BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
How does evolution explain the different ethnicity's in the world

Due to inventions that didn't exist back in the days of the more ancient humans, such as sunscreen, air conditioning, buildings themselves (guaranteed shelter no matter where you are from all kinds of outside natural threats), the entire natural selection of the human species racially has become defunct. It's so extreme that there is actually no justification at all for being racist anymore and all more economically and scientifically advances nations are moving towards acceptance of all races and towards not just tolerance but intolerance towards the mentality that wishes to segregate them as there no longer is any advantage to being any race and this is a scientific fact because you don't have to be a basketballer at all, nor do you need to be a particular career at all. We live in a world that's moving away from survival of the fittest and towards making everyone 'fittest' by their own definition of the term in a context where they can somehow shine and that's a great and beautiful thing.Due to what I just mentioned, this is why what you see now with races no longer evolving for the past few centuries is genuinely proportional to how much science is helping people to artificially cope with any climated regardless of genetic tendency to suffer in that climate.
How does evolution explain the different ethnicity's in the world

What I got from that article is that the reason for the different ethnic backgrounds is because those groups of people adapted to the climate they were in, well as a brief thought it does sound feasible for example Africa has a hot climate therefore it would make sense that the people living in that region would be dark skinned but what about countries like China, Japan Thailand, Greece, Spain, Israel the list goes on of country's where you have a hot climate but the native aren't dark skinned even Caucasians who've migrate to hot climates haven't changed their skin tone either for example, when some of the English migrated to Australia in 1788 there haven't been any immediate or long term changes in terms of them changing skin tone or even language. I will be looking forward to your next argumment.
How does evolution explain the different ethnicity's in the world

Eastern Asia is much more humid than the nations with Brown people (yes I know Sri Lanka has monsoons but they are much lesser than the Oriental and Malay/Thai nations' monsoons). http://www.travelzoo.com...You will find that everything about the way more Oriental Asians are built is to avoid losing moisture. From the eyes to their ears (they have drier wax than other races, https://www.sciencenews.org...) everything about how East Asian Races are built (and since they are related in ancestry, Native Americans) is about not sweating too much and not losing moisture in any shape or form. The greenery in such nations was also much denser and so since the sunlight was hidden by a lot more shading, they didn't benefit from being dark nearly as much as from being small. You will find that as you go form north-east Asis through to middle ans mid-east Easia, you find a darkening, the Thais and Malaysians are darker than the north chinese and Koreans. This is because of how dense the forests were. Basically, in lack of sunlight but high humidity, you want to be naturally better insulated in all ways. Being lighter, smaller and drier in all ways (including moisture lost through yoru raw eyeballs) you prevent humidity killing you as you maintain more moisture for less water intake. Being small helps with hiding in forest-rich environments but is a disadvantag eni open-plain landscapes where big and strong is the only way to cope (this is why the Native Americans were not particularly short despite sharing all other traits with their related races in East Asia).I could explain it all to you, it's almost endless. Even big penises on black people can be explained, it's because bigger organs helps more in open-plain survivla as you beat each other to death, there's no hiding. Smaller builds helps in hiding and bigger people die off in Asian climate, that's why they all became short.
Michael Schumacher was an unethical cheater in Formula One.

Hello Placebo Thank you for starting this debate, and this issue took great concern to me. By the way, I am a Ferrari fan as well as Schumi fan. I must ask if you like McLean and/or Lewis Hamilton. The first video you provide is very interesting. http://www.youtube.com... In the previous corner, Damon Hill had run off the track, making his car slower for through the next corner. Then came Michael Schumacher around the corner not expecting to see Damon Hill in the main line even though he was full. Schumi clearly tries going around him on both sides and nearly does it, but Hill runs into him in the corner. You can tell, that when it is in the in car camera for Michael's car and you see him swerve one way, then another, and clearly has the bottom line. After, Hill comes flying across the screen and Schumi locks up the tires. You can tell he locks up the tires 40 seconds into the video when his tires stop moving. Also, the front of Hill's car came across the front of Schumi, so has is that his fault when he never touched him? "Upon Villeneuve passing Schumacher tried to hit him" How do you know that he was trying to hit him? You can not tell clearly from the video whose fault it was, if it was anyone's. Also, Schumacher got the worst of it, so what does the video matter? From watching the video, I get the feeling that Villenuve and Schumacher tried to go for the same line, but both of them couldn't have had it at once, so someone was going to hit someone. Now for the Monaco incident. To let the readers know that the 3rd video was during qualifying and Schumacher was on provisional pole. As he went around a tight corner, his car slowed and went to a stop. How do we know that the car really didn't stall are skip gears? The car has the chance to break down like that. You say the FIA accused him of cheating. I would like to see those papers. Bumping and crashing is just apart of racing. In NASCAR it is called give and take. When to guys take, there'll be a crash. Crashed will happen and most of them are on accident. No driver will want to risk their car and lose money just to take a car out.
Michael Schumacher was an unethical cheater in Formula One.

Michael Schumacher, 7 time Formula One world champion, was an unethical cheater who took any extreme measure to win titles. When he hit the wall at the 1994 Australian Grand Prix, he proceed to purposely hit his rival, Damon Hill, in order to take the championship. As you can see in the following video, after hitting the wall Schumacher's suspension was damaged - meaning he must pull off to the side of the track and retire. http://www.youtube.com... Yet he continues to block Damon Hill and then squeeze him off the track, hitting him, and thereby damaging Hill's race car and forcing him to retire. Schumacher then wins the world title. In 1997 at the European Grand Prix, Schumacher again had the opportunity to take out a rival for the championship and tried. Jacques Villeneuve was 1 point behind Schumacher, who was about to be passed, and upon Villeneuve passing Schumacher tried to hit him. http://www.youtube.com... These two examples show how Michael Schumacher will unethically try to destroy his rivals cars instead of beating them on the race track. The man gets so much praise for being the greatest driver of F1, yet he makes decisions that should mark him as the worst and then lies about them. Let me bring up one last example. During the 2006 Monaco Grand Prix, Schumacher again attempted to unethically take pole position by blocking the track while the 2005/2006 world champion - Fernando Alonso - was about to take pole position. http://www.youtube.com... By blocking the narrow track, Schumacher secured his pole position by bringing out a yellow flag and effectively forcing Fernando Alonso to slow down. The FIA punished him and many accused him of cheating. He still finished 5th,when he should have been disqualified. I believe that these three incidents prove that Michael Schumacher was a cheater who does not deserve to hold 7 F1 world championships. If my opponent would like to expand the debate to team orders and Ferrari we can do so as well, because they further gave Schumacher unfair advantages. I encourage the voters to watch the videos and hear my arguments thoroughly before my pro-Schumacher debater tries to convince you he was the perfect angel.
We should to war with Iran

Oh the irony. Righty, time and time again I've seen you despair and complain over your opponents forfeiting rounds, and yet it's you that seems to have forfeited your crucial 5th round argument. The weird thing is, I looked at your profile, and you've been online since I last posted. Maybe you didn't think you could win this one. So, I'll extend my impacts -Loss of US soft power. -Increase in number of terrorists. -Cost -> economic collapse -Loss of life from war -Lack of terror solvency -> more terror attacks. And I'll point out again that: you conceded most of my arguments, that I rebutted all of your arguments, and that you offer no logical explanation for going to war. And I won't do anything else, because I've got work to do. -Matt
We should to war with Iran

Hello With may "we should be safe rather than sorry" plan, I don't think I explained it enough. If we get evidence that Iran has any form of nuclear capibilty, we should invade. If they are contusily feeding Taliban an Al Qaeda, we should put sanctions on them. If they contunie, which I ecpect them to do, we should invade. Though, they would have to have a big effect on the terrorist. "you've admitted that there's absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Iran has nuclear weapons." Yes, this statement is totally true, but you have tooken it way out of context. I said it before, and I'll say it again there is no evidence they do or do not have nuclear weapons. Onc again, we must take any evidence seriously, we would rather be safe than sorry. This theory can not be aplied to the whole world because other than [maybe] Russia (I heard they're feeding the Iranians) no other country is feeding terrorism. Also, I never said this policy should be applied world wide. "Iran was holding terrorist leaders as prisoners. I fail to see the problem there" The problem is that we don't have them. We are the people dealing with them, not Iran.These people should be turned over to us. These people will then be sent on a vacation to Gutanamo Bay, where we can find out knew information. The only thing that matters is that these people are in the custady of us our our allys'. I am not going to answer your argument to the boat incedent. Your article is from a foreign country, and the information in the articlen never made it to the news here, so is it really true? "we aren't fighting a just war in my eyes" and "if America was waging a just war" I believe that was a shot at our soliders. We ARE fighting a war today. Monday, 5 soldiers died in a road side bomb, and now you say that we aren't fighting a war is just wrong. We must let our brothers and sisters not die in vain. "And how did we win the Vietnam war?" To say we won the Vietnam war is opinion. That depends on who ou ask. There is one fact though, the anti-war protester liberals cost us the Vietnam War, because we would have won if they hadn't pushed for retreat. Now, our econamy, we really aren't sure if we are going into reccsision. It all depends on who you ask. Sure it would cost money, but this time we will be more careful on where we spend it, and if we cut spending on other items, and move that maoney to the war, it will help (e.i. bear DNA testing). Lastly, WE CAN NOT PUT A LIMIT ON HOW MUCH MONEY TO SPEND GOR OUR SAFETY, IT IS WRONG. Sorry for the mistakes, I have to get off immidetly.
We should to war with Iran

Hello, IN your comment, it sounded like you wanted this debate. From the looks of the girl's first argument, I wished you had it. SO we'll restart with my first argument. Voters, check out http://www.debate.org... to find out what I'm talking about. I've become interested in this topic since the most recent boat incident last week. Clearly Iran has been testing us to see what we're capable of. Reasons to go to war- 1)Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran) wants to kill Israelis/Jewish. How do the Israelis feel about this. He said in a speech "Death to Israel" What does the threat he pose to that country. It is one of our biggest ally and we should make sure that they are safe. Also, he called the Holocaust a "myth". We all no that this is untrue. Who says that he won't start another Holocaust to kill the Jewish again. http://www.youtube.com...... 2)He has testes the US and UK. Many people aren't taking this most recent "attack" on The US Navy serious. The speed boats surrounded the fleet and said we'll blow up. The group of people on the speed boats were believed to be apart of the Revoultoinary Guard, which is a UN labeled terrorist group. The Iranian government said that they were only identifying the ships. IT was more of a threat rather than just identifying who they were. The ships by UN law are allowed to past threw the territory they were in, so Iran was out of its waters. Also, another incident came out that in December of '07 a Iranian boat was approaching a US warship, and when the ship fired off warning shots, it retreated. Many people have forgotten about the 2007 incident, where the Iranian took 15 hostages of the Royal Navy. The sailors were aboard the HMS Cornwall. Iran's government said that they were in Iranian waters, but they were proved to be in Iraqi waters. Iran knew this too. Then after it was proved that they were in Iraqi waters, they released them without a statement. They got scared. Also, there was another incident in 2004 when IRan seized 8 royal sailors. THey were again in Iraqi waters, but Iran doesn't believe that. 3)The threat of nuclear bombs Although there is no proof, Iran says they don't have nuclear bombs. They are trying though. In an interview with 60 minutes in 2006, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, couldn't answer the question "do you have nuclear bombs". He was stumbling and going off topic. Also, when there are anti-aircraft artillery guarding your one of your nuclear facility, that's a little strange (http://en.wikipedia.org...... click here to see). I live next to a nuclear powerplant, and there are no guns of this kinds. Once in while there will be a lone guy watching cars. If they were to get a hold of a nuclear bomb, it my not be able to reach the US, but what about if they sold it to a terrorist to smuggle it in, or they bomb Bagdahd where our soldiers are. It is dangerous. My last point is, if we invaded Iran, took over the government, and made it a constitutional republic, we would have a leader of that country who is friendly with us, and try to bring the gas prices down.
Resolved: Abortion ought not be illegal.

It is unfortunate that my opponent did not respond in two rounds of this debate, as I was genuinely hoping to have my views challenged. However, after his limited arguments, I am only more affirmed in my beliefs. Since I have made my arguments in detail above, let me summarize with a few key points. 1. The crux of the argument is formed around the person-hood of the fetus. Any reason given for why a fetus is not a person, is a argument, that if logically followed out to its conclusions, would take away the status of "human" from portions of the human race currently valued today (infants, toddlers, mentally handicapped, physically deformed, etc). 2. While I was hoping my opponent's rebuttals would lead us into a discussion of utilitarianism, it only did so briefly. But basically, if my opponent would have argued for the person-hood of the fetus, yet denied their right to life based on utilitarian grounds (fetus's aren't as important due to their function, their contribution to society, etc), we would have entered another realm of the debate. Essentially, my opponent would run into the same dehumanizing problems found in point one. Furthermore, while utilitarianism is objective in the sense that you can measure what works, the notion of utilitarianism is ungrounded and subjective. So one person can deem utility as survival, another pleasure, and another technological advancement and evolution. Since any materialistic system my opponent puts forward is subjective, there is no truth or obligatory value to it. It's a mere observation as to what the majority (or those in power) hold and follow. So while my opponent can say fetus's aren't worth endowing rights upon according to his utilitarianism, so what? He has no basis for any prescription. He can only observe and describe. 3. Since my opponent is unable to rescind the person-hood of a fetus, and since he can't himself give any prescriptive grounds as to why we should take away rights from the human class of fetus, or why we should uphold the rights of women, he utterly fails in his position. I, however, have been making observations based on objective claims and have been calling for consistency in viewpoints While my opponent believes humanity confers upon one rights, and defends those rights vehemently when it comes to women, he hypocritically demolishes the rights of other human beings. In the end, you may disagree with my position. However, my opponent has only used circular reasoning in his attempted rebuttals. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed our debate. However, I would love to chat with anyone else who thinks they can poke holes in my assertions.
Debate Topic : There are only two genders.

Happy to think with you today, You've said in messages that you'd like to present your case first, So go for it. I will only mention here that this topic is actually not really all that controversial. Some small percentage of the population gets upset about it because it may be particularly important to them and those are the videos we tend to see all over the place with screeching colorful haired people, But it really isn't all that big of a deal. It is mostly a difference of definitions, Which I will get into more in my 'first round. ' May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Debate Topic : There are only two genders.

Hello there. So after a long hiatus from debate. Org I decided to come back for one debate on a topic I find particularily interesting. I've had a thirst for controversial topics to be more discussed so today I'm throwing out my two cents worth. Just to clarify, My stance is relatively simple. I'll be arguing from a scientific and a morally ethical point of view that there are and should only ever be two genders. Through and through. This topic essentially tackles the belief of gender dysphoria and 'identity crisis' which has been a growing trend over the last few years. Because I want to make this debate worthwhile, I'll be accepting debaters who are interested in the comments below. (Just doing this because I don't want a troller to accept the debate and screw it up). So yeah. Apply if interested. Peace.
Abortion is ungodly

Hello, To clarify this is the first debate I am engaging in on this website so I hope for it to be a good one and please forgive my inexperience using this website. To start this debate off I would like to clarify my stance, I believe that abortion is a crime as it is ungodly in its essence and I do not believe this too be an opinion but a fact. The definition of abortion that I will be using for this debate is the following: 'the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.'. For decades discussions have been going on as to whether or not abortion is a crime or not, hundreds of pro-life groups have protested all around the world against the legality of abortion. My personal opinion on abortion is that it equates too murder as you are ending a potential for human life and its infinite capabilities to develop as an individual. Furthermore a pro-argument that is often brought up is the cases in which women are impregnated in cases of rape/non-consensual sex, but I do not believe it is necessary too have an abortion as there are preventive methods post sex such as the morning after pill and prevention pills. Whether or not these pills should be allowed is a debate for itself though. In cases in which the sex was completely consensual even if it was in an intoxicated state men and women a like should accept responsibility for their actions, as they made the decision to engage in sexual intercourse and it should not affect another life. In the United States of America since 1973 over 50 million abortions have taken place , which means that more than 50 million lives have been stolen, what ever the reason for the abortions might be. All major monotheistic religions of our world prohibit murder under which abortion definitely counts reaffirming my beliefs in why abortion is wrong. You can prevent pregnancy but as soon as the fetus begins forming anything that aims to terminate this new human being is against Gods word. No human has the right to take another life even if it resides in the persons own stomach. We can never know what that child might have achieved if it had been granted its basic right to life, it could have turned into a heart surgeon, a future president or a scientist who made revolutionary discoveries. Rounds: Round 1: Presentation of debate, acceptance & opening statements Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Both sides defend their original arguments and round up Stick to the arguments of your original statement in round 2 & 3 Rules: -A forfeit or concession is not allowed - be sure that you want to defend your side throughout the debate before accepting. -No semantics, voting-conduct or trolling -Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before posting first arguments. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
Abraham Lincoln is the best American president ever

The two acts are nothing compared to FDR's massive number policies.The civil war was a tiny problem compared to the Great Depression; did 1/4 people lose their jobs during the civil war? I think not.“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”. This speech gave Americans great hope, and sure enough, they only had to fear fear itself, FDR moved America through the GD in his four termsIn conclusion Lincoln didn't compare to FDR. His security was poor so he was assassinated. He didn't exactly do anything to free the slaves through his famous Emancipation Proclamation, while every one of FDR's policies had a big impact to move America out of the Great Depression. FDR wins
Abraham Lincoln is the best American president ever

Con has made a false accusation of Lincoln not being real. Abraham Lincoln has birth certificates, and photographic evidence of him being real. (Rebuttals) Slavery was illegal in Union States even before the Emancipation Proclamation. Here is a full list of Lincoln's acchomplishments: Lincoln supported the Homestead Act, giving free land to American citizens living in the East Lincoln signed a law entitled The National Banking Act, establishing national currency Lincoln used leadership to win the Civil War Again not a big list, but big acchomplishments Lincoln is also known for some of the greatest speaches of all time (Cooper Union Address, House Divided Address, Gettysburg Address, etc) In conclusion, Lincoln showed leadership and courage, fought things he dissagreed with, and never backed down. Lincoln lead America through thick and thin. FDR was great, but Lincoln is even better