BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Language is the transcendental signified.

"God has been superseded by man who has been now overturned by language. The transcendental signified as it should be interpreted in the context of this debate, is a conception of that which grants things meaning from some external origin. (Science, religion, psychology, rationality, anthropology etc.) I claim that language is precisely the singularity from which everything is conceived and therefore properly valued. I suspect there are going to be women trying to follow this debate because they want to prove they are just as smart as any chauvinistic man, but your not going to be able to and I suggest you let your husband have anal sex with you. The affirmative argument is simply, that insofar as my conceptualization of things, objects, events, is restricted by its articulation as a sign, and insofar as signs are restricted by the nature of their construction to be arbitrary, meaning must be granted first by the sign and then only thereafter can my conceptualization can be realized. For example, when I articulate a sign "water bottle" it is not the water bottle that I am referring to, rather it is my conceptualization of the words "water bottle" only as a communicative resource. I cannot have the cognitive discourse it requires to command a sequence which would give me a concept, without a language for me to construct (and by that I mean the opposite, to deconstruct everything the object is not to find what the object is) the concept. Does that make sense?" To put it simply. Language is the origin of meaning. I cannot ascribe value to an object independent of a linguistic prerequisite. In as much as language is essential for internal discourse (thought), the rhetoric is loaded with dependent terms that act as independent terms. For example, the argument that I can manufacture for socialism being preferred to capitalism, is completely rhetorical. There is no such thing as an empirical argument as the language used to construct the argument is purposefully misleading by not including the differences that make the clause valuable. Furthermore when I indicate that objects (water bottle) exist in the phenomenal world, I do that with language. Unfortunately there is a distance between my linguistic signification and the object as I experience it. It is this distance that makes it impossible for me to talk about the object, and however hard I try I can only talk about the sign used to represent the object. If it still doesn't make sense, I'll forfeit the final round and we can accept a tie.
Language is the transcendental signified.

"God has been superseded by man who has been now overturned by language. The transcendental signified as it should be interpreted in the context of this debate, is a conception of that which grants things meaning from some external origin. (Science, religion, psychology, rationality, anthropology etc. ) I claim that language is precisely the singularity from which everything is conceived and therefore properly valued. I suspect there are going to be women trying to follow this debate because they want to prove they are just as smart as any chauvinistic man, but your not going to be able to and I suggest you let your husband have anal sex with you. " Okay, in that entire jumble of words, not one single thing made sense, other than my opponent's ignorant comment about women, which makes me suspect he is a troll "The affirmative argument is simply, that insofar as my conceptualization of things, objects, events, is restricted by its articulation as a sign, and insofar as signs are restricted by the nature of their construction to be arbitrary, meaning must be granted first by the sign and then only thereafter can my conceptualization can be realized. For example, when I articulate a sign "water bottle" it is not the water bottle that I am referring to, rather it is my conceptualization of the words "water bottle" only as a communicative resource. I cannot have the cognitive discourse it requires to command a sequence which would give me a concept, without a language for me to construct (and by that I mean the opposite, to deconstruct everything the object is not to find what the object is) the concept. Does that make sense? " No, it does not make sense. Please speak English, so that I can follow what you are saying through the duration of this debate. I don't know if my opponent is being serious or not but to use all these complex words and confusing terms isn't necessary. Please just say what you mean and simplify your vocabulary. It looks like my opponent is showing off and trying to appear intelligent, but I can't even tell what he's getting at.
Language is the transcendental signified.

God has been superseded by man who has been now overturned by language. The transcendental signified as it should be interpreted in the context of this debate, is a conception of that which grants things meaning from some external origin. (Science, religion, psychology, rationality, anthropology etc.) I claim that language is precisely the singularity from which everything is conceived and therefore properly valued. I suspect there are going to be women trying to follow this debate because they want to prove they are just as smart as any chauvinistic man, but your not going to be able to and I suggest you let your husband have anal sex with you. The affirmative argument is simply, that insofar as my conceptualization of things, objects, events, is restricted by its articulation as a sign, and insofar as signs are restricted by the nature of their construction to be arbitrary, meaning must be granted first by the sign and then only thereafter can my conceptualization can be realized. For example, when I articulate a sign "water bottle" it is not the water bottle that I am referring to, rather it is my conceptualization of the words "water bottle" only as a communicative resource. I cannot have the cognitive discourse it requires to command a sequence which would give me a concept, without a language for me to construct (and by that I mean the opposite, to deconstruct everything the object is not to find what the object is) the concept. Does that make sense?
Walmart is Evil

Why has my opponent failed to post a response? I can only surmise that he has either been convinced of the rightness of my arguments or lost interest in his own contention. In either case, it does his argument no justice. The burden of proof that Walmart is evil is on the Instigator of this debate, and he has utterly failed to make a compelling case. I urge my opponent to do some soul searching and return with a well thought out line of reasoning for the next round.
Walmart is Evil

======= Definitions ======= Walmart or Wal-Mart An American public corporation that runs a chain of large discount department stores and a chain of warehouse stores and the leading United States chain of discount department stores which is the largest retailer corporation in the world. Evil: ethical, harmful, untrustworthy, wicked, perverse, wrong, bad, morally reprehensible. " =============== My Round 1 Arguments =============== 1. Walmart's average wage is below retail industry standards. Walmart's national average wage of $11.75 an hour which is 2.5% below the average wage of $12.04 per hour for retail sales people as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2. Walmart wages are not designed to support a family. Walmart spokesperson Mona Williams was quoted in 2004 for admitting that, "More than two thirds of our people. .. are not trying to support a family that's who our jobs are designed for. " 3. Walmart is known for forcing overtime, locking bathrooms, providing insufficient wages, requiring pregnancy test, denying access to health care, and firing and blacklisting employees for trying to defend their rights. ===== Sources ===== . http://dictionary.babylon.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://www.wakeupwalmart.com... . http://ihscslnews.org... ============ Round 1 Conclusion ============ If my opponent has any questions about the definitions or if I didn't make anything clear, they should either mention it during round 1 or email me.
Media is harming people's thoughts

So is it only the girls you wish to speak up for? Not for the scrawny boys picked on in locker rooms or the trans/gender/sexual kids? Are girls the only ones with eating disorders and self destructive behavior? The answer is a resounding 'no'. They make up the majority, but the minority is important as well. Or.. Are those people irrelevant to the conversation, merely because they are not female? 'Beautiful'. Merriam Webster defines the word as: -the quality of being physically attractive. -the qualities in a person or a thing that give pleasure to the senses or the mind. This world is about supply and demand. If the version of beauty currently in the world is 'skin and bone', then I'm afraid that IS what it is. Such images are not harmful to 'people's thoughts'. In fact, to harm an intangible thing seems relatively impossible. How does one harm a thought? By beating it into oblivion with an imaginary baseball bat of doom? If a girl/boy/other of our generation does not like the way beauty is perceived, they should do something about it. It is not the media's fault if people starve themselves because they want to be 'beautiful'. It is their own. They could easily turn off the television. They could easily hold their heads up high and know that beauty comes in many different forms. If wearing hot dogs on our heads suddenly became 'fashionable' I wouldn't partake in it even if it was in commercials, because I would know that it was silly. Again, I repeat, it is not the media's fault. It is up to the viewer on what they watch. They should also realize where the road to reality ends, and the road to make believe begins.
Media is harming people's thoughts

I am talking about the horrible media proclaiming what is "beautiful." People are watching what the image of beauty is. But the people that are making the image is the media. Beauty products with women that are "perfect." Advertisers not caring what they are doing to todays society and are only thinking about how to make more money. They are brainwashing people by telling them what is beautiful. More and more young women are becoming victims. It seems like the media is being controlling. Disordered eating, low self-esteem and suicidal actions are becoming more accustom in young girls. Someone needs to speak up for them and show the world that there is a problem going on.
Media is harming people's thoughts

What exactly should be deemed as 'inappropriate'? And what exactly should people be understanding in the world? Whether or not it is inappropriate isn't truly important, anyway. The news has murder, child molestation, and terrorism playing everyday. Is that appropriate? Should people not know it's happening merely because it's 'inappropriate' to other viewers? The media is not brainwashing people. It does not tell us what to think, but rather, what to think ABOUT. And it is not brainwashing if the person chooses to watch the program. Many people watching those music awards some time ago were appalled by Miley, not impressed or ready to mimic her. The media may INFLUENCE our thoughts, but it does not HARM them.
Keystone Pipeline and Oil Use

I would also like to say that this is my first Debate. Org debate and I would like to thank CON for being my first contender ever. Let's begin with, what I believe to be, the number one argument. .. Safety. Some might point out that by having such a large pipeline is dangerous; 'It could be attacked,' or 'It could spill,' These claims, however, are unfounded. According to a report by the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce "The report found no evidence that diluted bitumen, the type crude oil that would flow through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, is more likely to contribute to pipeline failures or corrosion. " [1] Thus making the pipeline no less safer than any other pipeline in the United States. Then there's the argument that "The pipeline would be an eyesore. .. " However, If you where to look at a map of the United States with all the pipelines already built [2], and then you where to look at it with the KeyStone Pipeline being built; there is barely a difference! [3] The pipeline will also create some jobs. .. Not as many as proponents state, but some [4]. These jobs may only be short term, but short term jobs could help a lot for low income families. Finally, the pollution factor. Many environmentalist claim that by allowing the pipeline, you will be aiding pollution. This may or may not be true. However, it is not up to the government to curtail pollution. If people really want a cleaner, less polluted earth, they will willingly not purchase items used with oil. [1] . http://energycommerce.house.gov... [2] . http://www.google.com... [3] . https://www.google.com... [4] . http://www.forbes.com...
Keystone Pipeline and Oil Use

I accept Seeing as how he is PRO for this topic, I will assume he is for the pipeline. I being Con will argue against it. Since he did not finish the terms of the first round, I am assuming I am merely just declaring my position. He has taken on the role of PRO and instigated this debate, so the BOP is on him to show that the keystone pipeline is a good idea. My job is to undermine him and show why it can be a horrible idea as well. I will establish my own case as well, along with challenging his arguments. I await his opening response.
Keystone Pipeline and Oil Use

1. Debate Topic | This debate shall be on whether or not we should allow building for the Keystone Pipeline and oil use in the United States. This debate will not cover the following: the type of oil and oil dependency. 2. Debate session | CON is to start of the debate. Establish your positions, and why you. For the second and third rounds, we shall state our OPINIONS on the matter, provided with evidence. For the fourth and fifth rounds we shall provide facts on the matter. CON: Use first round rebuttal to reply agreeing with these rules. 3. Debate rules | No foul language, derogatory terms, or racism. If you use Wikipedia, please also provide the link to the article from which Wikipedia used as a reference. No links leading to forums or blogs, including Tumblr. No using links social media sites as evidence. DO NOT STRAY OFF TOPIC!
Nuclear > Wind

Hello, I am Jacob Gibbs.Resolution: "Looking to the future, we should fund Nuclear energy rather than Wind energy"I will be arguing for the resolution, my opponent will be arguing against. Rules of the debate1. No abuse of semantics.2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.3. Plus, all ToS (Terms Of uSe) apply.4. Breaking any of the rules constitutes a forfeit and the voters are then not justified in giving that person any points.Structure of this debateRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3+4 - Rebuttals Thank you.
September October LD topic.

First my opponent claims that his value of morality is superior to my value of life. He says that since the resolution reads morally permissible, morality is his value. This is an acceptable value, and one that I can work with, but it is vague. My life value is better, because it is necessary for morality to exist. As my second Mill card shows, the moral action is the one that maximizes pleasure. You need life for pleasure, so you need life for morality. Even if you don't accept the Mill card, life is still necessary for any form of morality, as without it, you can't really do much. My value is more specific, and his value depends on mine. Next, he claims that the negative upholds my value better than the affirmative. This is simply not true, as negative's inaction leads to the death of many people, while affirmative does take life, more life is gained because of it. Next he claims my VC is circular. This is not true. My second Mill card more than justifies my VC, as it shows maximization of happiness is good. It goes without saying that you need life for happiness. Furthermore, he claims that life is ambiguous, and that my value criterion is not a clear line between bad and good. This is simply not true, as what life is is very clear. Life is when one comes out of the birth canal, and it ends when the brain no longer functions. It is very clear. Also, maximizing life means acting so that less lives are lost. He then provides the VC of conforming to maxims. This means taking a black and white perspective on the world. This means that it is never okay to say, lie, even to save a life. This is a ridiculous standard that values perfect honesty more than human life. That is ridiculous! Obviously you cannot accept a ridiculously normative VC, as it leads to absurdities such a the one I mentioned earlier. My opponent then goes on to use his flawed framework to attack my contention, but as his framework is flawed and leads to absurdities like valuing honesty over an innocent man's life, you cannot accept his framework, therefore his attack is invalid. Conclusion: as my opponent's framework is deeply framework is deeply flawed, you cannot accept it, and I win this debate. Thank you. 3222 characters used.
September October LD topic.

I apologize for missing cross-examination, but if anything, that is to your benefit. I negate and accept my opponent's definitions. I value Morality, my justification is simple. The resolution questions the moral permissibility of an action, hence it would be the most topical to affirm or negate in virtue of achieving the goal of morality. Furthermore, my opponent is not achieving his value of life, if his goal was life then it would be counterintuitive and nonsensical for him to commit murder, which is, essentially, what the affirmative is doing. So, even if you want to except my opponent's value of life, I better achieve it because the negative does not engage in any action in which they murder. It is only through the negative's inaction that someone would die. My opponent wants to maximize life, this is a somewhat circular standard; essentially what he is saying is that the only way you can achieve life, is though the maximization of life. You cannot accept this circular V/VC combination because all it does is beg the question. The second reason why you cannot accept his standard is because there is no bright line, you don't know at what point you have achieved the VC, you never know who better maximizes life because life is such an ambiguous term. With that said, I value conformity to maxims, this is because the only way we can achieve true morality is by conformity to certain maxims. What I mean by maxim, is a universal moral principle, for further specification, the moral principles that I am referring to are seen in Kant's Categorical Imperative, things like murdering, lying, stealing etc. are always wrong. My opponent does not achieve my value criterion because he is committing murder, my vc is a deontological one and at the point in which you are murdering someone you are not conforming to certain maxims hence not achieving my value criterion. I will not offer any contentions, as the negative I do not have to, furthermore, my framework is already enough to negate. In response to my opponent's contention: : My opponent states that affirming saves more lives, I cannot deny this because the resolution states this explicitly, but the value is not life, rather morality and morality is not quantifiable and based on how many people you save, as I have explained earlier, the only way you can achieve morality is through conformity to maxims. since morality is not explicitly quantifiable, this contention is negated. Conclusion: In conclusion, since the paramount value criterion is not achieved by the affirmative, you must negate. 5414 characters used.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

Social media causes many self esteem problems like low self esteem, Depression, Anxiety, Sleeping problems, Eating problems, Suicid risk. Social media can aslo cause cyber bullying and cyber bullying can also result into suicide risk and social isolation. Social media is responsible for mental illiness because young people can see unrealistic portrayals which can make young people insecure about themselves because they will feel that their life isnt as good as what their seeing on social media.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

It can create a sense of community facilitate the support from friends encourage people to seek help and share information and resources improved ability to share and understand the feelings of others information, Support, Or treatment can reach people who might not otherwise have easy access Facebook recently launched "proactive detection" artificial intelligence technology that will scan all posts for patterns of suicidal thoughts, And when necessary send mental health resources to the user or their friends, Or contact local first-responders It"s unlikely social media use will decrease in the near future, So we need to manage the risks and harness the potential benefits to improve the mental health of our young people For all we hear about an escalation in mental health problems in adolescence, There is no persuasive evidence that the internet is to blame
Homework should be banned.

Before we talk about the use of homework, let's think about the purpose of education. Putting all of the knowledge into students' brain is not the real purpose, having a better grade is also not the purpose, the real purpose is to teach students how to think. Right now, the Internet has more knowledge than us, the Internet is faster than us, it knows more than us, is that mean we no need to study? No. As I said, the real purpose is to teach students how to think, not just master all the knowledge, and homework cannot teach us how to think, so doing homework is a waste of time and should be banned. Firstly, we can still live if we don't know what is 1+1 because we have calculator, but we can't live if we can't think because that's the point that nothing can replace our brain. Conversely, if we only know the knowledge, then the more knowledge we know, the more we look like a machine. Secondly, instead of doing homework, we can use the time to know our world, to know the people around us. Human must live in a group, so we need to know how to be fried with every type of people. Isn't that more meaningful than learning a new formula? We should take time to learn how to think, and know the world around us. If we just start learning these when we are adult, that 's late already.