BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Hate Crime" Legislation

I understand you can't change your "entire vocabulary", but this isn't a new "censorship". Transvesite has, and will always be, a slur. The context to that, as well as the definition of "cis", can be found here: http://www.glaad.org... Crimes against white people are due to prejudice, not racism. This point can be better explained here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) , rather than a wordy and most likely incorrect (seeing as I am white) explanation by me. White people are victims of prejudice. I already refuted your claim that it is more serious to commit crimes against minorities and underprivileged groups in Round 2. But now, I have a source, here: http://www.adl.org... The web page above does acknowledge all the points I hit, while pointing out that, like any other crime, the punishment is made to fit the crime. Humor, as you pointed out, is part of the retaliation against oppressors. Also, these jokes often are not inherently harmful towards the people they poke fun at, whereas jokes about underprivileged groups tend to be. Take, for example, white people jokes vs. black people jokes. Jokes about white people tend to be about non-harmful characteristics: such as, for example, an inability to handle spicy foods, or wearing Crocs. Nobody would ever be shot or hurt over these circumstances. However, many black jokes are about inherently harmful stereotypes: "gangster" or "ghetto" language, or black people being dangerous thugs. Things black people in our society are oppressed, taunted, and even killed over. I rest my case on this point.
"Hate Crime" Legislation

Well as far as my use of the word "transvestite" goes, I can't change my entire vocabulary every time the PC police decide to change what wording is acceptable and what is not. I have no desire to try to keep up with the latest verbal censorship. And your saying that crimes against white people aren't usually because they're white just proves my point. Nobody knows that because people just automatically write the whole idea off. I personally know more white people that have been the victims of racism than I do minorities but people don't care. I don't know what cis means so I have nothing to say on that. I stand by my opinion that hate crime legislation is just another form of pc racism. It is perfectly acceptable for comedians and black or minority actors to make fun of white people. It is perfectly acceptable for gay comedians and actors to make fun of straight people. It is perfectly acceptable for atheists and muslims to make fun of Jesus and/or Christianity. But if a straight, white or Christian person says anything even remotely translatable as offensive about any of the above, the whole country is up in arms and trying to destroy their lives and careers. Hate crime legislation is just another extension of the same mindset. More PC, liberal, racism put into law to somehow make it more serious to commit crimes against anyone other than straight, white Christians.
"Hate Crime" Legislation

I agree that they should have the same amount of punishment, but we do need things to be specified as hate crimes. It's important to be able to classify those types of people. It's important to LGBT people to identify those who committed hate crimes in order to stay away from them. I would like this debate to use proper language. Please don't refer to people as 'transvestites'. They're transgender people, who deserve to be referred to by their correct pronouns. There's also a difference between people being attacked for being easy targets and people being attacked for being transgender. Anyone can be seen as an easy target. But when specifically transgender people are targeted, that's a hate crime. That's an issue. Violence against white people usually isn't because they're white. Violence against straight people or cis people is almost never because they're straight or cis. And that is why hate crimes against minorities and oppressed groups should be recognized as such. If a trans person is attacked, but it is not because they're trans, it is not a hate crime. If they're attacked for being trans, it is. I agree the crimes should not be treated different. But hate crimes are not their own specific category of crime, they're more of an identification to keep minorities and the people who could be attacked safe.
"Hate Crime" Legislation

I still don't see the need to somehow legitimize a crime based on who it was aimed towards or why. I was attacked and beaten for being white in a black neighborhood and the police blamed me for being there. The words "Hate crime" never even came up. But that's in the past. The reason I find the whole "hate crime" thing to be wrong, unfair, and misguided is that a crime is a crime and should not be treated differently because the victim is gay or a minority. Example: An old lady is walking home from a grocery store and is attacked, beaten, and robbed because she was an easy target. Or a transvestite is walking home and attacked. beaten and robbed for being a man dressed as a woman. Should the old lady's attacker be given less of a punishment, or the transvestite's attacker be given more of a punishment based on this ridiculous "hate crime" criteria? No! Hate crime legislation is a racist, sexist way of cramming political correctness down our throats and trying to convince people that crimes against certain races or beliefs are more serious than crimes against others. And regardless of whether a person wants to admit it, if you scan the news, etc. you're not going to find much about hate crimes against straight, white people. Not because they don't happen, but because the whole "hate crime" thing is not put in to place to protect certain people. It is racist BS.
"Hate Crime" Legislation

I believe you misunderstand the meaning of the word 'hate crime'. A crime does not automatically become worse if it's against a POC (person of color) or an LGBT person, or a non-Christian. A hate crime is a crime /specifically/ targeted towards those people. Take the deaths of multiple trans woman, for instance, in something known by the eyes of the law as "trans panic" (which is ridiculous, but that's not the point). These women were killed specifically because they were transgender. /That/ is a hate crime. Further arguments on my part will come in round 2.
"Hate Crime" Legislation

The State of Indiana is voting on implementing hate crime laws today. I think this is completely wrong. Why should your skin color or sexual preferences make crimes against you any worse than a crime against a straight white person? I am so sick of our society trying to divide people based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. And all of these laws have 1 thing in common: They are designed to belittle and demean straight white people and Christians. I personally have been attacked and beaten up for be white in the wrong neighborhood. But that's less of a crime because I'm white? If I was a black guy and got beat up for being in a white neighborhood, now that's a hate crime! So being hated because you're white is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law? Crimes against white people shouldn't be considered as serious as crimes against people of color? The double standards in our society are sickening!
the rebel flag is not racist

The flag represents the Confederacy. A treacherous nation that broke away from the Union for the sole reason of slavery. "No, it was for state's rights." The right to own slaves. Denying the fact that the CSA broke away from the USA because of slavery is pretty ridiculous at this point. You are literally flying a traitors flag, representing a group of people who supported slavery. Flying that flag is in no way different than flying the Nazi flag.
the rebel flag is not racist

first off if u don't know what it really stands for go back to school and let me guess ur some preppy borden school kid tht thinks just cuz u got a better education thinks u can hate on my heritage news flash that war wasn't over slavery it was over money and i happen to know alot of blacks tht don't think the flags racist u ain't got a clue wht ur talkin bout and u definitely have know idea who ur dealin with i will fight u on this forever and ik how to work this sight let me guess ur from the north up where all them yuppy city folk r right
the rebel flag is not racist

The flag was used to fight by racist rebels so they could continue keeping human beings as property under the illusion of fighting for "state rights." Yeah, the right to own slaves. The flag also reemerged as a rallying flag for the KKK. It has a disgusting, racist past and denying that is basically plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming "Nah Nah Nah I can't hear you!"
the rebel flag is not racist

ok first off i'm not idiotic and yea i'm from the south but the term is redneck and the flag ain't racist southerners and rednecks see the flag as this the red field represents the blood of christ,the white border represents the protection of god , the blue "X" represents the christian cross of saint andrew first disciple of christ jesus and patron saint of scotland ,the 13 stars represent the 13 southern states of succession. meaning that the confederate battle flag is "through the blood of christ with the protection of god we, the thirteen states are united in our christian fight for liberty. so i'm not idiotic and i'm a redneck thnk u
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

"If the "an eye for an eye" system continues, then people will not take an eye in the first place....." The statement implies that the whole world will go blind if people continue the "tit for tat" system. "Even if they do, I don't think this statement is meant to be used in the literal sense. Why make everyone go blind?" It's a figure of speech... "If "an eye for an eye" system doesn't exist, the world will be full of evils such as stealing, thieving, raping, killing, etc., etc." No, there would just be different punishments.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

If the "an eye for an eye" system continues, then people will not take an eye in the first place..... Even if they do, I don't think this statement is meant to be used in the literal sense. Why make everyone go blind? So, as I have already stated, "an eye for an eye" is mandatory in a just society. If "an eye for an eye" system doesn't exist, the world will be full of evils such as stealing, thieving, raping, killing, etc., etc. _______________________________________________________________________ Why do you want to limit the resolution to the literal sense? I don't think that would make the debate much interesting. ________________________________________________________________________ P.S. Let's debate more on this topic. I am starting a new debate on the same topic since I feel that 3 rounds aren't enough. I request you to accept the new debate immediately.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

"You do not have to take two eyes at a time from the aardvark." When I said "two eyes at a time", I meant one from two different aardvarks each. Eventually, every aardvark would go blind. The statement that is the resolution implies that "If the 'eye-for-an-eye' system CONTINUES [or is used for everything, for example], then the whole world will go blind". I did limit the resolution to the literal sense, so that is what we are debating...
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

I would like to contradict your statement. The statement is "AN eye for AN eye will make the whole world blind." You do not have to take two eyes at a time from the aardvark. As far as only one eye is concerned, taking one eye from an aardvark doesn't make the aardvark blind. Let's take this argument further ahead of the literal sense. "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." promotes the idea against tit-for-tat. But tit for tat is the only system that works in the real world, no matter how idealistic our aspirations might be. It is necessary to act against any wrong doing. Tit for tat is necessary in a just and equal society. Let me give you an example. A criminal who kills could either get the death penalty, or life in jail without parole. The criminal has lost the maximum amount of rights as possible, just like the victim. On a smaller scale, a robber would get fined or a year in prison, to compensate for the violation against the person robbed. So, an eye for an eye means proportionate justice.
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

I think YOU should start, because you're the instigator... but whatever. I support "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind". I would like to limit the topic to aardvark eyes, and "the whole world" shall be the entire aardvark population on Earth. Since all aardvarks have an even number of eyes (two), taking away two eyes at a time will surely make every aardvark blind. Back to you.
USA should significantly spend less

it may have been more because of political reasons, for the down grade, but that doesn't mean we aren't heading to troubled waters. we still will face budgets that all have to go to interest on the debt, we still will have debt levels compared to GDP that are unsustainable. i will admit that we shouldnt cut spending too quick, but we do need to spend less, within our means. it's as simple as a standard budget that even a mom and pop have to abide by. you have to live within your means, or eventually there will be consequences.
USA should significantly spend less

The role of government during slumps in the business cycle, or a burst bubble, is to bolster the economy. When you come into the worst recession since the Great Depression, already running deficits, it's going to get a lot worse and that's what happened. Largely due to macro level issues, people are laid off, houses are foreclosed on, tax revenues shrink rapidly, and these people receive government assistance. Government spending is going to increase and revenues are going to decrease. The United States, still maintains a AAA rating (the highest) with Fitch and Moody's. The downgrade by S&P to AA+ was largely due to political gridlock and brinksmanship by a specific cadre of hyperpartisan members of the House, the same group responsible for the government shutdown. Not due to any fear by S&P or anyone else's fear that the United States could pay it's bills, but that they would refuse to by not raising debt ceiling, which is an artificial creation of Congress. To quote S&P: "More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon." Similarly, Fitch warned it could possibly downgrade the United States credit rating during the next debt ceiling fight on October 15, 2013. It recently upgraded it's outlook to positive on March 21, 2014, after yet another debt ceiling showdown was postponed. Though the economic recovery in the United States has been sluggish, it is still better than that of Europe which chose to pursue austerity during the economic downturn. The IMF, in fact, has warned the United States during the sequester of cutting spending too fast and that it could be potentially harmful to the globally economy.
USA should significantly spend less

if you look at the experts, we see the congressional budget office, and plenty of current and former administraters in that and realted organizations that say the same thing. our triple A rating has been downgraded a notch, and they warn us it could be more if we don't get our affairs in order. china is warning us that we need to get our affairs in order. only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention. he argues for keysian econonomics, that we can grow ourselves out by spending more. while keynesian econ has some merit to it, it's not applicable now. that theory says when we are in a recession we should spend so as to stimulate. now, we are not in recession, and while we are not optimal, i would argue it's the new normal. employment won't go down more, cause our economic structure doesn't need that many people working. and similar arguments could be made about other economic indicators. the measure of how much we should spend is often GDP v debt. we are about 75% debt to GDP, and the highest it has been was around WWII. what makes now different, is that the country was developing, and had a marked advanged over less developed and war torn counties. that allowed them to pull themselves out of the mire. now, we dont have things like that to pull us out. also, probably a better measure, is that we should compare debt to national revenue. if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion. also, within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending. i'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return. but we are getting there. things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor.
USA should significantly spend less

My opponent admits that we shouldn't "cut spending too quick" and also that there is some merit to increasing tax revenue to deal with the deficit, both of which undermine the pro "position". Ideally, you would want a balanced budget, but as it stands now. Unemployment rate is going lower. The deficit is going lower. Home prices have gone up for 26 straight months. Can the government be run more efficiently and effectively? Absolutely, it always can. But now is not the time for some heavy-handed, and in the case of the sequester, arbitrary cuts because we're spending like "drunken sailors". We're not.
USA should significantly spend less

con says the bush tax cuts arelargely to blame for the situation. that may be, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't spend less. it shouldn't be just tax increases as con implies we should have tax increases to get to normal levels. it's not completely analogous the mom and pop analogy, but it's for the most part applicable. it doesn't matter if the government doesn't retire liek they do.... USA still needs to spend less. we may spend better than most families, but that doesn't say much cause most people spend too crazy. we shouldnt reach higher levels cause it will start ot get even more out of hand. bottomline is there's tons of stuff that couldbe cut, or reduced, and that would help the budget stay balanced and not out of control. so, we should spend less.
USA should significantly spend less

You also have to look at the revenue side as well. The largest chunk of our current deficit is due to the Bush tax cuts which have since been made permanent due to the fiscal cliff deal. Taxes are at relatively low by historical standards and in comparison to other developed countries. We rank 32nd out of the 34 developed countries in the OECD for tax revenue as percent of GDP. The "mom and pop" analogy doesn't really hold for the federal government. It's nice and folksy sound bite because everyone can relate to it. But Mom and Pop have a lifespan, they start off, get crappy jobs, maybe go to college, accrue debt, get entry level jobs, buy a home, change careers a few times, reach their peak earning years, and then retire. The government is perpetual, there is not a beginning or end. Retirement's not around the bend. Mom and Pop also dont' have a Federal Reserve that controls a fiat currency. You cited in round 1 that debt-to-GDP was around 75%, average household debt to income it currently at 100+% and that's down from it's peak a few years ago. The government actually seems to be a little more disciplined than the typical Mom and Pop. A lot of the recent economic downturn was due to second mortgages and home equity loans with people saving as little as 2% of their incomes on average. Wages were flat throughout the 2000's, but everyone felt good because their houses were going up and they could borrow against them. Everyone, especially the banks were over-leveraged.
Kevin Durant is a better basketball player than dirk nowitzki

Kevin DurantThere can be no debate with an athlete without sure facts and stats. Kevin Durant was born in Sep 29, 1988. He is only 23 years old and is already on the verge of being a legend. He was named a starter for the 2012 all star game with the highest votes from the western confrence, outscoring Dirk, Kobe, and Parker, in votes. He has only been pro for 4 years and already has made his mork on the nba. He has his own website and shoe, what about dirk you ask, hmm i wonder. Dirk has been pro for more than 13, which shows he is true veteran at his game. Like i have mentioned kevin has only played 4 years and is already making his presence known. Stats For 2012 playoffsKevin avereged 26.7 points per game 8.10 rebounds a game3.4 assist per gameDirk statsDirk avereged 26.8 points per game6.30 rebounds a game1.8 assist per gameJust by stats alone we can see that kevin is overall a better player, which i dont seem to understand is the expeirence dirk has, but he is outranked by a almost newcomer, sad. More info round 3
Theater is a better spelling of theatre

PronunciationTheatre is pronounced the-at-rr (rolling r). This would be spelt closer to theatre than theater. Theater assumes an er pronounced, meaning an "eer" or "err", rather than a rolling r.Common spellingThere is no need to change the commonly accepted spelling. Though some words such as cheater are spelt like this, I remind my opponent of the words metre, litre, centre, etc. Although some schoolchildren will get the spelling wrong, just as many, if not more, will get the spelling right. Also, as spelling changes in the English language with common usage and not any "board" saying differently, there must be the majority of people changing the spelling of the word. Now, as the vast majority of people spell the word theatre, there is no reason to change its spelling.Oxford standardThis is a short point but Oxford, the standard of spelling, spells the word as "theatre". So does stanford, a secondary standard. The thing is, all standards accept the word "theatre". Changing the standard for little reason is artificial and pointless.Thank you.
Theater is a better spelling of theatre

Theater is easier to learn - Any person who has a 3rd grade education will agree that understanding how to spell "theater" is easier than "theatre" It is easy to spell words if they follow a pattern. Cheater is not spelled "cheatre" and heater is not spelled "heatre" so what makes theater so special? It is easy to follow the rule of adding "er" to the end of a word. Theatre should sound like (thee-tre).