BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People that don't know basic grammar should have their opinions forcibly removed

I think you've misunderstood my position. I never argued that a lack of grammar indicates a lack of intelligence. I would argue that a complete lack of basic English skill in a native speaker is a pretty good gauge of their ability to create a coherent argument (and therefore experience with debating), However, As English grammar and essay writing are taught in the same class, And if they didn't get the basics, It's pretty easy to assume they didn't take interest in the advanced classes. I'm not saying they aren't intelligent, Because I have no way of judging their ability in other subjects through their grammar, I'm judging their ability to make an argument and also making an assumption about their literacy level. It's actually assumptions like this that help arguments rather than hindering them. Reading a lot of books tends to help you distinguish basic grammar. If I want to know how someone will respond to a rational re-evaluation of their opinions (or whether I should try appeals to emotion and sneaky tactics), I should check how often they re-evaluate and check their opinions themselves. If I want to know how often they re-evaluate their opinions, I should check how much media they consume. If they don't consume a lot of written media, They are likely to be less exposed to differing opinions and ideologies and will therefore be more likely to hold their own opinions with more rigor. I understand that you can get knowledge on debating through other methods, Which is why it's not necessarily people with bad grammar that I would love to be suppressed, It's what they often represent: people inexperienced with debate. They grind my gears. For example, The ones who are the most feverish about politics today are often the most ill-informed and the least well read, And I don't like having unqualified, Inexperienced reactionaries deciding the political climate of society. My personal guilty pleasure is holding the opinion that they should be silenced until they themselves pursue the qualifications necessary to engage in actual arguments (learning to read and write), Rather than just diving right in to otherwise normal conversations and throwing around their basic opinions until they've dragged everyone down into whatever level of hell they reside in. I'm not claiming I'm brighter than your average doorknob, But at least I have my reading experience going for me whenever I decide I'm going to engage in a discussion. TL;DR whenever I'm talking to someone and one of these sea sponges chimes in, They make me want to cry because these people have the majority sway in online discussion. They're everywhere. I want the bar on politics to be raised from the gutter again so people that don't know about politics ( i. E. Haven't ever read anything or formed a proper three-dimensional opinion) stay out of politics.
People that don't know basic grammar should have their opinions forcibly removed

Nobody is good at everything; it's therefore superficial to judge others against such a narrow criterion. If my car won't start then who should I go to for help? A professional car mechanic with over ten years' worth of experience? Or somebody who knows how to use an apostrophe? Clearly having poor language skills doesn't occlude you from gaining expertise in other areas of life. Moreover, Why have you chosen spelling and grammar as your litmus test for intelligence? I might as well say, "when somebody doesn't know how to differentiate an equation I automatically dismiss all their opinions as ill-informed". Or, "if somebody can't play a musical instrument then I can only assume they're a bit dim. " To look down on those who don't share your gifts and talents is very arrogant. In short, I would argue that it's far better to focus on what somebody's opinion is built upon rather than getting distracted by their spelling and grammar. It's the person who thinks that they're an expert in everything and anything I fear the most!
People that don't know basic grammar should have their opinions forcibly removed

People that cannot tell the difference between their, There and they're, You're and your, People that don't know where apostrophes go, And those guys that go and commit various other egregious grammatical errors should be stripped of their right to have an opinion. I have yet to see a single case where allowing these people to speak was a good thing. I have lost brain cells and you cannot deny my lived experiences. Feel free to make a meager attempt at changing my mind.
Itachi should never have died!

Sorry, I didn't not realize you were a girl. Secondly, you have identified that your arguments are an opinion with hypothetical circumstances. This, my friend, is not part of a debate. Also, it is an incomplete story-line. The story-line of the producers obviously believe that their way is best, seeing as they are the overseers for the well-being of the series, they ensured the best possible outcome. They have taken what would be public view, anticipated it, and provided something to follow-up on it, of this there is no doubt. By the way, I never said your statements had no logic, I said mine has more. "in "character" life, my point(s) hold lots of logic. ". If we were to base the character life as real facts and argue hypathetical situations, then it would be a pointless debate. Only with our reality, only with the reality we can see and behold can we articulate arguements. It does no good to mourn what happened; that should be a forum. This is why I based my entire arguement with facts from Naurto producers. You acknowledge they had possiblity to decide if Itachi lived or not. However, they did not see this as the best course of action. You state: "Put that argument aside and then what do you have to back up your debate? " If I put my reality and my arguements aside for what could-be's and wishes for a cartoon series that isn't real, isn't tangible, then I would have nothing. However, even with the existance of your arguements, you provide no concrete reason why he should have lived to benefiet the real world. Even to benefiet the "fake world", you just state "they could have worked something out. " " Why just argue about reality when we are arguing on a fictional character? " In the resolution, you didn't state for the benefiet of which. The existance of the show has an effect on real life, and that is important. The death of him has an effect on real life, but the question of it is whether his death is beneficial in real life, not fake life, because it's just color on paper, not real. My opponent wants you to debate what REALLY matters. Real life matters, real world issues matter, not great drawings on simple paper. " vote for the contestant who actually cares about the outcome of naruto and the character we are debating about, itachi. " Aparently, his outcome is finished. He is dead. Secondly, whether or not I care about Naurto is irrelvant (though, I must admit the show is alright).
Itachi should never have died!

First of all, I AM A GIRL. (serious, please take that into account.) Second, I AM A FAN GIRL, meaning that on this site I will debate and state my opinions especially on one of my favorite anime series. I may not be a part of naruto's crew but I am entitled to my opinion. I am a viewer, there for I am aloud to think and believe that the series would be better off with itachi. I may be creating a story line but who doesn't? (well...ok there are some exceptions). Third, " My point(s) hold more logic over his" do my points not hold any logic? as my opponent said "It is clear that my opponent and I view our arguments pertaining to two different situations. Real life, and character life." in "character" life, my point(s) hold lots of logic. Honestly itachi's death or sasuke's death goes either way, they can both profit from each others death, they can both mourn ones death and all that stuff. I just believe that itachi's better. He has more skill, he's older and he's much more intelligent. I'd love to get over the entire " the producers must have a plan filled out for his death", they might have plans but they can also have a plan for itachi if he lived. Put that argument aside and then what do you have to back up your debate? That my arguments are indeed unrealistic, naruto is not real... Why just argue about reality when we are arguing on a fictional character? Stats matter but in this case what the viewers want and the itachi fans think makes a big difference. I ask that the audience to view witch debate really matches the subject and vote for the contestant who actually cares about the outcome of naruto and the character we are debating about, itachi. thx con for the debate.
Itachi should never have died!

Sorry about that, but allow me to continue. It is clear that my opponent and I view our arguements pertaining to two different situations. Real life, and character life. While my opponent validates his arguments with points from the Nauruto series, I assert my points of realism, which, unequivically, holds much, much more wieght. With all due respect, my opponent feebly addressed that: "Itachi and sasuke have quite a big dramatic story and if itachi were to win the battle he could also profit from sasuke's death (with the entire ' i'm gona take your eyes so that i dont get blinded from my special ocular justsu' stuff) and the series could continue on, no problems." Well, my opponent is not a part of the crew to create and provide a storyline for Naurto, so he can not validate this point of realism. My point(s) hold more logic over his. Obviously, the producers must have a plan filled out for his death, for every action a character does is not wasted. You acknowledged that they did intregue viewers with his death, and, if they do not retain the viewers interest to the maximum, they lose views. It slips their mind or whatnot. When they make ironic and, clearly, unexpected twists like this, then they keep interest. I watched Naurto, therefore they got more views than they would have if they didn't provide his death. With more views come more sponserships, meaning money. It could very well mean that they could lose money, my friend, because they wouldn't GAIN more money. I ask the audience to view which debate is more logical, and I thank PRO for the deabate. Kudos
Itachi should never have died!

Allright then... Guess you dont have any reply for that... :l The thing is that naruto wouldn't make any less money if they changed up the story line a little. Itachi and sasuke have quite a big dramatic story and if itachi were to win the battle he could also profit from sasuke's death (with the entire ' i'm gona take your eyes so that i dont get blinded from my special ocular justsu' stuff) and the series could continue on, no problems. Masashi kishimoto chose sasuke out of favoratism (if you have ever read the actual naruto manga, then in one of the extra pages in vol either 3 or 4 explain that masashi kishimoto likes sasuke better because of howmuch effort it takes to draw him so that he looks cool...)
Itachi should never have died!

Thank you for the reminder... I am quite aware that the story naruto is not real although i do try and picture the characters as realisticly as i can to make the most out of what i am reading:D its funner. You made a great point in saying that the death of itachi might have attracted attention and viewers to follow the series closely and such but did you consider how itachi living and the dramatic death of sasuke a factor in this? The death of itachi (that according to you, you dont know yet) isnt quite that benefishal, did you consider that itachi could replace sasuke and also easily surpass his younger brother. His skills and brains would make an interesting partner for naruto and his betrayal of akatsuki could bring yet another exciting twist to the story. And hes cool:D As for your`e comment ``The entire point of Naruto is to entertain and make money for the crew and cast of Naruto`` i think it is not the entire reason behind the creation of naruto, I, a writter presently drawing comic books, write so that i may express my feelings, beliefs and hopes in the world. The money you make is a bonus along with sharing your story with the world...(thats my opinion) Do you think they'd make any less money or even more if they had decided not to kill itachi?
Itachi should never have died!

I do not watch Naruto, and I do not know of the man my opponent is talking about. He gives reasons and portrays this as a real-life event. However, I would like to remind him that it is not. The entire point of Naurto is to entertain and make money for the crew and cast of Naruto. With the death of this person, it intrgued and challenged the viewers, such as yourself. With this, they could attract more attention to their shows. If the death was pointless, in your opinion, then it obviously affected you enough to write about it and I, who have never heard of Itachi, read about it and posted this arguement. In this, they achieved advertising methods by viewer "satisfaction", if you would so call it. I am now considering watching this one episiode, and perhaps the series. In this, the crew achieved their goal of attracting more viewers. The crew fufilled their goals and, thusly, Itachi should have died, for the benefiet of the show. Only time will tell if it's plot will follow through on his death. In this, they achieve viewer interest and anticipation. For these reasons, his death was nessacary. Thank you, and: =VOTE CON=
Superman will beat Batman.

It's only a one round debate, so I think the Pro might be in a bit of a bind here. First, I'll address Pro's arguments, however small they are. "He stopped a bullet for God's sake." Yes, bullets have been known to bounce off of him. He is the "Man of Steel". However, bullets have also been known to bounce off of Batman. In the Tim Burton "Batman" film, the Joker shoots a revolver at Bruce Wayne (Batman), but it bounces off of a metal tray he had hid in his shirt as armor. In "The Dark Knight", Batman is shot by Two-Face, but his body armor once again spares him from any permanent damage. I will admit that he won't take a bullet to the face and survive, but he is still capable of stopping bullets, like Superman. Plus, Superman doesn't use guns, so it doesn't matter anyway. Pro says: "Who the heck is Batman??" Nobody knows. We do know that he is definitely NOT Bruce Wayne, eccentric billionaire. As for my arguments, I will refer to a movie that actually pits these two against each other, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Batman engages Superman in a battle to the death in this movie. Obviously, Superman in his normal state far outmatches Batman, as he can fly faster than the speed of sound, is incapable of being damaged, and has laser eyes and freeze breath. This is why Batman utilizes a Krypton grenade launcher to weaken Superman. Krypton is the one thing that can kill Superman, and Batman shoots it right at him. He then proceeds to viciously beat the Man of Steel like he is beating the Man of Butter, and eventually he bests him and stands over him with a Krypton spear. Of course if you watched the movie, you would know that he doesn't kill him, but he is capable of doing so. However, killing Superman is not even necessary. The debate is titled Superman will beat Batman, and I have cited a DC canon movie in which Batman officially beats Superman. The debate is already over, now I hope I get some elo.
War should be mandatory

This debate is whether war should be mandatory; and in particular, whether the small sport-wars that my opponent has described should be mandatory. He argues, at the beginning and end of his last round, that you should not pay any attention to whether they are ridiculous, and that the support/acceptance of the counties involve to his plan is irrelevant. We should just debate on whether the proposal is good or not.This is a fun line of reasoning, and all sorts of things can be justified by it. "Everyone should inject themselves with live plague cultures. Don't argue about how ridiculous this claim is; just about whether it is a good idea or not."I have shown that these additional wars will:- send countries to war that do not want to fight, and have successfully avoided fighting for decades or even centuries;- destroy valuable infrastructure, resources, forests, fields, and lives;- disrupt current alliances and diplomacy, which help prevent the larger wars from occurring;- scare off investors and ruin national economies;- and require the creation of a massive and highly unpopular extra-national armed force, which would invade any country who did not comply - making war a constant, even in those countries who otherwise would be at peace. This also requires the outlay of vast amounts of resources annually, which would otherwise be available for more productive uses.His answer to all of this has been his opinion, unfettered by those pesky facts. He assures us:- International politics is unnecessary anyway;- The rules of warfare are always scrupulously followed, so these little wars cannot escalate into anything more destructive;- Resources are already being spent on defense, so why not more?- The details of enforcing his plan are irrelevant.He is unable to tell us WHY he is so sure his plan will not bring economic disaster, or how exactly increasing the number of little wars will reduce the number of small ones, or how in the world this plan will balance the budget, etc.He claims, by forcing people to go to war, everywhere in the world, that civilians will finally be able to enjoy "undisturbed peace."This is nonsense. A vote for Con supports sanity, and peace for those who will have it. A vote for Pro supports additional wars, ruin, and world-wide destruction. You choose.
if jarvisEt wanted ultron dead he would also want the avengers dead

The Avengers made Jarvis in order to help them, not to destroy them. I will give three reasons1. JARVIS JUST WANTED TO STOP HIM. Jarvis just wanted to stop Ultron when he was not having freedom and stop him to make the mission wrong.2. In the end Jarvis was Vision. Vision was Jarvis. He was made of Jarvis and the crystal. He did not want to kill the Avengers but wanted to stop Ultron. Therefore Con proved his statement wrong when he said Jarvis wanted to kill them. Anyways, the real Jarvis died, so Vision came.Sourceshttp://www.mtv.com...
The teleological argument is evidence of a designer deity.

I apologize for the initial confusion. To keep it simple and to avoid incessant semantics I'll try to unpack this. I basically don't care how you argue the teleological argument as long as you use it as those are the parameters I initially gave. It doesn't have to be under the pretense of "evidence" or proof." Also, there are a lot of definitions for the teleological argument but I'll allow you to choose which ones you want to utilize. Now that that's out of the way, onto to the argument. "Naturalism: the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value." Basically, Naturalism holds that the universe is a closed system in which everything in that system is natural. All knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation. This renders the teleological position heavily unlikely because a creator deity cannot be scientifically tested. Although, I won't go into that at the moment as I want to allow my opponent to clarify his angle on the teleological philosophy. Once my opponent clarifies his position, we can begin refutations (the interesting part of the debate!).
The teleological argument is evidence of a designer deity.

Although this is only the acceptance round, I would like to clarify a few things: (1) I am a creationist and will therefore be arguing for the existence of a God, a supreme creator. (2) The resolution is worded strangely, and I would like to clarify to the best of my ability. If I am not interpreting it correctly, please correct me in round two. To me, it seems as though the resolution says: The argument that there is a deity ("the teleological argument") is evidence of a deity ("evidence of a designer deity"). This seems a bit strange. I believe that the round will go smoother with a resolution such as: "(this house believes) there is evidence for a designer deity" If this is incorrect, I urge my opponent to clarify the resolution in round two. (3) When I debate, I depend heavily on definitions. So I am giving my opponent the opportunity to bring forth definitions for this round. If he does not, or if I do not agree with his definitions, I will bring up my own in my next speech. Does my opponent agree? I look forward to an exciting and engaging debate. Good luck.
global warming

I accept. I thank pro for the challenge.============================"should all countries do a better job in reducing carbon emissions?"No, they shouldn't. Converting to green energy is realistically 3-5 times more expensive and the energy capacity from green industries yield 3-5 times less than conventional resources. This step is a disastrous move especially for poor countries. The Brandt report(http://churchillhigh.wikia.com...) illustrates how poor countries managed to only collect 1/5 of the world's income. They cannot afford such expensive technology that yields very little results. Poor countries, or countries in the south are shown below. So the question of ALL countries adopting it is sheer fantasy.I await pro's response.
africa can no longer open its full potential without european aid

"There is xenophobia in africa" - Pro There is only recent xenophobia in the country South Africa because King Goodwill Zwelithini reportedly compared foreigners to lice and said they should pack up and leave. You talk as if all of Africa has xenophobia. . http://www.economist.com... "and the opposition parties in africa do not win elections except for two countries" - Pro What are you talking about? "I would know for certain that the EU offers fair trading rights because of its trading declarations that say so. " "The EU offers equipment that can be used during election and the sevices of the world court which can really help africa in these aspects of life. " - Pro I repeat, HOW DO YOU KNOW? YOU HAVE NO SOURCES. "I am not against china trading with africa no but looking at africa right now it has not opened its full potential whilst trading with asia and america. My point is it can open its full potential especially in the economic sector if it allows the EU. " "africa is currently down and even if the media says otherwise there is only two better nations in africa SA and maybe egypt. It is not allowing the aid of europe i think if it is given a shot things will go better. many african states are not part of the common wealth nut that is the biggest and most advanced in the world belonging to europe. " - Pro Have you been reading any of my arguments at all? Or at least read any of my sources? As I have said and shown before, things ARE going better for Africa, little by little, without the help of Europe. If it keeps up with getting along with other countries, it will prosper greatly years to come. In other words, it's already opening its full potential. Also, its obvious that you haven't seen any of my graphs just from reading your last comment: "africa is currently down and even if the media says otherwise there is only two better nations in africa SA and maybe egypt. " In my last graph, its NOT "just two" countries that are doing better. Here it is again: . http://www.debate.org... Since this is the last round, this is all I am going to say about the great changes happening to Africa.