BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Confederate Flag is racist

Germany invaded Poland on September 01,1939. This was the start of the Second World War. Hitler invaded Poland simply because he could, he wanted more land for his people because he felt that they were superior and that they deserved it, it's the same reason he invaded half of Europe. Please explain to me what you mean about the French forcing them to pay reparations, I have never heard this and upon researching it could not corroborate it. This comparison with Nazi Germany is a reach and beside the point in my opinion. Slavery was legal for 85 years in this country. Why doesn't that make the stars and stripes a symbol of racism? The Confederacy lasted 4 years and yet everyone finds the confederate flag far more offensive. Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky all stayed in the union, they were slave states(Hypocrisy), not to mention that Lincoln gave a free pass to areas in the south already occupied by the union, hoping to gain loyalty of whites in those areas. Tariffs were imposed and the war was about money, tax money, Lincoln himself admitted that. So why then should the flag be considered racist and was it worth 620,000 lives? Remember the south seceded peaceably 5 days before they attacked Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. In light of the south's secession Lincoln ordered the 68 troops stationed in Charleston to withdraw to Fort Sumter because he felt it to be Union property this was his stand against the secession and the spark that instigated a very,very bloody and costly war. The people of South Carolina felt the fort was the property of the newly formed confederacy and that is why they attacked. Though it is merely a small part of the equation even if slavery was the entire reason for the war, ask yourself this, if another country that had already abolished slavery before the union did, came along and waged war against us because slavery was unjust, would it be any different? Other countries including the union were allowed to abolish slavery in their own time and yet that was not the case for the south. The abolition of slavery in the south likely wouldn't have been far in the future as slave trading was coming to an end. Lincoln wasn't exactly who everyone believes him to be today. In Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear in a debate against Stephen Douglas while running for senator. "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races," he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote. I encourage anyone who feels passionate about this topic or anyone who doubts my argument to research it using credible resources and come to your own conclusion.
The Confederate Flag is racist

"World War 2 started when Germany invaded Poland......as atrocious as it is to enslave other human beings you can hardly compare it apples to apples with genocide." No, this is what started the war part of world war 2, the initial conflict was about reparations, just as the initial conflict in the civil war was tariffs, but the actual war started when the south attacked union arming stations. "The confederate flag we know today was a battle flag, a flag carried by fighting men not the national flag which represented the country as a whole. If the complete abolition of slavery was the true goal of the union the emancipation proclamation would have prohibited slavery in all states not just those in rebellion." I didn't doubt that the union could not care less about slavery, in fact the only one trying to abolish it, in the government, was lincoln. Additional, slavery was not banned in the union states by he emancipation proclamation because all of the states that stayed in the union had already illegalized slavery, and only states that kept slavery legal were in the confederacy, now it is starting to make sense why people consider the confederacy racist. "The fact is there were still plenty of slaves in the north during the war and until the 13th amendment was passed. What would have been best for the south and it's economy would have been a more gradual phasing out of slavery but with the threat of economic ruin looming, the south which had an agriculture based economy decided to take action to protect their livelihood ." They didn't want to pay tariffs, the whole war was about money. $$$$ "A large percentage of those who fought for the confederacy in the war did not even possess slaves because they were to poor. These men in most cases were fighting for their home and for states rights, would you have done otherwise?" That's not how the war started, first it was tariffs, the south succeeded and attacked union arming stations, the north declared war, the south claimed they wee violating states rights, Lincoln decided to turn he war into a war about slavery, the north won the war and the KKK decided to use the confederate flag and kill black people. "General Robert E. Lee himself freed his slaves in 1862 by his own free will whilst Ulysses S. Grant kept his slaves until the 13th amendment took affect. Most of our slaves were actually captured by New England slave traders and brought to this country on their ships. The English and the French participated in slave trading as well. The issue went deeper than slavery and continues to go deeper than slavery which is why the flag is so significant. The flag represents a resolute opposition to the federal government erasing state sovereignty." I know that, but truthfully, the south got together in a confederacy to protect their slavery, this is why the confederacy was formed, there is a big difference between why the confederacy was founded, and why the civil war started.
The Confederate Flag is racist

First of all in literal terms the flag itself can not be racist because it's an inanimate object with no thoughts or opinions. World War 2 started when Germany invaded Poland......as atrocious as it is to enslave other human beings you can hardly compare it apples to apples with genocide. The confederate flag we know today was a battle flag, a flag carried by fighting men not the national flag which represented the country as a whole. If the complete abolition of slavery was the true goal of the union the emancipation proclamation would have prohibited slavery in all states not just those in rebellion. The fact is there were still plenty of slaves in the north during the war and until the 13th amendment was passed. What would have been best for the south and it's economy would have been a more gradual phasing out of slavery but with the threat of economic ruin looming, the south which had an agriculture based economy decided to take action to protect their livelihood . A large percentage of those who fought for the confederacy in the war did not even possess slaves because they were to poor. These men in most cases were fighting for their home and for states rights, would you have done otherwise? General Robert E. Lee himself freed his slaves in 1862 by his own free will whilst Ulysses S. Grant kept his slaves until the 13th amendment took affect. Most of our slaves were actually captured by New England slave traders and brought to this country on their ships. The English and the French participated in slave trading as well. The issue went deeper than slavery and continues to go deeper than slavery which is why the flag is so significant. The flag represents a resolute opposition to the federal government erasing state sovereignty.
The Confederate Flag is racist

Many people do not consider the confederate flag to be racist, but looking at this with a general knowledge of history reveals otherwise. These people try to say that the confederate flag is not a symbol of racism or slavery, but a symbol of rebellion and states" rights. What these people forget to include is that the Nazi flag, the swastika, was invented as a symbol of German independence and nationality, so in reality, saying that the confederate flag is not racist, is like hanging a big swastika over your house and saying that you are only honoring your German heritage. Regardless of what the civil war was about, the confederate flag is a symbol of racism, or it is not racist to fly swastikas, the civil war was started because the north enforced tariffs on foreign goods to get people to buy goods from northern factories, and the south did not want to pay these tariffs, so they rebelled. World War 2 was started because France enforced reparations and Germany did not want to pay them, so they rebelled.
The Confederate Flag is racist

Without perspective there can be no frame of reference, which is why you have to look at the rest of the world and the whole country in that time period. If the confederate flag is racist then so is the British flag, the French flag, the Dutch flag and most relevant in this debate the American flag. The entire point of this debate is to determine if the confederate flag is racist. This is contingent upon whether or not slavery is racist, even though slavery only factored into the decision to secede rather than being the basis for the decision. Even if it was the basis for the decision it wouldn't matter in this particular debate because slavery in itself does not discriminate. Whites have been enslaved by whites, blacks have been enslaved by blacks, Chinese have been enslaved by Chinese, and every combination in between. This is supported throughout history, so how then would slavery and thereby the Confederate flag be racist? I reiterate, please if you care about this topic and you doubt what has been said on either side of the argument please do your own research. It's amazing some of the things that get passed over in the history books.
National Borders should be abolished

I argue against the proposition with the following argument points: 1. Religious discrimination - while I, much like my opponent, would love to see a world where people from across all different religious can co-exist peacefully, we have yet to possess such an education/tolerate level to achieve such a result. One does not have to look any further than the conflicts of Russians/Chechen, Israelis/Palestinians, Han Chinese/Muslims/Tibetans, Sunni/Shia Muslims, Serbs/Bosnian (in former Yugoslavia), etc. , which all exist within their own national borders. The elimination of boundaries separating people of different beliefs does not necessarily promote religious tolerance; one can actually argue the opposite. 2. Economic disparity - many bordering nations has much different economic structure and development level, for example, the United States/Canada/Mexico and Malaya/Singapore. Differences includes healthcare system, social programs, public infrastructures. .. Will a unified North America adapt a single-payer system or a private insurance system? It seems like more conflicts would arise from such move. 3. Political systems - much like (2), while most states are democratic in nature, they do have different democratic process (Parliamentary vs Presidential), who will get to decide which system is a better suited one for a unified world? Besides, there are still a number of autocracies around, such as China and Cuba. P. S. European Union still has national borders among its member states and they have the freedom to withdraw from E. U. at will; besides, their political and economic systems are quite similar with a majority of their population being secular. Thank you and I look forward to my opponent's response!
National Borders should be abolished

The world is already so intermingled that national boarders do little to benefit countries anymore. We can tell this in the case of the EU, all countries in the European Union are given the freedom to roam around all countries in the European union. This is beneficial, not only does it lead to lots of diversity, but it allows different religions to mix together. In our modern world, religious differences are still a problem. When national boarders are abolished, it will likely lead to less religious discrimination. If many religions can live together in harmony this would ultimately be beneficial to the international community.
The U.S. system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

Front loading is part of the system, the system is created by the people and the people are pushing primaries to earlier dates, condensing them. It takes away a meaningful choice, which my opponent concedes to, so he agrees with me. Now onto the caucus arguement, he gave a person, to say caucuses are pure democracy, but they eliminate the secret ballot, which violates a person's privacy, he concedes to this point, by not arguing it well. I never mentioned the electoral college And according to that case, a smoke filled room is still democratic, judge is that democratic. No, it's not, the people's voice is not heard. "Lobbying- Is this a fault of the system or the candidate... read his statistic Barack Obama did that.... the system is not at fault here", The system has super delegates, who are autonomus and can be bought, because they can be bought, it is undemocratic, they represent 20% of the people's voices. Secret ballots are not democratic, because they violate this free and fair elections, which is based on the U.S. principles of democracy, go to the site I posted. The probelm, is they don't have absintee ballots in caucuses, so they are being restricted from voting. The mere fact they don't have absintee ballots is against free and fair elections. The voter turnout is high because of the candidates in the system, not the system, the system is not causing voter turnout, this should be dropped from the round. My opponent is flawed, in the fact he can't even rebut caucuses. It still stands in the round. Super Delegates stand, Caucus, Iowa, Front loading stands. He did not rebut any of these arguements, well at all. Vote Aff
The U.S. system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

My Opponent is completly flawed in many arguments Front loading is not part of the system; implementation is not the system so please dont take this argument into consideration and if it was a problem (which obviously the party doesnt think it is) or it would have done something about it by now The caucuses are probobly the most pure form of democracy as Dave Yoder (staff writer) reports Caucuses are the most purest form of democracy theres no politicians no spin doctors no sound bytes just a bunch of people in the neighboorhood getting together and running the world for a night The Electoral college is not the system of primaries Just because something isnt perfect doesnt mean its against democratic values...my opponent is completly flawed in this point. In the case of Lopez Torres vs the New York Board of Elections the primaries have a first amendment right at least now we meet the candidates and get to see where the coming from and vote on them....at least were not back in the old smoke filled rooms Lobbying- Is this a fault of the system or the candidate... read his statistic Barack Obama did that.... the system is not at fault here Secret ballot- ive proven why caucuses are democratic Absentee ballot- alright again my opponent not looking at the system itself...The states choose if they want a primary a caucus or whatever the system didnt tell them you have to have a caucus. Religion and saturday morning- again a calender problem by the states not a fault of the primaries Voter turnout is by both people getting involved and diversity but still this means the systems working according to the US Election board from 2000 - 2004 voting was still up....and who did we have then a bunch of white men and 2 african americans... people are getting involved in politics However, I ask you to read this debate my arguments are very valid while my opponent cant even look at the system itself...he is very flawed and by him not being able to even prove democratic values theres no other way to vote but to the negative
The U.S. system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

It Is still a primary, people still have the right to vote It is because I agree with Mike Leavitt that I negate the resolved: Resolved: The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values. I will accept all of my opponents definitions I will also place 2 burdens on the affirmative. The affirmative must prove to you.. in order to vote for the affirmative he must prove at least two democratic values being infringed on to win the round Also the affirmative must show it being opposite not opposite in some cases... so to win that democratic value... he must show it is completly opposite To His first point He Brings up Frontloading which ultimatly can not be applied to this debate for one major reaso... we are talking about the US System of presidential primaries...were talking about the system itself not what states do to try and get ahead. He also states, well thats hurting the people getting to know the candidate....well heres the problem with that there are other ways to know a candidate. websites, and other non biased news states... and front loading isnt the problem, we have debates the people are knowing the issue To his second point- Superdelegates- we can look in the history of the United states and find that super delegates have never swung the vote... now as my opponent has and probobly will expand on the current democratic race between senators Obama and Clinton.. however this is in the future and we can necessarily say its the systems fault Point 3- Iowa- This is not true... Iowa is a caucus witch is like an enriched town hall meeting... here everyone gets their vote everyone is heard and it is fair Point 4- Absentee Ballots- ok even if there is no absentee ballots in a caucus it is chosen by the state...so that needs to be taken with the state and the way they implement it...so again now were blaming implementation and not the system itself Point 5- Ive attacked absentee ballots and also Iraq soldiers are being treated equally if they dont make the deadline there not counted just if you were to miss a caucus or a primary its all fair and everyone is getting equal justice To My Case Im going to bring up on Major Contention Primaries are in line with democratic values As Chair of the history department at the university of hartford Warren Goldstein reports Instead of big money and party brokers having locked up the nominations early on both sides, in this season the voters, turn out to be key. Turnout is way up breaking record in some states. This means expansion. The fact is Upcoming primaries are going to matter especially on the democratic side as super tuesday did not produce a clear winner And Sub Point b- The alternatives We have to look at this realistically.... what would we have if we didn have primaries...go back to closed door smoke filled rooms to where a random person can be selected the candidate... now we have it where people learn about the candidates... and are getting to know them more personally In conclusison Primaries are the best option and uphold democratic values
Sola Scriptura

Citations from Pro's argument will be in bold."we also have to take leaps of faith for the old testament, this came before the catholic church did,"What does this matter? The church still had to determine whether or not the books they were given were divinely inspired. The new testament books were written before the council as well, yet Pro conceds these. Pro actually contradics herself midway through her paragraph.",and the resto is the bible is the only final authority" but then proceeds to say"no one ever said the bible is the end all be all of authority"Perhaps a definition of final would suffice?Final- last: last of a number or series of similar things allowing no change: conclusive and allowing no further discussion ending: occurring at the end of something
Sola Scriptura

we also have to take leaps of faith for the old testament. this came before the catholic church did, If that is what you are arguing for as an authority. we have faith that God will put the written inspiration together one way or another, and the rest is the bible is the only final authority, at least in terms of it can't be contradicted. really, the bible doesn't say where to get the bible, so we can say an outside authority is permissible. no one ever said the bible is the end all be all of authority. so your resolution isn't really uncontested as the bible isn't the only final authority. but your implications are contested, that the cztholic church or whatever else must be accepted is contested.
Sola Scriptura

I would also like to apologize for the confusion, but also to urge you to either comment on the debate or send me a message next time you are unclear about the resolution. To get rid of any other confusion there may be, the resolution is "The bible is the only final authority". To which, I am con. My argument will be brief. I think Pro and I can both agree (being Christians) that the bible is made up of divinely inspired books. But I ask of Pro, where did you get your bible? I don't mean from which store, or from which publication, but of where the books were originally compiled into the book we now know as the bible. In fact, the bible was compiled in 382 A. D. in the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus. . http://www.crawfordcountycatholics.com... They set out a list of all the books they were going to put in the bible we still use today (albeit, the KJV is missing 7 of them). At this council, they decided what was and what was not divinely inspired scripture. So I ask you, who has more authority? The creator, or the created? The teacher, or the student? And aren't you already subjugating yourself to the authority of the council? After all, if you're going to take the bible as divinely inspired scripture, you're going to have to trust the people who determined it to be so, aren't you? Therefore; the bible is not "the only final authority". In fact, you can scratch out the word "only". The bible cannot be the final authority, as in trusting the bible, you must trust those who created it.
Sola Scriptura

the problem is you didn't define the bible alone narrowly or broadly enough for me to agree with you. people aren't saying the bible is the only authority. they are saying it's the only final authority, which yes is open to interpretation. that means oral tradition as even the bible pushes for, is permissible. it just can't conflict with the bible. and no one's interpretation is best, other than what it seems to be for you a seeker of truth.