is not wrong is handled intelligently has no harmful effects; a study done by the University of North Carolina at Greensboro states "These trends are troubling to some because nearly a dozen studies from the 1970s into the early 2000s showed that men and women who lived together before marriage were far more likely to divorce than couples who moved directly from dating to marriage." Dr. Bill Maier in his article Is Living Together A Good Test for Marital Compatibility? says, Research indicates that couples who cohabit before marriage have a 50% higher divorce rate than those who don't. You can go to www.divorcereform.org/psy.html to see all the negative effects divorce has on children. You may say but what right do you have to stop people who are of age and both consent to having sex, well what right do the police have to stop people from using heroine? And please don't tell me heroine does not have a negative effect on society. On WomansLaws.org it says, Prostituted women are often victims of intimate partner violence by pimps and customers, often called "johns." The methods of control that pimps and johns use are similar to the methods used by abusers. Prostitution is unhealthy there may be condoms but that is no guaranty it will not come off during the heat of sexual intercourse and that you will not get or pass on a sexually transmitted diseases. So if premarital sex is wrong because it destroys society then prostitution is wrong.
prostitusion is morrally wrong

Okay, to start off with my argument I would like to first address the proposition: prostitution is immoral. I personally do not understand how prostitution is immoral. My opponent states prostitution is wrong because it is fornication. He then goes on to say all fornication is wrong and it destroys society. Fornication is sexual intercourse between people not married to each other. I am assuming sex before marriage is held as wrong in the eyes of my opponent, but I would like him to explain why: what exactly is immoral about having sex without being married? Sex before marriage, if handled intelligently, does not result in anything harmful to either party involved. This is the key to finding if something is immoral: if the people involved are of age and both consent to having sexual activities together, that is their choice, and is not itself wrong. Therefore adding payment to a sexual, consensual agreement, is not immoral. ScarletAtheist
prostitusion is morrally wrong

Prostitution is wrong because it is fornication; all fornication is bad because it destroys society but especially prostitution. Prostitution is a degrading profession; women who get into it are extremely unlikely to get out. Prostitutes in movies are seen as sweet women who only need the right guy to pull them out of the mess they are in but as stated in Modus Operandi this is not the behavior of prostitutes. As I stated before fornication has a negative effect on society. In the 60s divorce rates went up so did teen pregnancy and teen suicide. How do I link these to prostitution? I will explain, when someone has sex outside of marriage studies show increases the likelihood that they will get a divorce, those who use prostitutes either are married or in all likelihood will be married in the future (unless you live in Europe where society has decreased so much many people do not feel the need to get married anymore, oh and guess what? Prostitution is legal there). Teen suicide increased because when a family separates it is very emotionally challenging for the children in that family to handle. Teen pregnancy increased because when parents are having sex with multiple partners the influence rubs off on the children who will raise children who will most likely have a child out of wedlock as well, thereby the decline society. But what proof do I have that all this is linked to fornication, well it is simple reasoning all these increase in statistics all happened in the 60s know what else happened in the 60s, the sexual revolution thereby the destruction of society. I have had people tell me that fornication isn't the same as prostitution, yet the only difference they have given me is that one person gets paid and the other doesn't; that doesn't seem like a very big difference to me. Also people say well people going to do it anyway, why not just legalize it so the country can profit? Well people are going to keep murdering each other why not legalize contract killing?