BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racism is normal

You've conceded that we are inherently different at the genetic level, and these differences are great enough to affect some things like mental and physical health. I would like to point out that these differences go beyond that. Races vary in: Physical attributes (size, maturation timings, skeletal structure) Mental attributes (general intelligence, impulsiveness, creativity) Chemical components (blood types, superficial appearances) Social behaviours (pair bonding, social conformity) Moral qualities (empathy, aggression, selflessness) Acknowledging these very important differences is not "naively collectivist" nor is it getting "bogged down". These differences are all measurable and verifiable. It is important not to sacrifice objectivity for idealistic notions of "individuality". Furthermore, cultural differences are neither more or less important than racial differences. They are just as important since, logically, culture stems entirely from race.
Satanism is not evil

Definitions: Satanism: the worship of Satan (. http://naffoundation.org...) Evil: morally reprehensible Assumptions for this debate to be worthwhile: 1. Yahweh and Satan as described by the Holy Bible of Yahweh are real. 2. We are not operating off divine command morality. Contention 1: Theology regards Satan to be evil. The Holy Bible, the document that reputes the existence of both Yahweh and Satan, God and the Devil is the most accurate source known to man about their attributes. The Bible tells us that Satan was angered at God for creating mankind. Satan thought that it was reprehensible to mix the natural with the supernatural, and worst, to let man into heaven, the realm of the divine. So he, and some other angels with similar views decided to rebel. They decided to keep man out of heaven and corrupt him. This led to the Fall of Man and his expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Satan wants man to go to hell. This is evil, so worshiping him is evil. Rebuttals: "there is nothing evil about Satanism in general only evil in some of the people who practice it its not all about murder and dark sacrifice's its about the ability to be yourself without subjecting yourself to a faceless god and no its not a hypocritical remark cause to be a Satanist you don't have to worship the devil there are no rules. " This is simply not true. Satanism is defined as the worship of Satan. In order to be a Satanist, you worship the devil and obey his commands. What you're advocating is more like atheistic subjectivism, which by definition is incompatible with Satanism. "I mean yeah the law of the land still applies but there is no so called "Higher Power" that controls every move of your life. mankind knows what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong we don't need a little black book to tell us what to do. and if you dont like this arguement i realy dont care the only reason im here is cause i like a good debate from time to time" This is kind of irrelevant. .. .so. .. yeah.
Satanism is not evil

there is nothing evil about Satanism in general only evil in some of the people who practice it its not all about murder and dark sacrifice's its about the ability to be yourself without subjecting yourself to a faceless god and no its not a hypocritical remark cause to be a Satanist you don't have to worship the devil there are no rules. I mean yeah the law of the land still applies but there is no so called "Higher Power" that controls every move of your life. mankind knows what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong we don't need a little black book to tell us what to do. and if you dont like this arguement i realy dont care the only reason im here is cause i like a good debate from time to time
Torture - It's Just Wrong.

Pain for livesLets look at this from this prespective. What if in the early 2000s we captured an Al-Qaeda memebeer and we tortured him to learn that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on the US. We could have saved thousands of innocent American lives right then and there. The twin towers would still be standing and the economical damage from 9/11 where we lost $3.3 trillion dollars would have been saved. http://www.nytimes.com...
Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Hello Zach, To respond to your thoughts, I would like to say that I still believe my position in this debate is still the correct one. I still believe that is is not fair for those people who have been waiting in line for months, years. They tried so hard to be legal and get a visa yet we are allowing these illegal immigrants to cut in front of them. So I believe my position in this debate is still correct. As to your second question, here are two of my sources: www.newyorktimes.com www.politifact.com
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age should be lowered to 18

Let me say this:The separation of 18, which is a legal adult, and 21 year olds, which is a legal adult as well, on the basis of alcahol consumption is segregation against age according to the 14 and 21 ammendment. If the consumption of alcahol is bad, then why did they repeal the 18 ammendment? Many government officials believe the age limit being at 21 was a bad mistake. In Canada, their drinking limit is 18 and they have the same amount of accidents as we do when our age limit is 21. 'Why do we have a law that is supposed to show a significant decrease in accidents when in fact it didn't? Vote for me.
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age should be lowered to 18

My opponent says I have failed to point out the relevance of brain maturity at age 25 but I have. Again as I have said alcohol causes brain damage especially during developmental stages. At age 21 the window of developmental damage opportunity is only 4 years versus the larger window of 7 years. Moving on; my opponent once again circles back to mere opinions of government officials and facts on driving accidents. I have clearly expanded that this issue entails much more than just drunk driving. I will concede that there are many factors that could have reduced the number of car accidents after the law was made. Perhaps it was the population as my opponent claims, perhaps seat belt laws that were enacted at the same time. However, most studies agree that the drinking law had a part to play also. All that being said the drinking age laws encompass much more than just driving. The unintended consequences of lowering the drinking age are numerous and dangerous. I have clearly stated some, and my opponent has failed to address them instead preferring to continue discussing drunk driving which regardless of drinking age will see little effects regardless of drinking age because drunk driving will remain illegal. People breaking one law, in this case drinking under age, can break a completely separate law as well, in this DUI laws. In the same way people who legally ingest alcohol can still break the completely separate law on driving under the influence of alcohol. Moving forward we have to address the other areas of what lowering the drinking age will do in our society. Like I said lowering the drinking age to 18 legally places alcohol in the hands of high school students automatically. As I've said that also may mean that these same students may introduce alcohol illegally into the lives of younger high school students. If my opponent is however still bent on discussing drunk driving, then he has to consider that this law actually puts the right to drink in the hands of people who at most have only 2 years of legal driving experience. Right now, as it stands, you have 5 years of space between starting to drive and starting to drink. What this means effectively is that less experienced drivers have a greater opportunity to drive under the influence under this proposed law. That, I would contend, is seriously dangerous.
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age should be lowered to 18

My opponent says that the brain is fully developed by 25, but that doesn't mean that people will still suffer the damage alcohol will cause. And besides, because the brain isn't developed until 25, then why are 21 year olds drinking. Just because accidents went down in 1982, doesn't mean that it is helping. There are more people between the ages of 21-50, legal drinkers, than 18- 20 year olds. That's just common sense. In Canada, people drink at the age of 18 and they have the same amount of accidents as we do when the age limit is 21. It just isn't working. Many government officials that voted for it to be passed believe that it is a terrible mistake.
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age should be lowered to 18

18 is not the age that separates children from adults on all issues for example, you can purcahse a handgun at age 21, you can adopt a child at age 21, you can gamble at a casino at age 21, you can rent a car at most companies at age 25, you can run for possision of a congressmen at age 25, you can run for president at age 35. clearly the age of 18 only separates children from adults in certain matters. Just because people who are underage drinking doesnt mean we should make it legal. People are already selling prescription like pain killers or anti-despressants on their own outside of a hospital setting which is illegal and also very dangerous. however, just because people are already doing it, doesnt mean we should make it legal. Even if the perpitrators believe that it is their right to sell the drugs they procured legally. The brain is completely mature at age 25. Alcohol has a unique effect on the brain; it damages its development. An 18 year old who over consumes alcohol even in the safety of his own home still runs the risk of hindering his own brain development with the substance. As you age you reduce this risk. The age is at 21 in hopes that it will reduce the amount of brain damage during development alcohol would cause. Its the difference between drinking with a developing brain for 4 years as opposed to an entire 7 year period. Reducing the age of drinking in the United States also brings alcohol legally to a new stage; high schools. 18 year old high school seniors are now legally drinking; exposing even younger students at an earlier and earlier age. The days where you would have to get a fake ID and hope a bouncer doesnt recognize your age from your face trying to enter a bar are gone for the young 17 year old because now he can get alcohol from his friend on the football team. No more trying to sneak liquor out of their parents cabinets as hope that they wont get caught, because now they can just have their friend pick up alcohol for them after school. This whole situation actually adds more people who are drinking illegally to the system. The only difference between the demographic of illegal drinkers today versus this hypothetical is that in the hypothetical their younger amd more likely to make dangerous decisions or develop addictions at a young age
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age should be lowered to 18

Your first point was people drink anyway; yes that is true, but studies show that because the MLDA is 21, less people are underage drinking. "MLDA 21 laws are working because the percentage of underage drinkers has decreased since 1984 when most MLDA 21 laws came into effect. [24] Studies indicate that when the drinking age is 21, those younger than 21 drink less and continue to drink less through their early 20s, and that youth who do not drink until they are 21 tend to drink less as adults. [42]" Your second point is people who are 21 still get into accidents, which I agree with that is true, but from the statistic I put in my first contention, proves that there are less accidents. Of course not all accidents can be prevented, but by the MLDA being 21, it definitely reduces motor vehicle accidents.
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age should be lowered to 18

There are many people under the age of 21 that drink anyways. To keep people from committing a simple misdemeanor, it would be easier to lower the drinking age to 18. Even 21 year olds get into car wreck because they drink. The alcahol tampers with any and everybody's mind. So why punish the 18 year olds? Why only allow a certain group of people to have alcohol? If an 18 year old can drink and vote, then why can't they drink? They lowered the voting age to 18 because they knew that when you are 18, you are an adult. The government knew that they are responsible enough to try to make the best decision for the society. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age should be lowered to 18

My first contention as to why the drinking age should stay 21 is because it reduces the amount of traffic accidents. Between 1970 to 1976, 30 states lowered their Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA). It was changed because so many young people were being drafted for the Vietnam war. During this period of time a significant amount of traffic accidents and fatalities occurred. President Reagan encouraged the states to change it back to 21 to reduce the amount of accidents. States soon raised it back up to 21 and the amount of accidents started to decrease. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that MLDA 21 decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18- to 20-year-olds by 13% and saved approximately 27,052 lives from 1975-2008.
paying back the national debt within 30 years is possible

Incorrect, you may say it is 18 trillion but the real debt is about $211 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities being the amount, at any given time, by which future payment obligations exceed the present value of funds available to pay them. For example, a pension dollar per second, would take you 32 years, to pay back one trillion dollars, at a rate of one dollar per second, would take you 31,688 years. an's payment obligations, including all income, death and termination benefits owed, are compared to the plan's present investment experience, and if the total plan obligations exceed the projected plan assets at any point in time, the plan has an unfunded liability. Now on to the actual debate, the taxes would not be raised to the amount unless we are in a economic crisis. Now lets put $211 in to perspective, to pay back one million dollars, at a rate of one dollar per second, would take you 11.5 days, to pay back one billion dollars, at a rate of one dollar per second. With your tax raise, it still would be impossible especially with our outrageous spending. Here is a solution: stop foreign aid, cut the military budget, privatize social security, privatize health care, cut all national parks, EPA, Post office, end the Department of Education and leave education to local level with a little federal dollars, cut all federal politicians salaries, end farm subsidies, end telecom subsidies, end economic development subsidies, end overseas contingency operations, end subsidies for energy efficiency, end loan programs, end fossil/nuclear/electricity subsidies, privatize the power marketing administrations, privatize TSA airport screening, devolve FEMA activities to the states, end rental assistance, end community development subsidies, end public housing subsidies, cut net outlays by 50% through spending, cuts, privatization, and user charge, end state/local grants, end employment and training services, end Job Corps, end Community Service for Seniors, end trade adjustment assistance, cut highway/transit grants to balance trust fund, privatize air traffic control (federal fund savings), privatize Amtrak and end rail subsidies, cut earned income tax credit by 50%, end refundable part of child tax credit, end refundable part of AOTC, cut federal civilian compensation costs by 10%, privatize the Corps of Engineers (Civil Works), privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority, repeal Davis-Bacon labor rules, end EPA state/local grants. This will make sure we have some chance at eliminating the debt!
paying back the national debt within 30 years is possible

the national debt is like 18 trillion. the deficit is estimated at half a trillion. income taxes last year are estimated to be one and a half trillion. to pay it back in thirty years,we need at least half a trillion a year surplus. that means we'd have to increasae taxes a trillion a year. to get that amount, we'd have to increase taxes sixty six percent. that is, sixty six percent of a trillion and a half is a trillion. so, someoen who pays ten thousand in taxes, would have to pay over sixteen thousand, and so on
Stop Teaching Only Abstinence!

My opponent made some good points. However, in schools nationwide, they are constantly only considering abstinence as the only form of birth control/other forms are ineffective. Without the proper education, if peers and society puts enough pressure on the individual(s) they will have sex. That is why abstinence should be taught in schools, but not the only form of birth control. Abstinence, without no doubt from either side of this debate, is the only 100% effective method preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Abstinence, however, can be broken down easily, especially if the individual(s) are young and have low self-esteems. As for the study on seventh-graders in northern Virginia: The age group, in my opinion, is too low to be even considered a valid argument against my opinion. Many twelve to thirteen year olds, have not made their own decision about sex or the forms of birth control. Two facts: -By age 15, only 13% of teens have ever had sex. However, by the time they reach age 19, seven in 10 teens have engaged in sexual intercourse. (Abma JC et al) -A sexually active teen who does not use contraceptives has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year. (Harlap) More Opinions/Facts Against My Opponent: 1. "Also, condoms are not 100% effective. The pours of the condom are bigger then the AIDS and STD viruses (and also the sperm cells)." The federal requirements are very strict on condom production. You can be sure that no holes will be in any condom found in the US. Even if there were holes, wouldn't the people involved in the activity change the condom? 2. The problem with abstinence-only education is that, many teenagers who chose not to be abstinent who are taught abstinence-only do not know the correct way of using birth control methods or do not know other forms of birth control. 3. I personally believe that abstinence should be taught as an option to other forms of birth control. So if they choose not to be abstinent they can at least be safe from STDs and/or pregnancy. [http://www.guttmacher.org...]
Stop Teaching Only Abstinence!

"abstinence-only education does not reduce the amount of sexual activity at all. " I have evidence stated in my case that it does. "Once a teenager who was taught only abstinence has sexual intercourse, they are more likely to engage in further unprotected sex. " However, with abstinence only education, teenagers are less likely to have sexual intercourse in the first place. To defend my case (I will use the same numbers that my opponent did): 1. I did provide evidence to support this claim, so therefore the PRO cannot say there is no evidence to support it. My evidence was: "For example, the latest evaluation, which examined seventh graders in northern Virginia, reported that, one year after the program, students who received abstinence education were half as likely as non-participants to initiate sexual activity. This result accounted for the existing background differences between program participants and non-participants. That is, the evaluation compared near-identical students except for their participation in the abstinence education program. " 2. The age of consent just means that that is the age you are allowed to have sexual intercourse without partental consent. Also, condoms are not 100% effective. The pours of the condom are bigger then the AIDS and STD viruses (and also the sperm cells). 3. As I stated, there IS evidence that abstinence-only education IS the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy. I also stated that birth-control methods are not always effective. Basically, my opponent keeps repeating themselves and ignores the evidence I provided. They also fail to address the points I stated about the benefits of abstinence. Teaching abstinence is effective, practical, favorable, and beneficial.
Stop Teaching Only Abstinence!

What my opponent does not seem to realize is that, in fact, abstinence-only education does not reduce the amount of sexual activity at all. However, it does not raise the amount of sexual activity either. Once a teenager who was taught only abstinence has sexual intercourse, they are more likely to engage in further unprotected sex. Allow me to debunk some of the so-called facts my opponent has stated: 1. "Studies have shown that abstinence-based programs have effectively reduced sexual activity and delayed the initiation of sexual activity." That is 100% incorrect. It does not reduce sexual activity or delayed the initiation of sexual activity. There is no evidence that this is true. "An assessment of the peer-reviewed, published research reveals no evidence that abstinence-only programs delay sexual initiation or reduce STIs or pregnancy." (Collins, et al, 3) 2. "Abstinence education teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected stanï¿½dard for all school age children and stresses the social, psychological, and health benefits of abstiï¿½nence." According to many state laws, the age of consent is 16, regardless of marriage. In regard to my opponent's point about health benefits, yes, there are many physical health benefits involved. However, those same exact benefits can be achieved with a condom, both male and female. 3. "...reducing rising teen pregnancy and unwed births--and consider all of the evidence that indicates its effectiveness." "Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy," (Klein 0) Many great and effective methods such as condoms, spermicides, and Depo-Provera. [http://ari.ucsf.edu...] [http://www.msnbc.msn.com...]
Stop Teaching Only Abstinence!

The amount of abstinence-only programs and/or programs that have a heavy bias towards abstinence needs to stop right now! There is a big enough problem with STDs in the United States as I speak. A lot of young adults in the "Bible Belt" only know about condoms and birth control pills, which is alright, but the abstinence-only programs are making it seem like they are completely ineffective. The bible belt has the highest rate of STDs in the US. [http://img.thebody.com...] Do these really look like the abstinence-only programs are working? Do not get me wrong, there are plenty of other A-Only programs in the US outside of the Bible Belt. But we need to teach our youth to be safe against the mind-blowing rates of STDs in the country and around the world. Abstinence is a great way, but with the right person at the right time, it is incredibility weak.
America must repent

The bible and history show that God will destroy the sinful nations that forget him. Psalm 9:17 says, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." Every nation will be judged in its proper time and America"s time has come. And since God has promised to warn you before it happens-- this is your warning! There is a time for everything and the time to repent is now before it is too late. The bible has many examples of people trying to repent after judgment and trouble began but God did not accept them because they did not repent when God called them to repentance. By not repenting at the proper time, you run the risk of not being accepted by God.