BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Thiesm, Racism Same as Nationalism

While I understand your point and definitely agree that no place should be off limits to anyone because of their beliefs I will point out that the resolution of this debate was "Is Theism, Racism Same as Nationalism" and my purpose in this debate is to show evidence that they are not. I gave a text analysis previously and will now propose a real world possibility with logic statements 1. I can believe that all other religions are going to hell but accept everyone based on the color of their skin or the culture they came from. 2. I can believe that there is a superior race but accept any religion that race practices 3. I can have pride for my nation and not believe in God 4. Finally I can be a racist that believes the US is the greatest nation in the world and be an Atheist. If any of the 4 are POSSIBLE, and they all are, then I have proven that they are not the same but can be coincidental or exclusive. Therefore your resolution is false, they are not the same in principle, only in context. I await your reply friend
Is Thiesm, Racism Same as Nationalism

Yea I somewhat agree it isn't the same but in SOME cases I mean Countries (Not MOST) They make it same.In this Debate I am referring Racism not as Color Crisis but I am referring to Cast Believing, Race Discrimination etc.Do you know there are Places in the world where (Atheist) Tourist aren't Allowed only people of their Religion is allowed.I hate this kind of Countries. I have also seen People running their Countries on the Name of their Religion, And Some patriotism don't allow us there and just Discriminate us , and also send us out of the Countries.I was also referring Nationalism as Patriotism In some Countries like (Middle east) is far by the worst country I have ever heard oft is because of the treatment to women and lack of social rights there is no place for Atheist there. I'm glad I born in a secular nation where I enjoy freedom of religion. But in my country there is Cast RacismSome say aren't My point of views but I have Included them they are Copy PastedSome say : Middle east mostly comprises of Arabs. They are Muslims and most of the Muslims have more attachments to their religious views rather than their national view. I personally know many Indian Muslims considering Saudi Arabia better than India. Racism is different from this. some whites r racists .Some also say : India is a caste based country. It has untouchables, Brahmin's, khastriyas and baishyas.In Bengali it is known as bornobad.In USA racism is there. They have colour crisis. Now I am sayin that for Some cases are Is Theism, Racism Same as Nationalism
Is Thiesm, Racism Same as Nationalism

This is an excellent topic and it is a privledge to discuss it with you. I disagree that racism and theism are the exact same thing. I can conceede that one can play into another, but they are completely different subjects. What they both are is exclusionist and are both horrible things that do nothing but divide but they are not the same. I also am confident that what you are referring to is religious intolerance, as Theism simply describes one who belives in a god or gods. Lets look at definition: According to Webster; Theism(Religious Intolerance)-Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice). Racism- 1.animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races 2.belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior Nationalism-1.desire for political independence: the desire to achieve political independence, especially by a country under foreign control or by a people with a separate identity and culture but no state of their own 2.patriotism: proud loyalty and devotion to a nation 3.excessive devotion to nation: excessive or fanatical devotion to a nation and its interests, often associated with a belief that one country is superior to all others We do see commonalities in these words- intolerant, superiority and animosity are seen in all three, so they are similar however I believe the evidence can show that these are not synonyms in every instance as my colleuge claims them to be. So in short, I state that Nationlism and religious tolerance are not in EVERY case the same.
Late Term Abortion

i said "are you stupid?!" because you think i dont know the difference between a fetus and a sperm? there is a subject i know called Biology. Do you really think abstinence is the answer?..im gonna go straight to reality here and say no one would stop doing it. Sex is a natural function that people love and enjoy. its great that abortion gives women a way out of a pregnancy because the woman willl not be forceed to give birth to a rock that she doesnt want. I will not say the rape thing because even though rape is a great reason for an abortion so is everything else. People try to think that only things like rape, incest, or danger to the mother are the only reasons to get an abortion. thats not true at all. Whatever reason the mother gives is a good reason to have an abortion. She doesnt want a stretched out scarred stomach. or a flappy vagina from the babys head at birth. Abortion is great for that. reasons dont matter. If she wants one she can simply get one. Abortion clinics are fairly convenient. and about the sperm getting rights..you never know, people are crazy. People are trying to giving a lump pf cells rights.. thats pretty crazy too. the fetus doesnt get a chance at life because it doesnt have a say and theres no excuse to why people think it should. the fetus does not have a place to say as to what happens to it cuz what does it know...nothing. the mother carries the parasite, she will decide the proper punishment for it. and no an unwanted fetus has no moral value. It is nothing close to importance as the mother does. The mother is what is important, not a couple cells. And ya late term abortions are abortions that are a little later than usual.. so what? When mothers do late term abortions they know what happens, they know the results. So she will know that there will be some pain but it is worth inducing pain then it is being forced to give birth to something you dont want. Really, the mother will have a chance at focusing on what is actually important. So it is her health that she is choosing, so it doesnt matter what the procedure is because she does what is best for her and her future. So yes late term abortions still protects the mother in multiple ways. Late term abortions give you a chance to change your mind, the mother knows the results, she is the only one that has the right to make any decision, focus on work, not on ruining your life with a burden you cant get rid of. Keep the government our of our vaginas, so stop trying to give them opportunities to take away our rights that dont belong to them. if it had to do with men and their rights to reproduce this would be a whole different story to you guys. You have no idea what it is like to be a girl so stop trying to give up our say on our bodies. if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be more available than convenient stores, walmart, and fast food places. #thumbsup4abortion
Late Term Abortion

Clearly you didn't understand a word I said. Where did I say I think it's right for people to pay for someone else's abortion?? And yeah I do support all abortions but I'm talking about for their reasons! It's unwanted. They arnt ready. Poverty. Overpopulation. and are you stupid?! It's clear that a fetus is not a sperm! I gave that as an example to how far people will go in life to get 'rights' for cells. It's ridiculous and rather stupid. A fetus doesn't deserve rights because its nothing! An adult deserves rights unlike a clump of cells..and ya us kids growing up rely on our parents for things but you know what.. The mother CHOOSES not to abort them! So an UNWANTED parasite is leeching off of the mother. Of course we have every right to get rid of it. And did I not mention that I can't go back and see what you said! And did I not say sorry that I might not respond to everything you said! Read my texts and actually look at then before you open your mouth. And they arnt innocent babies! They are fetus's and they dont matter. A unwanted fetus isn't gonna control an adults life. What don't u understand? and yes I will relate these 2 because a mother taking care of her wanted baby is different then a mother aborting her unwanted fetus. The mother has a life and needs to focus on education and working. She's not just gonna throw it all away for something useless. In life there are paths we can take.. A left, a right, a forward whatever. Same goes for an abortion. We can have one or we might choose not to. The mother needs to think realistically on what is best for her. stop trying to mount a fetus up to an adult cuz that's not happening. A fetus has no say and the mother has all the say. Again..she created it and she can take it out until 9 months. However once it is born she cannot abort it. Thus she has a few months to think about a decision that will change her life forever. and again..THEY ARNT INNOCENT!! Enough with that crap cuz it could grow up to be a rapist. Or as you would say "it could grow up to find the cure for cancer". Ya right.. Lol
Late Term Abortion

I must point out that my opponent did not address any of the facts and she did not explain what life is in her opinion. She claims that a baby lives off of it's mother, but don't we all live off of our parents until we are adults? A baby cannot survive without it's mother when it's 5 months old any more than it can when it's 20 weeks into being formed as a fetus. It always needs the mother regardless. My opponent also claims she is for "all abortions" meaning that she is also in support of taxpayer funded abortions, which takes tax dollars and gives them to abortion providers and women seeking abortions. This is not the topic though, so I will refrain from going deeper down that road. My opponent also claims that a fetus is the same as sperm, but simple science tells us this is absolutely not true. Sperm is one half of what a fetus needs to even be a fetus. When a sperm and an egg come together, they create a zygote, which then becomes a fetus. Sperm isn't even comparable to a fully formed fetus. I also see above that my opponent doesn't think it matters if a baby is aborted late term because it doesn't know anything. This is scientifically wrong. A baby might not understand what is going on, but a fetus can feel pain just 9 weeks from conception. Study after study proves that all the structures necessary for pain are present at 9 weeks from conception. I also find it absolutely unbelievable that you put a mother's choice over an innocent child's life. When does that end? I saw in one of your other posts concerning abortion where you stated that the parent is an adult and they should make all of the choices for their child. Do you honestly not see the difference between a parent giving their child a curfew and a parent having their child terminated and aborted? The fact that you would relate parenting and authority to killing an innocent child is quite scary to be honest.
Late Term Abortion

First I'm going to say that this is my first debate. I believe in all abortions and any reason the mother wants to abort the fetus. It is her body, she has rights but a fetus does not. The mother made the fetus and she can take it out. The fetus has no rights, it is a clump of cells. The mother should not be held captive In her own body by an unwanted parasite. For late term abortions There is different cut off dates in certain areas of the world. It doesn't matter if the fetus has a heart beat or not. A late term abortion gives the mother time to change her mind. Maybe a teen mom planned on giving a pregnancy but then realized it would be better if she aborted because she is young and will not be able to focus on her education and provide for her kid. obviously you wouldn't be getting an abortion at 8 and 1/2 months because that's just too late. it doesn't matter that brain waves have formed, just because something has cells doesnt mean we should stop aborting. Lol if you can't tell I'm not amazing at explaining what I'm saying but I am trying so hang in there lmao. If a fetus has an arm forming (which they do) that doesn't mean it shouldn't get aborted. It's a fetus and I can't speak on a cut off date for everyone because everyone has different opinions. People say 'what about the fetus's choice?'..well what about it? It doesn't have a choice, it leeches off of the mother and it has no say whatsoever. giving a fetus rights is like giving sperm rights. A guy masterbates and it 'kills' its sperm..how far are people going to go to try to give every cell rights? I'm typing this on my iPod so I'm afraid that if I go to get resource sites that its going to cut off all I typed. And I can't remember some of the things my opponent said so sorry if I don't answer some of the things he said. the brain waves and heartbeat is just the fetus growing, just like any other parts. It's not like it changes everything..it's still a fetus. And if it gets aborted late then who cares? it doesn't matter, the fetus doesn't know anything. I'm not sure on how to end this because much of what I say probably wont matter to most people anyways but I will say that the mother is an adult and has rights. It is the boss of its own body and has every right to terminate a pregnancy. The only thing I am AGAINST is drinking/smoking/doing drugs while you are pregnant because if you decide to actually give birth then you don't want the fetus to get birth defects. there's not much I have to say on brain waves or growing of the fetus because an abortion is an abortion and the mothers right goes above everything. Late terms abortion will happen, the only thing people have to worry about is themselves. The mother will go through the late term abortion, she knows the results, the fetus will stop growing and that's the end of that. I will probably have more to say after I submit this but oh we'll. I just think realistically when it comes to life, not emotionally. The fetus is not a cute Gerber baby people try so hard to make it seem to be.
Late Term Abortion

I believe that late term abortions are wrong. I am against most if not all abortions, but this debate will be exclusively concerning Late Term Abortions, which is any abortion past the 20th week of gestation. I don't understand the word choice when it comes to abortion. What about the baby and their choice? Do they not get a choice when it comes to THEIR own life? It is also extremely odd to me that a single cell on Mars is referred to as "life", but millions of cells inside a woman's womb is a "blob of tissue" that can be terminated/aborted. Any abortion after 20 weeks should be classified as murder since the heart is beating and the brain is functioning. In fact, a baby's heart begins to beat 18 days from conception, and by 21 days the heart is pumping blood through a closed circulatory system. If this isn't life, I have no idea what is. I would challenge my opponent to define life and when it begins. If not when the baby's heart begins beating and it's brain is functioning, then when? The baby also has a very active brain just six weeks into pregnancy. While the heart of the baby starts beating at about three weeks, it cannot be detected by an ultrasonic stethoscope until around 8 weeks. Brainwaves and brain function on the other hand can be detected as early as 6 weeks. Again, I ask my opponent when life begins in their opinion. Study after study proves that at 8 weeks, the brain AND heart are both functioning and detectable through ultrasonic analysis. Biology is crystal clear that at the moment of conception (also known as fertilization), a unique organism comes into existence. Since this new life possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can legitimately only be described as human life. Since there can be no question that human zygotes, embryos and fetuses are alive, some have attempted to claim that human beings are not "persons," until some threshold is crossed, such as viability, the capacity to feel pain, birth, or even the first year after birth. The merits of such notions can be debated, but it should be clear that they are not based on science but rather on ideology, philosophy or belief. As far as observable science is concerned, human life begins at conception. Again, I am not debating when life begins, or if abortion (in general) is acceptable. This debate is strictly limited to late term abortions and I head to my opponent for further response. Source: http://www.abortionfacts.com... Source: http://www.justfacts.com... Source: http://www.livestrong.com... Source: http://www.pewresearch.org...
Universal Basic Income

This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.
Is it accurate to coorelate the success of a nation to a monarchy/ dictatorship insted of democracy

In my first sentence I was trying to explain the correlation between a nation controlled by a monarchy and the future success of that nation. When controlled by a monarchy, jobs / dilemmas are quick to get answered to there is no waiting for congress or waiting for a vote as such that may be time sensitive. Such as the vote in congress February of 2013 in which a bill had to be passed by the financial committee on budget of the government for the year. In what took a month to pass from the miscommunications in congress and the values of each party on the jeopardy the stock market plummeted to an all time low. Investors lost thousands of dollars to the lack of efficiency in a democratic congress. I also strongly believe that a country raised in a dictatorship helps to bring discipline and lower crime rates. For instance in the UAE or Qatar ( countries in the middle east controlled by the princes ), has one of the lowest nation wide crime rate and almost every citizen is educated and have a low nation wide unemployment rate. When an individual is given to many rights , to many choices nothing productive can come out of it
Is it accurate to coorelate the success of a nation to a monarchy/ dictatorship insted of democracy

"I believe it is accurate to correlate the success of a nation with a monarchy/dictarship controlling the actions of that country. Not only does the actions and policy of that dictatorship help create economic stability but also reduce crime rate and create an emphasis on higher education." First off, I have no idea what you mean here. In the first sentence, you make no sense whatsoever. But in the second, what do you mean by "economic stability". If you"re making a case for political dictatorship, you have to more reasons than that. "*Looking for someone to rebut and argue that a democratic nation is better than living under a dictatorship for multiple reasons other than personal benefits *" Sorry to disappoint, but I wouldn"t argue for either dictatorship or democracy. I think it"s a false dichotomy, especially in a world where the vast majority of people are going to be ruled by capital either way.
Is it accurate to coorelate the success of a nation to a monarchy/ dictatorship insted of democracy

I believe it is accurate to correlate the success of a nation with a monarchy/dictarship controlling the actions of that country. Not only does the actions and policy of that dictatorship help create economic stability but also reduce crime rate and create an emphasis on higher education. *Looking for someone to rebut and argue that a democratic nation is better than living under a dictatorship for multiple reasons other than personal benefits *
Objective morality is an incoherent concept.

The ad hominem fallacy is when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. I thoroughly refuted the substance of my opponent's claims, while also pointing out the sarcastic rhetoric he obviously portrayed. My opponent again straw-manned me by falsely claiming that I declared that morality is a quantifiable substance, and that I also claimed that it wasn't mutually exclusive to science. Contrarily, I used the empirical method of evaluating the natural world as an analogy to show how we can similarly use methods to determine things that are morally beneficial or not to society. My opponent then embarrassingly argued that because the law of gravity changed over time, from Newton to Einstein, then morality must change over time also. This is ridiculously false. The law of gravity did not change over time; our understanding of it did. So too does our understanding of morality change over time, perfecting and becoming closer to the objective truths. Pro again misrepresented me by stating that I made the argument that the consensus somehow equals objectivity. Either my opponent contains no ability to understand any complicated matters, or prefers to misrepresent every single argument any opponent of his may make. My opponent again makes the argument that morality is comparable to economics. He claims that all measurements of value are subject to change. Then, my opponent must concede that, in some cultures, murder can be okay, and it can later change to not being permissible. Pro's basic argument is this: Person X is trapped in a sauna, and the control panel to turn down the heat is outside of the room. Pro is outside the room, near the control panel. Person X asks Pro to turn down the heat, and Pro demands that he can't turn down the heat until he knows which exact number to turn the heat down to. Not having full justified knowledge of the ontological truth does not disprove the subjective ability to make estimates close to that mark, with the potential to even hit that mark.