BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it normal for a white girl to date a black guy

It's possible that they are worried about judgement, but in this day and age racism is considered one of the ultimate sins, so any judgement would really be promptly destroyed by the general public. As for being attracted to those with similar genes, Dawkins describes genes as selfish in that they exist to propagate themselves and that is it. Therefore genes are constantly looking for ways to propagate themselves, and that would include providing an inbuilt desire to mate with those with similar genetic codes. This would explain why on the whole, humans don't tend to be sexually attracted to other animals. It is just a hypothesis though, I personlly don't have any proof for it although it may be out there. Dating a black girl would be absolutely fine, but I don't think I would love her because of initial physical attraction. But who knows.
Is it normal for a white girl to date a black guy

I would date anyone of any race if I felt particularly close with them through closely related humour etc. I personally don't find black women attractive, but I do find oriental women attractive, so ultimately it comes down to personal taste. Some people may not be able to empathise with you if you went out with a black guy, as they may not find black men attractive. It is the same with people being uncomfortable with Gay couples. So I think people may be afraid of this lack of empathy and get nasty, but that is their problem. They are welcome to their opinions and their judgements, but to let it influence your own life would be to lose all independence which I would perfer not to have.I'd say it is not normal for people to date people of different races partly perhaps because generally people are attracted to others with similar genes, and if someone doesn't look like you, it is likely that they share fewer genes with you than someone who does look like you. Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' expands on this nicely with there being a higher survival chance for individual genes if mating occurs between organisms with similar genetic codes. However this doesn't explain why you ought to date someone of the same race, it simply explains why on average people may choose to date people with the same race. Ultimately, it is somewhat going against the grain, but people will always judge and have opinions, it's human nature, so just ignore it and do what you want to do.
Is it normal for a white girl to date a black guy

Your taking the question to literal. Not natural as the way you put it, but natural as in weird. And I understand that there is no reason why or why not a white girl and a black guy can't be in a relationship . Sure the black and white debate is over, but people still judge the idea of the 2 races being a couple. I think that it is fine, but people disagree. When I told my brother that I would be fine with dating a black guy, he didn't like the idea; other people don't like the idea either. Its like an Asian dating an american, I don't think that it is weird, but some people think that an Asian should be with an Asian and an american with and american. Try not to take the question to literal. Think of it like this; would you ever date a black person? would you think it would be weird for you too?
Is it normal for a white girl to date a black guy

Although on the rise, only 1 in 25 white people are in relationships with those of different races. Therefore it is not normal. If you are asking whether it is ethically permitted, I don't see a reason why not. So it is not normal, but that doesn't mean it should be discouraged or encouraged either way. Date whoever you want. If you want to date a black man, then that's fine, and likewise if that isn't your cup of tea then that's fine as well. Why even ask this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
workaholics can create a happy society

500 Character Limit so1) Workaholics promotes the legalization and recreational use of Marijuana, which in turn creates a happy effect upon Society. [1] 2) Marijuana relieves Stress [2]3) Rowdy Behavior from Workaholics causes a change in Society, setting an example of what not to do (Drink and party all day) So people will create a better society by not following these examples [2][1] http://www.commonsensemedia.org...[2] http://www.commondreams.org...
Space exploration from mars to pluto is a waste of money

However, you didn't say "Let's shut down space travel from Mars to Pluto. " Exploring our own solar system is the way we will gain the skills, data, and technology needed to explore beyond the solar system. Halting space exploration at this crucial stage will lock us out of the rest of the universe, forever. "Well then a telescope on the moon. " Creating, maintaining, staffing, and maintaining a signal with a telescope on the moon would be extremely expensive. In addition, a telescope does not provide the same range of analytical tools that a hands-on rover or even human team does. Finally, a telescope orbiting the Earth cannot take the same pictures that launched telescopes, such as Voyager, can. I would also like to note that Pro dropped my argument about alternate human habitation. In conclusion, space travel is necessary because of the resources in our universe that we can discover, the scientific advances it propagates, and the need for alternate habitation for human life. The costs sustained in exploring our universe are necessary, even beneficiary, in that they will help the whole of humanity. We must explore for the sake of science, curiosity, and the human experience. If we do not bring ourselves to the galaxy, the galaxy will bring itself to us.
Space exploration from mars to pluto is a waste of money

"Our observatories on Earth are remarkably clouded by the atmosphere and ozone layer. The only way to get clear, unadulterated picture of the rest of our galaxy is to send out more probes and telescopes. Although Hubble is a valuable tool, it can by no means capture a complete picture of our galaxy." Well then a telescope on the moon. I said to shut down space travel from mars to pluto, but development of a moon base is okay as it has lower distance and therefore lesser cost. "What about 55 Cancri e (discovered in 2004), a planet made mostly of pure diamond?" Is it even in this galaxy? It certainly must not be in the stretch from mars to pluto. All my argument is that instead of jumping off in space randomly and wasting precious amounts of fuel, we must look through our telescopes and previous results to determine whether it is useful to undertake the journey. And currently, I doubt that space exploration is useful. All that money could have nearly ended poverty or bolstered energy production. There are many better uses of money than space exploration. Good luck to con, was a good debate.
Space exploration from mars to pluto is a waste of money

"Our probes and shuttles haven't discovered anything useful from Mars to Pluto." Firstly, our technology is insufficiently advanced to fully explore many of the planets farther away from us than Mars. Despite this, we've even found life-hospitable environments near us- For instance, the oceans on Saturn's moon Enceladus. In addition, many habitable exoplanets have been discovered (in part, by the Voyager) and could contain life. "How about limiting it to nearby galaxies? to our own galaxy?" I don't appreciate you changing the parameters of the debate here, but that's not the real issue. Even if we only look for planets to profit from in our own galaxy (which we have by no means indexed fully, by the way) that is still space travel. Halting all space-based space research right now and letting our shuttles rust in their hangars will bring no profit at all, and certainly no new discoveries. "..with our great Hubble telescope and other observatories" Our observatories on Earth are remarkably clouded by the atmosphere and ozone layer. The only way to get clear, unadulterated picture of the rest of our galaxy is to send out more probes and telescopes. Although Hubble is a valuable tool, it can by no means capture a complete picture of our galaxy. "I doubt there is a resource from mars to Pluto" Perhaps there may not be a perfect deposit of a needed resource from Mars to Pluto, however, many extrasolar planets have useful resources. What about 55 Cancri e (discovered in 2004), a planet made mostly of pure diamond? Many planets have valuable minerals that are extremely rare on Earth, thus allowing humans to discover new applications for them. Because humans are despoiling the Earth at such a prodigious rate, we must seek habitation elsewhere in order to continue our species. Therefore, extrasolar planet exploration is absolutely necessary, and the first step to that is intrasolar planet exploration.
Space exploration from mars to pluto is a waste of money

"This is a logical fallacy, as we cannot accurately predict what resources we will discover or acquire when exploring other planets and galaxies."Our probes and shuttles haven't discovered anything useful from Mars to Pluto. "Although we have not found signs of life that is as advanced as we are, there is no way we can say that there "is no life for at least a few galaxies." A galaxy is a huge expanse full of millions of planets, and each of those extrasolar planets has the potential to have life."Okay fine, how about limiting it to nearby galaxies? Or our own galaxy? Certianly we can find if there is life with our great Hubble telescope and other observatories, why waste the resources for traveling? "As I said before, we will quite probably find materials that would be useful to us on Earth if we explore further"With the billions already invested in space travel, I don't think I am finding some diamons at saturn any time sooner. I doubt there is any resource from mars to pluto that can help us make profit rather than lose all our invested money.
Space exploration from mars to pluto is a waste of money

1. ) What you have here is an extension of an argument from ignorance. "We have not found any usable resources on nearby planets- Therefore we will not find any if we explore further. " This is a logical fallacy, as we cannot accurately predict what resources we will discover or acquire when exploring other planets and galaxies. 2. ) "we saw through the telescope that there is no life for at least a few galaxies, why waste all that money to travel to planets in our solar system? " Although we have not found signs of life that is as advanced as we are, there is no way we can say that there "is no life for at least a few galaxies. " A galaxy is a huge expanse full of millions of planets, and each of those extrasolar planets has the potential to have life. 3. ) Finally, why would other life in the universe be the only merit space travel could gain? As I said before, we will quite probably find materials that would be useful to us on Earth if we explore further. Even if we are alone in the universe, it doesn't make sense not to explore the area around us.
Space exploration from mars to pluto is a waste of money

With all the funds in Nasa and development of the rockets, I think space exploration should be shut down as we went on Mars and collected what data we could, there is no life on it anyway. We went to the moon, few resources acquired there as well. Apart from launching satellites for GPS and bolstering communication networks, space travel should be shut down. After all, we saw through the telescope that there is no life for at least a few galaxies, why waste all that money to travel to planets in our solar system?
Abortion laws should be substantially reformed.

Resolved: Abortion should not be legal in any circumstances. We have heard that it is said that abortion should be allowed when the mother is endangered. This is in itself unconstitutional. Take a look at the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 1 Notice the amendment says " deprive a person of life."? The current standards for abortion are that abortion is legal under any circumstances in the United States.2 As we can see, this gruesome process is legal under any circumstance, such as rape or willing pregnancy. Moving on, I noticed a flaw in Pro and his argument. He says that we willingfully take a fetus and kill it without question but then he says that if a mother is terminally ill, abortion is key. Going back to the argument I made above. Even if the mother is ill, this is unconstitutional. The mother agreed to the pregnancy. If I take a coin, it will be rusted in two years. Will I be willing to throw this away just because it is rusted? See, the analogy I am trying to make is that.... You have life in you. Will an illness cause life to go away? As statistics show, more people are in support of pregnancies being aborted due to an illness on part of the mother. 3. Pro has obviously not done any research on this topic, as his sentence affirms that these lawa should be reformed when they are already in favor of the abortion procedure in certain circumstances. Pro, can you clarify what you meant when you stated that countries should change their laws? That is a strawman. Hope to have a nice debate. 1.https://www.law.cornell.edu... 2 http://worldabortionlaws.com... 3. http://www.gallup.com...
Abortion laws should be substantially reformed.

Resolved: Abortion laws should be substantially reformed.Definitions: Abortion: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus [1] Substantially: considerable in quantity; significantly great [2] Fetus: a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born [3] I stand resolved that abortion laws should be substantially reformed. The countries of the world should change their laws so that abortion is only legal when the mother's life is threatened.Currently, a large portion of the world deems abortion as legal. There are those countries that only allow abortion if the woman was raped, is in health or psychological danger, or incapable of caring for the child. And then there are other countries that allow for abortion even if:the woman consented to sex and was not forced, tricked, or drugged;the woman is in great mental and physical health;the woman is completely capable of caring for the unborn child.These countries essentially allow a woman, who voluntarily engaged herself in sexual activity, to escape any so-called "unwanted" results of being sexually active. These countries (China, North Korea, Singapore, Netherlands, Vietnam, Canada, and parts of the United States) allow a woman to abort her fetus, even after 20 weeks. [4] (Two of these countries have a 24 week limit.) How have we allowed ourselves to decide the death of an innocent fetus, all so the mother can rid herself of the responsibilities of bearing a child?There is the weak argument that a 20 week old fetus is not alive. Shall we review what 'life' is, according to biology? Life is an organism that: Can reproduce (meaning the organism has the potential to reproduce at some point in its life) Move Grow Respond to a stimulus Carry on metabolic activities Is made of cells With this in mind, let's consider whether or not a human fetus (at 20 weeks) fits these criteria. Can a human fetus (20 weeks) reproduce? Yes! grow? Yes! respond to a stimulus? Yes! carry on metabolic activities? Yes! made of cells? Yes! Well, we see here that clearly, a fetus is alive. At least from biological standards it is. This definition is hotly debated, with most Pro-Choice advocates claiming viability instead of life. It's also interesting to note that in many U.S. states, it is considered a double murder if one were to kill a pregnant woman at any stage in her pregnancy. Obviously the state and federal governments do not agree on the definition of life.We have made the decision to willingly eliminate human life, simply because we fear the responsibilities that come along with it. Is this at all fair? Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/report-us-1-of-only-7-countries-that-allow-elective-abortions-after-20-weeks/
Abortion laws should be substantially reformed.

Simply put "challenge accepted" or something of the like in your argument box for round one. For this debate, I will be Pro (P), and you will be Con (C). The following rounds will be as follows:Round 2 (R2): Opening statements and Cross-Examination The Pro (P), will give opening statements The Con (C), will give an opening statement. This will be immediately followed (in the same round, 2) by a Cross-Examination (read, analyze, and ask questions about the Pro's opening statement), which the Pro will answer in round 3. Round 3 (R3): Cross-Ex and Cross-Ex Answers P will answer any questions raised by the C in R2. They will then conduct their own Cross-Ex of C's opening statemnts in R2. C will answer any questions raised by the P Round 4 (R4): New Arguments P will give more evidence regarding his stance on the issue. C will give more evidence regarding his stance on the issue. Round 5 (R5): Closing Statements P will make closing statements. C will make closing statements.
MLKJRs "I had a dream speech" was in favor of white supremacy.

"I have a dream this afternoon that my four little children will not come up in the same young days that I came up within, but they will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin." This quote from the speech shows that he does not want people to be judged by their skin color, and rather by their character Not going to put any actual effort into this, as I have a feeling you'll just forfeit again.
Light Yagami became a Shinigami in the Death Note Anime after his Death

Pro did bring up a lot of good points in his argument and the arguments really made me think critically. "Now all of this MU (Nothingness) evidence you explained was only ever actually mentioned in the Death Note Manga. It was not once mentioned in the Anime at all. " MU (Nothingness) was mentioned in the anime. If you skip and pause at 1:02 in the first video, you can see the rule regarding the existence of MU/Nothingness there. This means that this rule can also apply to the anime's plot. . http://www.youtube.com... The rules of the Death Note are applied in the anime and manga. Therefore, the rule regarding MU should be considered in the anime as well. This means that Light would not turn into a Shinigami in the anime as well. "Furthermore throughout the Anime series of Death Note there are numerous scenes where Light is shown with his eyes glowing like Shinigami eyes, even though he never made the Shinigami eye deal. Like shown here: . http://i470.photobucket.com... " It is likely that Light's alternating eyes are used for the purpose of representing his character and emotions, than it representing him becoming part Shinigami. The changing eyes seemingly represent Light being a normal and sane (brown eyes) to a psychotic and evil killer (red eyes). You also see Light's hair turn red and L's hair turn blue at times too (this is prominent in the anime's first opening). This is simply the style of animation, and the purpose of the changing colours is simply to make a scene appear more dramatic to suit the atmosphere of a scene. "It is indeed from the director's cut version of ‘Death Note Relight 1: Visions of a God' but the fact that the footage was put back into the theatrical cut and re-released as the director's cut for the public to buy on DVD (instead of being part of the DVD's bonus features) suggests that the deleted scene can indeed be applied to the canon. " Since Pro assert that the scene is canon to the anime, I will now attempt to prove that the Shinigami wasn't Light. While the unidentified Shinigami does share similar characteristics with Light, that doesn't mean that he's the Shinigami. In my previous points, I proved that the rule regarding MU/Nothingness also applies to the anime, not only the manga. That unidentified Shinigami in the video said: "I want to go to the human world. I'm tired of this sluggish world. I heard the human world was interesting. " If Light was a Shinigami, then that Shinigami wouldn't have asked to go to the human world. Light would have tried to change the Shinigami realm as a Shinigami. If you skip to 6:28 of the second video, you can hear Light say that the Shinigami realm should be changed for the better since the it was rotting. . http://www.youtube.com...
Light Yagami became a Shinigami in the Death Note Anime after his Death

I am an avid Death Note fan myself. Firstly, Pro asserts that Light became a Shinigami after his death because the 8th rule of the Death Note states that: "The human who uses the notebook can neither go to Heaven nor Hell," meaning that he went to the Shiigami realm when he died. However, rule number eight of the Death Note does not mean that the user of the Death Note has a chance to go to the Shinigami realm when they die. What the 8th rule really implies, is that there's no afrlteife, meaning that there's no Heaven or Hell. This means that Death Note users and non-Death Note enter a mental state of nothingness when they die. Many who don't believe in the after-life can understand this. The final rules in the Death Note are: 1) All humans, without exception, will eventually die. 2) When they die they go to MU (nothingness). 3) All humans, no matter what they do in life, will go to the same place after they die. All humans are equal in death. 4) Once dead, they can never come back to life. Rule Source: . http://deathnote.wikia.com... The 3rd rule stated that all humans are equal in death, such that every human will go neither to Heaven or Hell after death. Since Light was human, that rule also applies to him. Every human is equal in death, no exceptions. The video that Pro sourced was a deleted scene/director's cut from the anime. This means that this scene cannot be applied to the plot of the anime. The director may have cut the scene because if that Shinigami was Light, that would be a plot hole, regarding the fact that all humans go to MU/nothingness after death. Since we know that the deleted scene cannot be applied to canon, we can dismiss Pro's physical comparisons of Light to the unidentified Shinigami in the video.