BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God probably exists

Hello, I think god doesn't exist because there is no physical evidence of him existing and the laws of physics also won't allow a god to exist. For example The law of conservation of energy: It is impossible to destroy or create energy or matter (you can convert them in each other) This law would be broken if there was a god who creates animals people lightning etc. Because he has to get that matter from somewhere and he can't pick the matter from another planet or something because that would go against the law of conservation of information which basically means that if you knew everything about the universe you could trace things back and know acct what happened in the past even to the big bang. And in case you say the big bang also doesn't work with these laws you're wrong because at the same moment all the energy and gas to make the stars and planets was created there were also alt of negative forces created for example gravity and these positive and negative forces can cancel each other out so creating a universe is basically for free. I'm sorry for my grammar I don't live in a country where they speak english.
Harriet Beecher Stowe contributed to american racism.

Harriet Beecher Stowe contributed to american racism is the name of the debate as seen in the clicking on to this page. I negate this because she did not. conceding to the fact that blacks at this time were uneducated may proof grounds for stereotypes, but she was pointing out what was wrong and showing us how we need to get rid of the slavery, in order for everyone to have the chance to be equally educated to possibly end the stereotype. Slavery in time would not have naturally died down, he has no warrant to back this. Slavery being put out like a fire was a good thing, if the book Harriet Stowe encouraged this, than what she encouraged was not racism at all but abolitionism. I am not ignorant of your arguments, I did indeed read your arguments and the conclusion I drew was that you were saying the she was a racist. My misunderstanding. One must look to the facts, uncle Tom's cabin shows anti-slavery and anti-racism views. How one can draw to the conclusion she contributed to racism is beyond me.
Harriet Beecher Stowe contributed to american racism.

My argument was definitely not that she was a racist but that she unknowingly contributed to racism. Please note that part of my opponent's argument (the majority fo the second paragraph) is copied from the Harriet Beecher Stowe page on Wikipedia. 1. (conceded) "And it was at the time as my opponent says protraying these slaves as uneducated and they were so it is not racist it is merely an observation of truth" Yes. I have already said that it was true that slaves were uneducated ("The play vividly portrayed slaves as uneducated [slaves were] and inarticulate. ") This lead to stereotypes of the black race, which is a factor in racism. 2. "I fail to see how it caused the civil war and encouraged racism. " Well, let's see what I've already said: "In time, slavery would have naturally die down. Instead, slavery was put out like a fire. And many people held grudges against blacks after this. " My opponent is ignorant of my arguments. Perhaps next time he will read my arguments before assuming I am saying that she was a racist. Concusion (and this has been conceded): Harriet Beecher Stowe unknowingly contributed to American Racism. Because my opponent has conceded this debate and because of my case, I urge a PRO vote.
Harriet Beecher Stowe contributed to american racism.

I fail to see the civil war as a point to increase racism is contributed to her. By strengthing the abolitionist cause she makes people put an immediate demand to end slavery as you say. I fail to see how it caused the civil war and encouraged racism. Harriet Beecher Stowe is predominantly known for her first, Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852). Begun as a serial for the Washington anti-slavery weekly, the National Era, it focused public interest on the issue of slavery, and was deeply controversial. In writing the book, Stowe drew on her personal experience: she was familiar with slavery, the antislavery movement, and the underground railroad because Kentucky, across the Ohio River from Cincinnatti, Ohio, where Stowe had lived, was a slave state. Following publication of the book, she became a celebrity, speaking against slavery both in America and Europe. She wrote A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin (1853) extensively documenting the realities on which the book was based, to refute critics who tried to argue that it was inauthentic; and published a second anti-slavery novel, Dred in1856. It promotes a very anti-slavery anti-racism view and not a racist claim like my opponent claims. And it was at the time as my opponent says protraying these slaves as uneducated and they were so it is not racist it is merely an observation of truth. Today, Uncle Tom's Cabin raises many questions. It requires readers to confront and think about racism, and theories of race in the United States. It provokes important questions about differing feminist ideologies and agendas across race and time" (Ammons, intro). Whatever our feelings about the novel, it remains one of the most influential American texts written by either man or woman. It is possibly the first American social protest novel, and anyone concerned with the state of race relations should read it. I think my opponent has tried to skew the evidence that Harriet Stowe is not a racist but rather an abolitionist against racism and slavery.
Harriet Beecher Stowe contributed to american racism.

If either of these contentions stands, I have won the debate. 1. The plays that resulted from Uncle Tom's Cabin were the origins of stereotypes against black americans. 2. She was the war monger behind the Civil War. This sudden end of slavery lead to many bitter southerners, who would grudge against blacks. I would like to define a few terms for the convenience of the audience: black american- an american of darker skin complexion Civil War- (1861-1865) also known as 'Northern Oppression' and 'Lincoln's War' Uncle Tom's Cabin- a book by Harriet Beecher Stowe that denounced slavery; a play from this book 1. The play vividly portrayed slaves as uneducated (slaves were) and inarticulate. Source: Hulser, Kathleen. "Reading Uncle Tom's Image: From Anti-slavery Hero to Racial Insult." New-York Journal of American History 2003 65(1): 75–79. Issn: 1551-5486. 2. Her book strengthened the abolitionist cause and made people demand an immediate end to slavery. While no politician ever endorsed this, the south was afraid that the north would do such a thing (because of the book). This lead to secession. The Civil War was not about slavery until Harriet Beecher Stowe pressured Lincoln to sign the unconstitutional Emancipation Proclaimation. In time, slavery would have naturally die down. Instead, slavery was put out like a fire. And many people held grudges against blacks after this. Source: http://judelfoir.wordpress.com... Indubitably, Harriet Beecher Stowe contributed to the very racism that would make life for blacks worse than it was during slavery for years.
Morality should not be a deciding factor in American politics.

Round 1 will be for opening statements only. Morality - conformity to the rules of right conduct. Should - implying a binding obligation. Clarifications: Question of the resolution: Should morality play a deciding role in influencing political considerations and decisions? Pro's burden: To prove that there is an obligation to leave morality out of political decisions and decision-making. Con's burden: To prove that morality is a necessary part of the American political system, and that we have an obligation to keep the two together. With the clarifications edited, I hope that someone will be more willing to take this debate; to whomever decides to take the CON on this one; round 1 is for opening statements ONLY; do not yet begin building a case. Good luck.
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

Congratulations on going off-topic every single round. As I stated earlier, most of your points don't add to the debate. What you said about evasive techniques applies more to you than to me. That aside, let's focus on the issue (and not the person) one last time.Your statement was:"The often used term by politicians that "its not in the public's interest" is usually a blatant lie. Politicians never bother to ask the public what their opinion is, so they don't have any right to decide if any matter is in their interest or not."You said politicians should be banned from using the phrase 'It's not in the public interest' because it's usually a blatant lie.I oppose that because this is a generalisation. You say that because some politicians (not all, as you said 'usually') use the term when not having asked the public, all politicians should be banned from using the phrase. That is the same as saying 'No Mexicans should be allowed in the USA because some are rapists.', that what they call Donald Trump rhetoric.My statement is that politicians should not use the statement UNLESS they bother to ask the public, which fundamentally opposes your statement, which says absolutely no politicans should be allowed to use the phrase because some politicians abuse it.
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

I think my opponent must be an aspiring politician, because he uses the same evasive techniques that politicians use. List of evasive techniques used by politicians - http://www.academians.org... 1. Ignoring the Question: the politician simply ignores the question without making any attempt to answer it or even to acknowledge that the interviewer has asked a question. 2. Acknowledging the Question without answering it: the politician acknowledges that the interviewer has asked a question but then fails to give an answer. 3. Questioning the Question: two different ways of questioning the question are distinguished: requesting clarification and reflecting the question back to the questioner, for example saying "you tell me" 4. Attacking the Question: the politician attacks or criticizes the question; eight different reasons for attacking the question are distinguished: "the question fails to address the important issue" ,"the question is hypothetical or speculative" ,"the question is based on a false premise", "the question is factually inaccurate" ,"the question includes a misquotation", "the question includes a quotation taken out of context" ,"the question is objectionable" ,and "the question is based on a false alternative". 5. Attacking the Questioner: criticizes the interviewer as distinct from attacking the question. tack " attacking opposition or other rival groups, presenting policy, justifying policy, giving reassurance, appealing to nationalism, offering political analysis, self-justification ,and talking up oneR23;s own side 8. Giving Incomplete Answer: five different forms of incomplete reply are distinguished: starts to answer but doesnR23;t finish (self-interruption), negative answer, partial reply, half answer, and fractional reply. 9. Repeating Answer to Previous Question 10. Stating that the Question Has Already Been Answered 11. Apologizing 12. Literalism Thus, we can see that my opponent has not answered most of my points and has cherry picked out all the inconvenient facts that destroy his argument. Where is his response to the fact that politicians are more influenced by industry, internal pressures and government officials? Answer - None! Where is his response to the fact that politicians hate referendums and polls? Answer - None! The research paper that I have included shows that politicians are more interested in being evasive to the public, than they are at being co-operative and helpful. Thus, they are not acting in the general interest of the public, but are only looking after their own interests. It was found that when a typical politician was asked a question, the politician would most likely give one of the following responses - 40% - Making a political point 36% - Incomplete answer 19% - Declining to answer 15% - Ignoring the question 15% - Acknowledging without responding appropriately 2% - Attacking the interviewer
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

"Once you have voted for a particular party or person, that person can change their position after you vote for them"Of course they can, but most politicians like to stay in power, which you already pointed out in your previous argument: "politicians are in politics for the big adrenalin rush that power and control over others gives them", and so will try to keep close ties with their statements, just like how the republican party of the United States has been denying climate science for decades... Radically changing point of view equals political suicide."Politicians are more influenced more ... then they are by public opinion"Yes, that's exactly my point, and I said that in my previous argument already. People vote for politicans/parties because they agree on their views, not the other way around."The voting system is a very remote and ineffective way to control a politician"That's the idea of a representative democracy. One choose representatives because they agree on certain points actual in the current political climate. When that representative changes views, you change representative. If there are no representatives out there you are willing to support, you become a representative yourself.I'll leave the last round to you to make a good point. Let's see what we get.Maybe this debate can still turn into something interesting...
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

Just voting for somebody or some party doesn't constitute a complete democratic process. Once you have voted for a particular party or person, that person can change their position after you vote for them. Thus, you end up with somebody in power who doesn't represent what you voted them in for. This happens all the time. Politicians are more influenced more by their party, government officials and industry leaders, then they are by public opinion. Public opinion is the last thing that any politician considers when making policies and decisions. Politicians have a severe aversion to polls and referendums; they avoid them like the plague. The voting system is a very remote and ineffective way to control a politician. You must constantly watch their every move they make and jump on them as soon as they stray away from their nominated policies. Constant vigilance is the only way to maintain a fair democracy. Note - A sleepy public will soon be over-run by a corrupt and evil government.
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

I AM NOT on your side, only partly, but that is the exact reason I chose to be against. I DO NOT agree that politicians shouldn't use the term public interest. What I say is that nobody, including politicians, should you that the term 'interest of X' without having conducted a survey to poll opinions of X. In this case X being 'the public'. Your note that politicians are generally not interested in the public's opinion is fairly false, because in a democracy, the public elects the politicians. This means your vision of politicians is kind of screwed: it works the other way around. People elect politicians because they like the views of the politician. If a politician gets elected as, say, senator or representative, that means the politician represents the public, because (s)he is chosen by the public. This way you could see elections for any political position as a poll/referendum, and you know they happen often, and you also know that politicians with views the public doesn't likes, don't get elected, because that's how democracy works. P.S. I didn't hand over victory to you, and you should know it's counterproductive to say that in a debate, especially when you know it's not true.
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

Allowing a politician to tell blatant lies is a far worse violation of human rights. So, you agree that politicians shouldn't use the term "public interest". Well,I guess that means that you have handed over victory to me at a very early stage of the debate. lol Note - Politicians are generally not interested in the public's opinion, so it would be cynical of them to state that they were. If politicians were interested in the public's opinion they would have lots of referendums and polls. This is not the case. referendums are very rare occurrences and they usually ignore the results of referendums anyway. Let's face it, politicians are in politics for the big adrenalin rush that power and control over others gives them. Thus, they are not interested in giving the public any say in important matters.
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

Your last statement about those things not benefiting you does not contribute to the discussion much, as you are only one person and not 'the public'. Maybe a lot of people do find then important. As much as a politician without polling cannot say something is not in the interest of the public, you cannot either. I stand with you that nobody, including politicians, shouldn't use the term 'public interest' without having the public to confirm that, my only point is that you shouldn't prohibit just politicians, generalized. Saying no politician can use the term "public interest" is of course a violation of the freedom of speech, too.
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

Politicians don't have the right to say that something is in the 'public interest' unless they conduct a referendum or poll which indicates that the subject that they are talking about really is in their interest. From my observations, I have noticed that it is usually in the politicians interest and not in the public interest. Thus, the politician is just using the excuse of the 'public interest' to garner his 'own interests'. Examples - A politician may say that it is in the public interest to increase immigration, grow a larger population, vaccinate all children, employ more police, close down mental institutions, increase taxes, introduce more red light cameras to 'save lives' and go to war with Iraq and Syria. Personally, I can't see any benefit from any of these things for myself. Most of these items would only serve to enhance the careers of the politicians concerned, and has nothing to do with improving either safety or increasing lifestyle standards of the general population.
"Its not in the public's interest" - False statement

You may be right some politicians say that not having polled the public about the issue, but you still make a ridiculous assumption, which had you followed the United States politics, you wouldn't dare to say. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders, running as Democratic presidential candidate, has, ever since his campaign started, been talking to people all throughout the country, and still continues to do so to this day. If you actually study his policies and use common sense, you can clearly see his policies are in the interest if the average middle and lower classes, which I would say is the general public, instead of the billionaire class. Your statement politicians should be prohibited from using the by you specified sentence therefore is a huge overgeneralisation.
the banking concept of education is oppressive

I will first respond to your second round claims. It is true that all teachers do percieve themselves to know more than their pupils in the subject they are trying to teach. Similarly, the teacher's teacher considers himself more knowledgeable at the time he gives his lesson. The point is that no one person, even the "teacher", can know everything, even in a banking system of memorization. Based on this fact, the teacher would be oppressing while being oppressed, and this does not make any sense. To prove that the banking system of education is not oppressive, we can look at its earliest form - language. The general concept behind language is that there are memorized vocal patterns that create words, which we give meaning to. If language was based upon Freire's "education through liberation" concept, there would be no patterns to study - everyone would scream and yell at each other without much being accomplished. At this point, the oppression of being unable to communicate for the creation of technology (food distribution, transportation, entertainment) would surpass the alleged oppression of the system itself. Furthermore, the banking system is based on the principle that there are things in the world that do not change regardless of our views. To ignore this principle would be absurd. Lastly, the banking system of education works in a way that can only oppress those who refuse to use it. By deciding not to acquire the information from the banking system, you agree to suffer the consequences of not having the necessary tools to surive, similar to the social contract theory of John Locke and others.
the banking concept of education is oppressive

The banking concept of education is based on the acquirement of large amounts of information. According to Hirsh it is favorable to know large quantities of information in order for society to understand each other. Freire says "Education becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." In this type of education students are not expanding their knowledge; they are simply memorizing information which they do not truly understand. According to Freire "Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other." What this means is that knowledge comes from asking question and discussing the issue at hand which are not characteristics of the banking concept of education, instead it fills the students with information that the teacher sees as important. The result from a lack of knowledge is the absence of transforming power. In the banking concept of education the teacher(s) has all the power and the students which are reduced to objects have none therefore the banking concept of education is oppressive.
the banking concept of education is oppressive

"You previously said, "the banking system cannot be oppressive since there is no real oppressor, that is, a group of people exercising power over another"" in the banking concept of education there is clearly a person(s) who have power over others. The teachers have complete control over everything concerning the classroom. They choose the material that is taught and the students must learn it. They perceive that the students know nothing and they know everything. Freire says "narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into "containers", into "receptacles" to be "filled" by the teacher." Students are therefore degraded to less than human while the teachers are elevated to positions of power because students regard them as essential to their education. In the banking concept of education students are not truly learning what they are doing is storing information. Since students do not possess the knowledge to change their environment they must adapt to the reality created for them by the oppressors. For the student to not be oppressed they have to be given power through knowledge which the banking concept of education does not provide.