BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

First off, Don't bring religion into political arguments. But since you brought something into an argument that has nothing to do with the argument in the first place and attack me, I have to respond. I never said I am better than you. God loves all people the same. Christians do not hate the people, But rather the person's actions. Yes it is immoral, Because God hardwired people to be attracted to the opposite gender, Not the same. This doesn't mean we hate them as PEOPLE. All of things you described are a some of the groups or a very small portion of them. There are many good people in those groups who just want to protect themselves. They are also culturally different from you, And you shouldn't make fun of that. If there are good people in the groups you described, They should be allowed to have a background check and get a gun for self-defense. Most disabled people can not have a gun, Sure, But making fun of them is not right. There is no statistical data that shows the relation between Christians and school shooters. Most, If not all of the shooters do not believe in God. God was and morals were taken out of public schools in 1963. There were 66 deaths combined in all school shootings before 1963 starting with the year 900. 66 deaths in 63 years. After 1963 however, And to current day, A span of 55 years, There are 482 total deaths. 482 deaths in 55 years. This is remarkably more than before 1963, When they took god and morality teaching out of public schools. I'm not saying correlation equals causation, But there is definitely some disconnect in the murder rates before and after God was taken out of schools.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Even if I AM evil, You are no better than me. I see that you are a Christian, Yes? Well, Just so you know, God and his followers hate gays. They think Homosexuality is immoral. I am a Satanist, Which means that I like gays and support gay marriage. And so does Satan, The King of Darkness. The number 616 is not in my username for nothing, You see. These are not stereotypes, These are pure FACTS. Niggers are committing crimes. Asians are eating dogs. Indians are stinking up the place. Natives are being rude and weird. Arabs love to play with bombs. Mixies are weird and I don't trust them. These are all FACTS, Not opinions. A background check doesn't matter; if they are anything but white, They are denied gun rights. Plain and simple. Like I said before, Disabled people can't function in society, So they cannot have a gun. They are literally white niggers who shoot up schools, Commit crime, And follow God. It seems that you are one of them, Since you are a Christian. This is not bad conduct, This is FACT.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

It is unfortunate that this happens sometimes. For one, You are stereotyping groups and using foul language to describe black people. As long as anyone goes through a background check and passes it, They should be allowed to have guns. These are racist comments you are making, And they are not appreciated. To say white people should kill black people with guns is disgusting. Attacking disabled people is not right, They can not help their disability. Even if you are just trolling, These comments are disgusting.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Niggers, Natives, Asians, Indians, Arabs, And mixies should not have guns. For one, Niggers are people who can't function in society. The fat ones abuse welfare, Eat chicken, Eat watermelon, Collect food stamps, And sit on their a$$ all day. Natives are those "HEY-YUH HEY-YUH HEY-YUH" people who are rude because they don't share land with us, So we have to take it. The cultures they have are also REALLY weird. Asians are people who eat dogs, Masterbate to anime children/octopuses/squids, And abuse their kids into being perfect. Their eyes are so slant that they can't see, Which makes them disabled. Indians are people who are stinky as hell, And their cultures are f'ed up. Basically, They are no better than the Natives. Arabs like to bomb places/people, And they also brainwash their kids and random white people into Islam. Mixies are the weirdest type of race. They can be half nigger-half white, Half nigger-half Arab, Half Asian-half Indian. . . I don't trust them at all. I also don't think that disabled/autistic sperglords should have guns either. They can't function in society, And they throw tantrums like little babies. They will definitely shoot up a school once we give them guns. In conclusion, Only the white people should have guns for self defense and to kill niggers. End of story. I wish you good luck, And hopefully this remains civil.
World's deviation

My point is that human mind has created some things, which have now become institutions, that are completely useless, but they attract the attention of most people. I'm talking about religions, more-than-one languages and words for each meaning, agnosticism and, many times, history (I have met people in my country that accept edited forms of the history of my nation, that would seem totally ridiculus to people from abroad). I think that, in today's conditions, the only way to learn and understand our world, is through science, and that society should be modified based on it. However, I don't have enough experience to be sure about what I am writing, which I have never tried to explain to someone else. Could someone give me the opportunity to dicuss it?
World's deviation

You really made me think my friend, but I believe your arguments are not toally accurate. CULTURE I believe culture is not related that much to the national language, although it may seems like that. I'm sure that our society could be multicultural even under the domination of only one language. Now, when it comes to the maintance of each country's culture, I believe that, indeed, chauvinisme is the principal reason, that is observed at most of the people. When people become nationalists, then they stop thinking logically, when it comes to their culture, and act egoistically. However, national culture can keep its importance without damaging that much society, if people start thinking of their culture as "a piece of a pie that they are looking from the outside, not the inside". Objective thought and collective spirit is the only way for multiculturalisme to exist. LANGUAGE I think that language is not something that controls our mind, so the reduction of it doesn't mean the reduction of the human thought. Besides, the need of a language is prooved scientifically to exist in human's DNA. It should be kept as simple as possible. Different meanings do not necessarily have to be given via synonyms, a good organization can be enough. (f.e. There are three species of cats. The one is called Drabo, the second Logo and the third Jumbo. However, it is simplier to call them the red cat, the cat of Egypt and the pink-eyed cat, without having to create new words. That is my point!) ART It's true that somy forms of art demand the complexity of the language. However, I think art fits anywhere, and would find it's position even if the language was much simplier. It would just find, as always, a more deep way to be expressed. I continue to believe that the opinions of most people about culture, language e.t.c. is not an opinion that they created after some logic thinking, but something they inherited from their ancestors. I am interested for your answer! (I uploaded by mistake at the comments :D)
World's deviation

I understand that language is such an important thing develop and some ideas you proposed are interesting. However, there are some problems...More than one languageThe existence of plenty of languages isn't just patriotism. Language is part of culture, and culture must be protected. Culture defines the identity of societies and nations, thus It's a very effective way of domination. Is then understandable that people want to defend their language. Controlling language is a way of controlling people, so I'm totally against this.Too many words for only one meaning From a pragmatic point of view It would be great to have a language as reduced as possible. However, I have two things against this. Firstly, synonyms, though they have similar meanings, doesn't mean exactly the same. As we think using words, by limiting the words of a language we limit the capacity of thinking. The more words you have, the better and more precise descriptions and reasoning's you can do.Secondly, language not only serve to a pragmatic use, but to a artistic use too. Arte is very important in our society. If you limit the language you make art impossible. Lots of works of art are based in the complexity of their language (trust me, I'm an Spanish native speaker so I know about difficult languages hahaha)
World's deviation

Thank you my friend! Well, I would like to start with the language. I do not see any sense at the existance of a second language and I think the only reason humans continue to accepting and, most times, encouraging, the existance of a second language, is chauvinisme. I have made some thoughts about how the existance of only one language (f.e. engilsh, which is the most easy to use ) would ameliorate much our civilization and probably allow it to evolve a lot faster. Now, when it comes to the number of words for each meaning, I also cannot find any benefits. My language (greek) is one that actually tries to complicate even more itself. In schools, the use of synonyms is constantly demanded and teaching is completely full of some unuseful grammar and syntax rules. Even ancient greek continue to being taught at schools, very analytically. Dear Con, do you find any logic on these phenomena, because i find nothing else but extreme nationalisme.
US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective

469... That was the total number of US soldiers that died in the Iraq war in 2008... http://www.icasualties.org... Compare that to... 1.7 million deaths... from drug related deaths and you can see the bigger picture of just how ineffective in how we, the US, have treated this drug issue; that of which is a cancer-into a war. There is no denying my dear audience that loss of life is of priority in the grander scheme of things, it is also why I find that my opponent has indeed agreed, that those deaths have not been justified. We respect the loss of our veterans, those that fight for the great cause they serve in... Inevitably some of our own veterans out of their pain turn to the very drugs-we are speaking of- as an illusion to treat their undiagnosed condition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder... http://www.nimh.nih.gov... Yet inevitably they may be treated as felons, thrown to jail for the pain they suffer as a result of facing the utmost tragedy. Thus my opponent has shown that we both agree that loss of life is significant very much so to this debate. Yet leading to these terms it seems only obvious... how ineffective the US has been toward the War on Drugs. How they have shamed the veterans, of our US citizens for the good battle they fought. If we fail them in our ability to treat them well as the good veterans they are, then we fail in our effectiveness. When we shame our veterans, we fail our own ability to see compassion. These soldiers that fight our war bleed in their minds and hearts, and often we choose not to listen to them-instead we shackle them of their liberty, and therefore treat them as a drug fiend. These are the sort of policies that the US supports.... and it should become rather obvious to you the audience that nobility lies where the preference to life over death exists... Remember that... Thank you, my dear ally to the pursuit of truth, you have reminded me that indeed it is the lives that matter, and that is exactly why the US policy toward the War on Drugs-is ineffective...
US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective

Efficient: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort :). Effective: producing a deep or vivid impression. I never said that the War is ineffective, I will repeat myself. The war on drugs is not a priority, but anyway, they did their possible, the most that they could to deal with drugs, which is a way of being efficient. Let's take it as an example: In our house, 5 out of 10 people take drugs / deal drugs in 2007, in 2008, 4 out of 2008 are taking drugs / dealing drugs in our house. It's from 5/10 to 4/10 it's efficiency, it modified that scale. The War on Drugs has been efficient, the drug dealers and drug addicts are LESS than they used to be. Having a war doesn't mean that every bad thing that was in the past will no longer be in the future. I n Romania, Yugoslavia and other communist countries, when the system was abolished, people still remained faced towards the ideology the communists imposed towards society. War doesn't mean a TOTAL change, today is bad, tomorrow will be good. It's today is bad, tomorrow will be better, because, NOT everything had been changed over a war, only a few things. My dear opponent tried to explain the money spent on War on Drugs (4 trillion) and the ones in Iraq (500 billion), I have one question, have you counted the loss of people? The dead soldiers that were killed? The kids who lost their fathers, the mothers and fathers who lost their children, have you? Money cannot replace humans. When a country finds a goal, as the US found the War on Drugs, they cannot put all their money and human force in there, if more people are assigned to other wings of the Police, as the Anti-Drug wing, there will be less policemen on the streets, less policemen when you dial 911. As I said and I repeat myself, efficiency does not mean abolition, it means performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort.
US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective

Open the gates, a new world is coming inï¿½ were the words of a famous drug dealer. As you imposed, drugs are separated in 2 main categories, both illegal and which cause dependence. A. Drugs as in illegal substances for getting high. The number 1 category has been always a problem for all countries, not only United States, but, also, it hasn't been a priority in any countries. United States has the war in Iraq as a priority, and long after, on the list of forgotten things is War on Drugs, although huge amounts of money have been assigned to this cause, it is impossible to stop the drug dealing even if countries have budgets to do it. Drug dealing has reached to a high scale and now it cannot be stopped, only downgrade it to a lower scale, but, that's also hard to do. The United States have made the borders like fortresses but it doesn't affect the drug dealing which is coming from Mexico. As a measure of safety, lots of organizations have been created along the years to strike the dealing of illegal drugs coming from Mexico and foreign countries, but none have been successful. Certain areas of the Local Police have been assigned to the lost case of war on Drugs, but, they have been also influenced by the latest suggestions from the head of the US to impose the drugs as legal, or at least some of them. B. Drugs as in illegal substances for getting self-medicating. As most of us know, drugs have been used in hospitals as a way of treating people. Let's take this case, if you would have been in a car accident and you would've suffered severe traumas and the pain would be, unbelievably insupportable would you rather face that pain or take a shot of morphine which could make the pain like an itch in your ear? War on pharmaceutical drugs never existed and will never be, they will always be in hospitals to treat sick people, and without these so-called drugs, people would suffer more, and the hospitals would be like a place where people scream all day long. You should avoid including war on pharmaceutical drugs in this debate, or, you might have wanted to say: "War on people who abuse pharmaceutical drugs", and yes, that would be a great issue to debate on, but as you have not mentioned it, I will skip it. Main idea: Many and many ideas of War towards drugs have been applied during the years and none have been efficient, and none will be, the only things that will change will be less drug dealers and less addicted people, you will never face no drugs or no addictions. The United States has done it's best against War on Drugs. The International Narcotics Control has shown that the drug dealing has not been that high in 2008, as it has been in 2007, so, as I mentioned above, the actions that the United States have done in 2008 were effective, observing that the drug dealing has had a lower rate in 2008. Thank you.
US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective

I shall explain myself easier, for the whole voters too see. Resolution: US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective. Dictionary: Efficient: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort :). Effective: producing a deep or vivid impression. The US has did it's possible, performed in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort, and it worked. As statistics show, 2/10 people quit drugs in 2008, the effects have been shown, from 1,000,000 drug addicts, 200,000 stop taking them. Isn't it effective? Aren't the facts obvious that the US has been effective? It's about being effective, and the effects have been shown. I feel sorry for my opponent that she couldn't reply cause of the flu that got her ill and I hope she'll be back up on her legs soon.
US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective

I appreciate the promptness of my opponent in answering and I respect her answer. First of all, I want to clarify that people who take drugs are not forced to do it, nobody puts drugs in their veins or in their other body parts, it's them, not forced by anyone or pushed from behind, it's them who decide to take drugs. Soldiers defend our country, they're the people that sacrifice their life for us, they're for you out there, and for me, 1 soldier for me is like 1,000,000 drug addicts ( I have no intention to discriminate drug addicts, it's just my opinion). As I already said. Efficiency and effective doesn't mean a WHOLE new beginning, it implies only a few changes, in better. US made 1 drug addict to quit drugs, isn't that efficiency or shall I call, isn't the war effective? It didn't make all of them quit, but 1 means improvement, efficiency.
Team Debate: Looking good is a moral duty

The Team_X Captain has graciously acquiesced to my request for a brief statement, though, about Team Debates. This is, obviously, not related to the resolution at hand. Team Debates have been a frequent request on this site. Previous attempts at actually implementing Team Debating, however, have been less-than-stellar. I'm hoping this proof-of-concept debate will demonstrate how team debating can work on DDO. Airmax intends to create a forum post about it, but let me say here for the benefit of the casual reader that rross and I have set these accounts up with airmax's blessing. Hopefully, once this proof-of-concept has been executed successfully, this concept can be expanded into something more. In the meantime, though, please remember that this was only created and initiated after contacting airmax. Multi-accounting can cause serious problems, and so there are strict guidelines for how this concept is operating now, and how it will hopefully operate in the future. I guess what I'm saying is, that just because you see these profiles and know that rross and myself are "running" them as Captains doesn't mean that new accounts can be created willy-nilly. Please visit the forum post and/or communicate with airmax before doing anything that would cause our president or Juggle to think this is a bad idea. A few notes on formatting: You'll note that the top of this post has my name twice. That's because I'm both the writer of this post and the Team Captain. When my partner (xXCryptoXx) has his turn, the Team Captain field will still be me, but the post itself will be his. My job as Captain isn't to write his posts, or even to edit them. However, only Team Captains have access to Team Accounts. Rross and I are responsible for screening for obvious trolling, pure abuse, and profanity/obscenity; this doesn't preclude an internal team discussion, of course. But each post belongs to the writer, for good or bad (for example, this one that I've got my name on is probably already insufferable). I'm posting the Team Captain below the writer of the post just as a reminder; if I do allow something wildly inappropriate to be posted, I'll be just as responsible as my partner for it. Luckily, I don't think rross or myself have to worry much about that with our team-mates, but it's worth remembering. I thank rross, wrichcirw, and xXCryptoXx for being part of this experiment, and airmax for being our Cave Johnson and letting us try it. Like all good experiments, the process will help us learn something no matter how it goes. And so, with optimism, I turn the floor over to Team_X for their opening case!
Team Debate: Looking good is a moral duty

Welcome to our team debate! Team_X members are wrichcirw and rrossTeam_Y members are bladerunner060 and xXCryptoXxSome definitions:look (verb): have the appearance or give the [visual] impression of being (1)good (adj):to be desired or approved of: pleasing and welcome; showing approval (2)moral duty: A duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill. (3)(1) . http://oxforddictionaries.com...(2) . http://oxforddictionaries.com...(3) . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...First