BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racial classification for any purpose other than aesthetic differentiation is inherently wrong.

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the term 'aesthetic differentiation', as the example you gave was a clear example of it. The woman was able to identify the assailant as black, thus differentiating him aesthetically from someone who is not black. I even said in my initial argument that criminal investigation is an example of when this impartial aesthetic differentiation would be used. I don't mean to cross a line here but I feel the value of a debate lies in the actual discussion; your avoidance of all of the issues raised in my initial argument, failure to properly consider/understand those points (I don't wish to prejudge, but since you used one of my own points to rebutt me from the other side what other assumption can I make?) and eagerness to proclaim yourself the winner kind of make me feel like you're not here to discuss. I'd love to be proven wrong though...
Racial classification for any purpose other than aesthetic differentiation is inherently wrong.

So, if I come up with a single purpose for racial classification other than aesthetic differentiation that is NOT inherently wrong, then I win. Here is my example: A woman gets shot in the leg, and the shooter runs away. She calls the police station and informs them of the shooter's hair color and racially classifies him. The shooter was black, so she tells the operator that he is black. This enables the police officers in pursuit to effectively identify the shooter and apprehend him, because they have a piece of information about what the shooter looks like. This is an example of a situation in which racial classification is positive and beneficial, and it is not directly related to "aesthetic differentiation." --- Thank you.
Racial classification for any purpose other than aesthetic differentiation is inherently wrong.

All human individuals are the same species, that is a biological certainty. The FACT of evolution shows us that, if you go back far enough, all races converge into the same race too; racial monikers such as Caucasian, African-American, Asian etc. are incredibly socially harmful and only serve to segregate society, and in such an abhorrently shallow way! The worst fact of all is that the foundation for racial classification is incredibly flimsy, technically speaking. Firstly, the aesthetic differences between us which comprise 'race' says no more about individuals than the genetically preordained size of their appendix or gall bladder; they just happen to be conspicuous differences between us as a result of being external, and so cause us, via an innate human need to categorise, to use it them to pigeon-hole each other. Secondly, it is possible, if not likely, for somebody who appears visually to be 'Caucasian' to actually have a higher percentage of, let's say, 'Asian' descendants than 'Caucasian' ones. This is because the aesthetic distance between two races only a few generations. A particular lineage might have remained 'African' for 20 generations, breeding with only with people of the same race, It would still only take 5 generations of breeding with 'Caucasians' to arrive at an individual who is just as ‘Caucasian' as an individual who has had nothing but ‘Caucasian' genes for 25 generations. Mathematically speaking, in the context of this example, one person is only 20% ‘Caucasian', and the other 100%, yet they would be regarded as the same ‘Race' by our current superficial system. You see the futility of the whole thing? Obviously it is acceptable for people to use race as a purely descriptive element - on a dating website or in a criminal investigation for instance - but to take it further than that, to suggest that superficial attributes have anything to say about the personality of the person that owns them, puts you in prejudice and discrimination territory, which I view as bad thing whether it positive (affirmative action) or negative (racism) discrimination.
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

Your arguments make 0 sense. First of all, how would you know if a gay person is having a crush on you? 2nd of all, you don't give any reason as to why people should care if gay's have a crush on them. 3rd of all, you don't give evidence as to why gay's would have a crush on them. Anybody with sense would know that gay's would only like gay's. Why would they have a crush on a hetrosexual person? You make no sense again. Why would a straight guy has sex with a gay person? Interesting enough, you don't cite the gay teen expert, but you cite the diseases part. I have refuted all of your arguments with sucess. You continue to spew hatred towards the gays with no substance whatsoever. And you look like Dr.Dre which makes it even worse.
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

The majority of straight crushes "happen between Gays and their heterosexual friends. Therefore, many non-homophobic heterosexuals invite issues and problems in their lives simply by befriending gays and NOT being homophobic. "The bottom line is, when heterosexuals befriend people, they aren't asking for a crush from a gay." Straight crush stories" By " Ellen Friedrichs, LGBT Teens Expert Five types of straight crushes By Ellen Friedrichs, LGBT Teens Expert Homophobes are less likely to befriend gays In which eliminates friendship issues involving straight crushes and dealing with unwanted "crushes and contact from gays in which is good for homophobes because of homophobia. Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear (Olatunji "et al) Homophobia = disgust Disgust = disease avoidance behavior Homophobia = disease avoidance behavior Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour Valerie Curtis,"M"che"l de Barra and"Robert Aunger The Hygiene Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK Quote "Disgust is an evolved psychological system for protecting organisms from infection through disease avoidant behaviour" "Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: the functions of social exclusion. (Kurzban R1, Leary MR) " Here's a quote "human beings possess cognitive adaptations designed to cause them to avoid poor social exchange partners, join cooperative groups (for purposes of between-group competition and exploitation), and avoid contact with those who are differentially likely to carry communicable pathogens"
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

Homophobia is rooted in unwanted sexual advances (Pirlott, Angela et al) Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear. (Olatunji et AL 2001) Beneficial - favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. 1. Straight friend crushes is one of the most common issues in the gay community. Many closet and openly gays crush on their straight friends. Many heterosexuals consider this a problem. Homophobes are less likely to experience this problem because homophobes wouldn't befriend openly gays in the first place in which keeps open gays out of their life to avoid any possible discomforting friendship issues. Gays are less likely to come on to homophobes in which saves homophobes from being discomforted compared to non-homophobic heterosexuals . Gays are more likely to attemp to sexually seduce non-homophobic heterosexuals based on wishful thinking that the non-homophobic heterosexual might be a little gay. Closet gays are less likely to even reveal their crush on a homophobe in which prevents discomforting homophobes. Closet gays are also less likely to come out to homophobes in which also prevents discomforting homophobes. These real situations gives homophobes the favorable outcome resulting in good for the homophobe compared to non-homophobic heterosexuals giving the same situation.openly Homophobic women are less likely to have sex with bisexual men compared to gay friendly women in which decreases the risk of contracting deadly STDs 2. Some non-homophobic heterosexuals experience homosexuality out of curiosity in which increases the chances of contracting deadly stds. Unlike some non-homophobic heterosexuals, Homophobes will not experience homosexuality thereby decreasing std risks. Unlike homophobes, Some non-homophobic heterosexuals experience homosexuality for the money. Some non-homophobic heterosexuals are weak so they let homosexuals persuade them to be sexually seduced. Some gays use alcohol and drugs to sexually seduce their non -homophobic heterosexual friends. These sceneros could never happen with homophobes because homophobes wouldn't even befriend gays or hang out with gays in the first place..Homophobic heterosexuals get the advantage because our homophobia make it impossible for heterosexuals to experience homosexuality in which decreases the risk of contracting deadly stds for homophobes. The homophobes who are caught engaging in homosexual behavior are fake homophobes. In other words, they are pretending to be homophobic.
Abortion

Dont be dependment on the amendments cause i mean for all woman. not woman only in america. You ignored everything i said, and stated that the amendment lets this blablablabla. Give me evidence for all woman, give me the reason why all woman should be allowed to have an abortion. What you said meant nothing. cause it only affects america. americas only 1.8% of the population in the world. tell me why abortion is right. who cares if the amendment protects even less than 1,8% of woman. Who cares. Why do girls do it. Why should they have the right. Who will this help overall? Who cares about there choice when in the end instead of two people there will be one. Not even that one person is probably making a difference because there out making babies by accident. stop talking about 'choice' and start talking about lives. who cares if the amendment doesnt consider a unborn a person. who cares. tell me why. dont go all on facts on tell all the wya. tell me the reason why it should be allowed. oh cause ur a girl who didnt mean to have a bay. didnt mean to stupid. your angry cause you dont have time for this. give me the best reason and you win. dont send me articles. gives me your words completly. idc about the amendment or anything like that cause its only 1.8% of the population. if the girls gonna die then its understandable why she cant have the baby. but if shes in a good enviroment and just doesnt want. dont tell me its her right. dont tell the baby aint a person. tell me why she can, and she should, tell me why abortion is RIGHT.
Abortion

You state: "Something you did not mean to create doesn't have a say on whether it wants to live or not. This is not a violation of there rights because theres another person in you, and you are violating theres." You're right, the child doesn't have a choice, that's how it's always been. It's the women's choice, not the fetus's choice. That will never change. It's the women's body overall, she has protection under the 14 Amendment to protect her decision, it's her right. Yes, the fetus doesn't have a for say in the final decision, that will never happen. Next Argument: "Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [31] [32] Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [49]" The fetu's in not apart of the world census, thus saying they don't have any right's that we have. they don't have a say in the Abortion decision. http://abortion.procon.org...
Abortion

I did not say only in the us I meant everywhere. Its not an individual right because theres another body inside her. When you create something by accident, doesn't mean you can kill it by purpose. Your being selfish. Abortion is wrong. Sometimes it even effects the woman who does it. Stress, trauma, and even guilt. The only reason they did it was because they were scared, they didn't have time. If they did had time, werent scared of the pain or what people think. They would have no problem. Conjoined twins. If one wanted to be seperated, but they said that theres a chance the other one might die, the other would have a say in it. A baby doesn't. Thats the unfair part about it. Something you did not mean to create doesn't have a say on whether it wants to live or not. This is not a violation of there rights because theres another person in you, and you are violating theres.
Abortion

Abortion: 1.Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. You state that "Your body is your own body. It belongs to you, but what you choose to do with your body, put in your body" From reading this, I concede your basically saying that It is the women's choice to do whatever she want's with her body, so basically you're implying that she has the right to do what she want's to do with her body, such as having an abortion is she choses. Abortion is not against the law, in fact it's a women's right to have an abortion, unless she choses to invoke this right. We read this in the 14th Amendment: These are just the key clauses of the Amendment 1 No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens. 2 No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law." 3 No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws." This Cleary states, women have the right to an abortion if they wish, as stated in the 2nd point. "Not being deprived of Life" It's the women's life, nobody should be able to tell her how to live it, or do what they want, ultimately it is her decision. Violating this right, would mean violation the Amendment which is completely unconstitutional. "The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution" This will be my 1st argument, the violation of an individual's rights. Sources: http://americanhistory.about.com... https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...
Abortion

Lets be honest. Your body is your own body. It belongs to you, but what you choose to do with your body, put in your body. Sometimes it up to the government. As long as they keep in some areas abortion illegal. You can't. Your not allowed. This is a really complicated topic cause the girl chose to be stupid for pleasure. She chose. Then she's pregnant. Either she things the baby in her body is just some animal she can kill over and over again, or she believes there a human with a living soul. Not only is it her body now, but its the baby's body in her. Once the body is being formed. There shouldn be a choice whether I should kill it or not. There are probably many women in certain areas where they werent allowed to kill there baby, and guess what. Now there living breathing humans who are making a difference in this world. Do you realize how many human beings who have a mother who thought of getting an abortion before they were born. My mom honestly wanted to get an abortion, but she didn't and I am thankful. What if she did? I wouldn't be here. Sometimes makes me a little bit sad, but I should't. She gave me a chance.
Circulation of Snuff Films

I agree that the making of snuff films for the purpose of entertainment should definitely be illegal. Murder is wrong, and if the police find the videotape before it is "distributed", then it should probably be kept as evidence to find the perks. However, when snuff films do get distributed, then I think it shouldn't be a crime own or possess one. Before I continue, I would like to point out that the underworld industry of the snuff film market is considered by many to be an urban legend. The films I am about to mention, were not made for profit or entertainment, therefore they do not classify as a snuff film, however they feature the same content, which is death. The assassination of John F. Kennedy has been shown on many documentaries surrounding that particular subject. Most people aren't offended by seeing the footage on television, even though is shows the president being shot. An even more vivid example would be the public suicide of R. Budd Dwyer, who stuck the barrel of a .357 S&W Magnum in his mouth and pulled the trigger. WPVI in Philadelphia showed the full video, as did WPXI. Both films were also shown without the consent of the people who perished in them, so it would be hypocritical to let these films be legally shown and not snuff films. "My opponent may try and argue that the person may give consent for the video to be released before the actual filming of the film occurs. This is not legally valid consent as consent that is uninformed or coerced is not valid." My opponent makes a pretty good point, but there is also the possibility that the people who gave consent new they were going to die. Take for example the case of Armin Meiwes, who found another man through the Internet who agreed to be "slaughtered and then consumed", as part of a sexual fetish. The event was taped, but I'm not sure if it was intended to be distributed or not. And again, this debate isn't about the making of a snuff film, but it's distribution and the people who possess such videos. There have been a few videos that have been made for the purpose of some kind of profit which include: The videotapes that killers Charles Ng and Leonard Lake took (which are considered by many to be snuff films), footage of the Maguindanao massacre (which has been found in pirated DVD vendors), some famous hostage videos created by terrorist organizations in order to speak there demands (Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Paul Johnson to name a few), and of course the video made by the The Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs (which has also circulated around the Internet). SOURCES:http://www.archives.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Circulation of Snuff Films

Snuffï¿½filmsï¿½shouldï¿½beï¿½illigal/notï¿½circulatedï¿½notï¿½becauseï¿½ofï¿½theirï¿½content.ï¿½Iï¿½agreeï¿½withï¿½myï¿½opponentï¿½thatï¿½thereï¿½areï¿½fictionalï¿½depictionsï¿½ofï¿½thingsï¿½thatï¿½areï¿½muchï¿½worse. Myï¿½oppositionï¿½toï¿½theirï¿½distribuionï¿½isï¿½theï¿½factï¿½thatï¿½thoseï¿½beingï¿½killedï¿½inï¿½theseï¿½filmsï¿½areï¿½notï¿½ableï¿½toï¿½giveï¿½consentï¿½forï¿½theï¿½film'sï¿½release.ï¿½Sinceï¿½theyï¿½areï¿½beingï¿½killedï¿½inï¿½them.ï¿½Fromï¿½whatï¿½Iï¿½understandï¿½itï¿½is unlawfulï¿½toï¿½publishï¿½media,ï¿½especiallyï¿½mediaï¿½thatï¿½generatesï¿½revenue,ï¿½withoutï¿½thoseï¿½thatï¿½areï¿½depicted'sï¿½consent.ï¿½Whileï¿½itï¿½mayï¿½notï¿½beï¿½criminalï¿½itï¿½isï¿½notï¿½unknownï¿½forï¿½aï¿½personï¿½toï¿½fileï¿½aï¿½civilï¿½injunctionï¿½againsï¿½anotherï¿½forï¿½releasingï¿½mediaï¿½withoutï¿½consent. Myï¿½opponentï¿½mayï¿½tryï¿½andï¿½argueï¿½thatï¿½theï¿½personï¿½mayï¿½giveï¿½consentï¿½forï¿½theï¿½videoï¿½toï¿½beï¿½releasedï¿½beforeï¿½theï¿½actualï¿½filmingï¿½ofï¿½theï¿½filmï¿½occurs.ï¿½Thisï¿½isï¿½notï¿½legallyï¿½validï¿½consentï¿½asï¿½consentï¿½thatï¿½isï¿½uninformedï¿½orï¿½coercedï¿½isï¿½notï¿½valid. Oneï¿½fairlyï¿½wellï¿½knownï¿½instanceï¿½ofï¿½thisï¿½isï¿½theï¿½Verneï¿½Troyerï¿½Sexï¿½Tapeï¿½[1]. Inï¿½conclusionï¿½snuffï¿½filmsï¿½shouldï¿½notï¿½beï¿½distributedï¿½becauseï¿½thoseï¿½invoovedï¿½areï¿½notï¿½ableï¿½toï¿½givenlawfulï¿½consent. [1]ï¿½en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verne_Troyer?wasRedirected=true
Circulation of Snuff Films

Hello! I am Joshua Pleco! This will be a simple, casual, debate. I wish that my opponent shows love toward me, and I shall give love back. My argument is that the circulation of snuff films is, and should be perfectly legal. A snuff film is a motion picture depicting the actual death or murder of an individual. There are many stories about snuff films being traded in the criminal world. I've heard from a friend that such trades are popular in Europe, however I have never heard of it when I lived in the old country. It is hypocritical to make a snuff films illegal, we often see much more violent motion pictures when we watch a cheap slasher flick. The only reason snuff films have such shock value, is because the people killed in the film are real. Before my opponent arises from the soggy hills of middle earth to pound me with the subject, I would like to clarify something. I do not support the making of Snuff Films... Murder is bad, don't do it.
Mind-body dualism is false

===Resolution and BoP===The Pro side of this debate will be tasked with bringing a case in support of the resolution, namely that mind-body dualism is indeed false. Con's burden of proof will be to deconstruct Pro's case and show that mind-body dualism is true, or that it stands up to Pro's criticisms. The actual scope of the topic up for debate is whether or not the philosophy of mind-body dualism is a rationally justified theory of mind.===Definitions===Mind-body dualism is the view in the philosophy of mind which states that "mind and body are distinct kinds of substances or natures. This position implies that mind and body not only differ in meaning but refer to different kinds of entities."[1]. Mind-body dualism may be differentiated from monist theories of mind such as physicalism and idealism. The specific form of mind-body dualism up for debate here may also be differentiated from other dualist theories such as epiphenomenalism or property dualism in that it refers to a difference in fundamental substance between mind and body, rather than having mere ontological or onto-causal irreducibility to the brain or body's physical properties.A theory or concept is false when it is unsound or does not stand up to rational scrutiny. ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.===Sources=== [1] http://www.britannica.com...
Ron Paul should be president

??? Well, first I'll address the comments made about my arguments, then I'll go into my opponent's arguments. My opponent says that CNN is a liberal source. That is an ad hominem attack on CNN. Whether they are liberal or not does not change the truth value of their claim. If the claim is false, you can prove it false. My opponent then goes on to say that even if Paul did say it, it must be true because he is Ron Paul. This is cirular logic, and therefore illogical. Paul creates a contridiction, and even admits that he lied. Therefore he cannot be telling the truth in both 1996 (when he admitted that they were his) and in 2008 (when he said that they were written by a spooky ghost writer). Moving on to my opponent's arguments, he claims that he is voting for Paul because he is against the healthcare bill. That's is all fine and dandy, but that does nothing to seperate him out from the rest of the crowd of republicans that all oppose the healthcare bill. So far, my opponent has not made one lasting argument as to why Paul should be president, and none of his refutations to my counter arguments have held any water.
Ron Paul should be president

Well that is not true. CNN is a liberal souce anyway. You lie. Besides even if he did say it then it must be right since he is Ron Paul. If Ron Paul says it then it must be true. The main reason why I am voting for him is just because he does not support Universal Health Care. UHC is evil and will cut doctors money by 90 percent and will make the middle class poor since they have nothing to thrive for. The current health system is great. We have the best in the world. So ha!