BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
For or against the "Black Lives Matter" movement

I am certain that all of those if not most of the blacks you mentioned above went to jail for what they did and i bet most of them were not cops. The point of black lives matter is not to stop violence but to stop people from getting away with it. Especially when the people getting away with it are cops. Cops should be prime examples of the laws in america only using violence as a last resort. But that has not been happening cops shoot anyone they think is dangerous even where there not in any danger. But to me that's not the worst part, the worst part is when they are freed of crimes that should have them lock behind bars and are allowed to continue works as law enforcement.
For or against the "Black Lives Matter" movement

Black lives do matter because there is something seriously wrong with the way blacks are being treated. The fact that only a few black have been killed by law enforcement does not change the fact that blacks are being killed by the people that are supposed to protect them. Only a few people in America have been killed by terrorist and we are still worried about them. Most of the officers that kill blacks for no reason don't even go to jail for it, how is that right? How is it that white officers all have get out of jail free cards, this is racism at its finest and its time for it to stop. We as a nation need to hold people accountable for the actions they commit not matter there race. And I want to pose this question to my opposition if you had a family member killed by and officer because they feared that your family member was going to hurt them or run away wound you want justice or will you allow them to walk away.
Banning guns places Americans in greater danger of being a victim of crimes.

With all the heated debate about banning guns in America amidst all the recent shootings, it would be foolish to ban and or confiscate all semi automatic rifles as recent Democrats have suggested. Every major study in recent history has proven that there is no correlation between the number of gun owners relating to the number of homicides. In fact the areas of the country that have the strictest gun control have the highest number of homicides whereas the places that have relaxed gun control see the fewest homicides.
Riddle/Puzzler

:)I guess it makes a big difference when I choose to answer you.In the hobbit I think he guesses hands and string and then nothing? I think the hobbit actually has the famous Ring.Not sure there's any way for me to guess that from here. There is almost certainly Air in your pocket, as well as small particles of whatever you've had on your hands, small bits of lint, food, dirt. And various organic matter.I guess if I give a weak riddle I deserve a weak riddle, I had an awesome one earlier and the guy missed it. Maybe next time i'll do a few rounds.
Riddle/Puzzler

Ok. Nobody voted the last one I did like this but i've read a couple neat little riddle/puzzlers like this , would like to try it again.I'll put my riddle/puzzle forward below, you answer, then post yours. I'll answer, you tell me if I got it right or wrong in the last round.Ok. A simple one to start off, i'm more interested in my oponent's riddle.Which is correct: "The whites of an egg are yolks." Or "The whites of an egg is yolks?"
Robots are good for society

To summarize, a robot is just a piece of technology or tool, that helps us solve a problem. Ultimately robots are just an extension of the human beings. -Robots can be automated to do almost any physical and computational task that humans can conceive of. -Robots would give us more time to do the things we want, and not the things we hate doing. -Robots and automation is what ultimately is going to set man free. -Robots would not take over humans and make us their slaves, unless we give them true "consciousness". -Giving robots real consciousness (if it's even possible) or artificial intelligence is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Elon Musk, the CEO and founder of Tesla Motors and Space X, discussed in an interview how artificial intelligence is potentially dangerous, possibly even more dangerous than nuclear bombs. For now, he really doesn't see any benefit or potential use for it, and neither do I. I'm not saying artificial intelligence will never have any good use in society, but as of now, I see that its potential danger overshadows any potential benefits, whatever they may be. But I'm sure in the future, people could discover ways to get around this issue. Here's the video link to Elon Musk's interview about AI : .
An individual's actions doesn't necessarily represent their religion

As a result of debating, I accept your stance "the culprits religion should be considered a possible a motive." However, the cause of the actions should be investigated. I mean, the culprit could be using religion to achieve self-interest/political aims. In this third round, I would like to summarize my point: - People act violently in the name of God and in the name of their religion, while their religions call for peace. - Violent actions have no religion. - If religion is considered the cause of terrifying acts, almost all religions would be imperfect. - It is important to distinguish between political terrorism and religious terrorism. In most cases the cause is political. - In his book How Evil Works, David K. writes: "Genocidal madness can't be blamed on a particular philosophy or religion." Dear opponent, I am willing to see your summary as well. Good luck.
An individual's actions doesn't necessarily represent their religion

as I stated above I don't think groups should be all discriminated against because of the actions of a few religious (or not) radicals. However the reason certain religious groups have these stereotypes is because they are widely known (right or wrong) of taking part in whatever the stereotype is. For example in America around 13% of the population is black out of them around half live below the poverty line. For this reason people unfortunately judge people before actually getting to know who they are. If someone commits a crime and they can be directly linked to a terrorist group then until proving otherwise we should assume they did what they did for there religion. To answer your question if we did not expose there religion then we would blame it on them being insane which in many ways is not that different than religious radicalism. therefore until proven otherwise the cultprits religion should be considered a possible a motive.
An individual's actions doesn't necessarily represent their religion

Dear opponent, I agree with your statement: "because they believe this is what their religion want them to do." The problem is that they "believe" it is the right thing, because they are misguided about their own religion. Therefore they are the cause of the stereotype. But stereotypes are often not true. Even though with the recent events, I do not think it's rational to blame the culprit's religion, even if the violence and terror is caused mostly by people with the same religion. They might be using the name of religion in order to achieve their violence. Media plays a big role in displaying the picture of certain religions, too. If we assume religion is the cause of different actions, especially dangerous and violent ones, then there are powers that practice violence but it is not blamed on their religion. Why are some religions blamed while others not? Other reason than stereotypes is that in fact it is not the religion to be blamed. It is the person, regardless of their religion. In my opinion, religions are sometimes exploited to express personal thoughts. Also, how would you answer this question: If we never expose culprits' religions, where would we say are those individuals getting their thoughts from? Good luck.
An individual's actions doesn't necessarily represent their religion

I agree with you that many religious groups have been stereotyped in our society for being the cause of some acts of violence and I also agree that some people who commit these crimes do not necessarily practice the religion they are affiliated. However in light of recent events, it is rational to look to the culprits religion as a cause for there actions. Many if not all religious groups have large or minor terrorist cells; the people in these terrorist cells often are convinced that they must take aggressive action against a certain group of people, because they believe this is what there religion want them to do. To them in there distorted version of what might be a peaceful "friendly" religion they believe that there religion and there god would want them to commit an atrocity. So it is safe to assume before proving evidence to support otherwise that there religion may have played a role in there actions.
An individual's actions doesn't necessarily represent their religion

Our religions influence our lives (most of us). However, some people are not religious, but they do have a religion. After seeing or hearing about an act from someone, some people blame it on their religion, which in my opinion is not logical. In other words, there are stereotypes stuck to religions, which are not true. Some people act on their own will, according to their own thoughts, not the thoughts of their religion. But people think that their religion is the cause of their acts. I am not saying that there aren't any actions that represent religion. What I am saying is that some actions are mistaken for being associated with religion. Dear opponent, I would like to know your thoughts on this concept. (Note that everything I say is a personal opinion, I understand and respect yours.) Dialogue is how we communicate and understand.
An individual's actions doesn't necessarily represent their religion

before summarizing my opinion I would like to first respond to my opponents points in order. -these people who act violently in the name of god and there religion are representing a different point of view of there religion, although most may view the meaning of there religion as one that calls for peace there are some who may have a different more violent idea of its meaning. This is similar to how there are many different interpretations of the bibles meaning which is why there are so many different "sub groups" such as Protestants, Catholics, Russian Orthodox, Mormons and so on. All of them interpret the meaning of the bible very differently. -in some cases there are religions that endorse violence against certain groups in order to obtain peace. Making this statement untrue. -yes this is true, all religions are imperfect because they all lead to people misinterpreting the meaning which results in violence. Also religions are often abused for political gain. -political terrorism and religious terrorism are often intertwined, terrorist groups use religion as a way to motivate people behind what may be a more political cause. More commonly groups will simply do these terrorist actions out of purely religious reasons. -I think what the author meant was that you cant generalize a religion because of the actions of a few people who may have interpreted the meaning differently. to summarize my points -a reason for violence is a persons religion in some cases, because the meaning of a religion can be interpreted differently -Until proving otherwise it is reasonable to assume that a persons religion may have played a role in there actions. -some religions do endorse violence the majority of religions do not -a persons actions reflects there interpretation of there religion or in some cases may be a direct interpretation of there religion I hope this has been a enjoyable debate, for voters I hope you read both are arguments and vote for who supported a better argument. Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic.
In N' Out (Pro) vs. Five Guys (Con)

Websites used in this Round: (http://www.buzzfeed.com...) (http://beloved-brands.com...) [I will put the websites in braces at the end of the information used from them.] In N' Out and Five Guys have been debated on for some time now. Here are some reasons why In N' Out is better than Five Guys: 1. Sauce: In N' Out has their own secret sauce which they will give to you. 2. Secret menu: you can order things from their secret menu, Click the following link: http://aht.seriouseats.com..., [http://www.buzzfeed.com...] In terms of shakes, the In-N-Out shakes are legendary, whereas 5 Guys is completely missing out by not even having a shake. Clearly as I've heard from the fans, In-N-Out does a great job engaging with their consumers. The secret menu and the secret sauce, the traditions of the double-double and the "animal fries" all help create a "club" filled with brand fans who will take on anyone that knocks their brand. images-1There"s a slight difference in who each attracts. In-N-Out"s menu items are generally less expensive " the chain is most popular with young men ages 18 to 24 with an income of less than $70,000 a year, according to NPD. By contrast, Five Guys patrons are generally 25 to 50 years old, with an income of more than $100,000. In-N-Out seems to have a more engaged consumer base that it can leverage as 5 Guys is now into the Southern California market ready to do battle right in the backyard of In-N-Out. [All of these things were said by http://beloved-brands.com...] In my opinion, In N' Out's secret menu is a huge boost. They have some whacky, but good, things on there, and there shakes are very good. Now to hear from the Five Guys side of the debate. Good luck!
Racism is justified.

I accept.I offer these definitions so we know what we are talking about from a point of authority over what we believe the words to mean in everyday vocabulary: Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason [1] I assume that we have a split burden of proof because the first round is for acceptance, and con has to provide arguments in the next round. [1]. Google's definition feature
Racism is justified.

Let's talk about being moral. First of all, racism is not justified because It hurts one another's feelings. Trying to prove that your race is superior to someone else's is, most of the time, uncalled for. We must remain humane. Secondly, racism dates very far back, and to be racist would be evoking very old feelings. Being racist would mean starting a conflict, and not everyone likes conflict. What I am trying to say here is that, to be racist, would be knowingly hurting someone. And that, is simply, wrong.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

Seeing as I creeped on my opponent and saw that he was doing LD debates (or has done LD debates), I thought it would be fun to challenge him to an old topic.Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.Round breakdown will go like this:Round one: Con introduction (this post), Aff case.Round two: Con case and rebuttals, aff rebuttalsRound three: Con rebuttals, aff rebuttals. No new arguments in this round. CX questions won't be necessary since you should be able to figure things out in three days, but if necessary, questions can be asked in the comments section.I await my opponent's case.
Is funding of super-pacs justified in a democracy

"Democracies are based on "rule of law." Democracy is based on the “rule of the majority.”http://thelawdictionary.org...Republic is based on “representation.” http://thelawdictionary.org...“...the US combined Democracy with Republic.”Where is that stated in the US Constitution? http://www.franklincountypa.gov...“If you could please elaborate on a oligarch, that would be a great help.”An oligarch is defined in the YouTube presentation I referenced in Round 2. This presentation also gives examples of democracies becoming oligarchs and compares a constitutional republic to other forms of government: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIdOv0A8cvE“My opponent on the other hand thinks that super-pacs should stay because our governments could become an oligarch...”Where did Pro state, “super-pacs should stay?”Pro stated the following, “The reason funding of super-pacs are justified in a democracy is because, pacs or super-pacs are the engine of democracies; they are inseparable.”Pro does not support “super-pacs” because Pro does not support “democracies.” In modern time, democracies require large sums of money for media propaganda to spread its dogma to the masses (across the US); hence, “super-pacs” or equivalent thereof. Get rid of the democracy and “super-pacs” goes away. Pro made it clear in the US Constitutional republic, the scope of public vote (the vote by US citizens) is only for local representation. Local representation does not need large sums of money to broadcast the candidate's message throughout the US, only local broadcast and campaigning is necessary.
Is funding of super-pacs justified in a democracy

I would like to clarify the meaning of democracy. "Democracies are based on "rule of law." The ancient Greeks (particularly Aristotle) valued natural law, the notion that human societies should be governed by ethical principles found in nature. The Greeks are famous for practicing direct democracy, a system in which citizens meet to discuss all policy, and then make decisions by majority rule. However, only free males were considered to be citizens. So their democracy was certainly limited. Today direct democracy is practiced in New England town meetings, where all citizens of voting age meet to decide important political decisions." Now, I agree that democracies are unstable forms of government, and that is why the US combined Democracy with Republic. We have the people to chose which is the wisest man, and that is how American democracy is made. But what I am arguing is that since there is so much funding of candidates and public image, it corrupts what people actually think. My opponent on the other hand thinks that super-pacs should stay because our governments could become an oligarch( a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country) I keep trying to search through my opponent's arguments and find proof of a country becoming an oligarch. So right now my opponent's statement is invalid. If you could please elaborate on a oligarch, that would be a great help.
Is funding of super-pacs justified in a democracy

1. Funding Funding of candidates used to sound like a good idea. But, now it has became a horrible idea, because it produces inequality between candidates, and misrepresents what the people really want. For example, statistically proven the candidate with the most funding usually wins. For example, we can look at the presidential election in 2012. Barack Obama's campaign raised a total of 715 million dollars, They used 660 million dollars. They are in debt 7 million dollars. But, that his how much the winner spent. Lets look at how much Mitt Romney spent. Romney's campaign raised a total of 446 million dollars. He spent 433 million dollars. His debts are 1.2 million dollars. This is unfair, and is not a democracy, but just pure capitalism. This unfairly demonstrates the people that did not spend as much as Romney or Obama. It unfairly represents a Democracy. . https://www.opensecrets.org... 2. American Society As we all know republicans have taken over the house and the senate. But was this a truly democratic election. If the American population suddenly loves Republicans, than how come the middle class say( 62% say "a lot" of the blame lies with Congress, while 54% say the same about banks and financial institutions, 47% about large corporations, 44% about the Bush administration, 39% about foreign competition and 34% about the Obama administration. Just 8% blame the middle class itself a lot. ") Republicans statistically get more funding than Democrats. The democratic voice was not heard, therefore the Republicans lost.
Should we allow the transgender community to "change" their gender.

I do not think that we should allow transgender people to change their gender as that teaches people to ignore basic biologie that you are born either male or female, the LGBT+ community seem to think that gender is a flexible thing such as being able to legally change your name and can be changed because "that's how they feel inside" we as decent people should not support the genital mutilation that happens with gender reassignment surgeries.
Kenya is a perfect example of what happens when Islamists get to be 10% of the population- anarchy

Solarman1969... *sigh* Your website is spewing propaganda, just like you, for your irrational discrimination against Islam. You HATE Islamists and you just want to rant questionable information from questionable websites. I may have disdain for Christianity, but not more so than any other religion. I just won't stomach one form of nonsense bashing another. If you wanted to be taken seriously you could have cited CNN or MSNBC or a myriad of other sources to back your claim, but you did not. And do you know why? Yes, you do, as do I -- because no credible or responsible or respectable news organization would publish such ridiculous rubbish. It's a rant and you have not supported the argument at all. "Kenya is a perfect example of what happens when Islamists get to be 10% of the population- anarchy" I clearly stated: "There are plenty of countries that are over 90% Islamic and they are not in a state of anarchy. Nor were they in a state of anarchy when they represented only 10% of the population. Kenya is NOT a perfect example of what happens; it's actually quite unique." You failed to address this simple point, which was the focus of this debate. You didn't even provide a single counter-argument to mine, and YOU are the one the made the challenge. Thanks for the debate.
Kenya is a perfect example of what happens when Islamists get to be 10% of the population- anarchy

There are plenty of countries that are over 90% Islamic and they are not in a state of anarchy. Nor were they in a state of anarchy when they represented only 10% of the population. Kenya is NOT a perfect example of what happens; it's actually quite unique. I thank you for that Copy & Pasted letter. It was riveting. How not one single major publication put it on their frontpage is beyond me. Alas, it does not support your argument in reality.