BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Republicans are not "racist" as the left claims them to be.

Obviously, it would be a mistake to stereotype every member of the Republican Party as racist. As Bill Maher once quipped, "You don't have to be a racist to be a Republican, but if you are a racist, you are probably going to vote Republican. " I don't suppose that Republican Party leadership is racist on an individual basis, but leadership exploits white male bigotry in order to maintain electoral power. I am prepared to argue the Republican Party leadership customizes their message to appeal to racists consistently, knowingly, and by their own admission. Further, I will argue that the Republican Party employs a race-based strategy that targets minority voters (particularly blacks) for exclusion from the voting franchise. Therefore, it is fair to characterize the Republican Party as the "racist" party, relative to the Democratic Party or popular minor parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. Allow me to take exception to the term "left-wing" for the purposes of this debate. The left-wing/right-wing dichotomy is an allusion to the French Estates General during the French Revolution. Generally, the left side of the parliament was occupied by anti-monarchists and the right wing was pro-monarchy. The term evolved in French politics until left-wing indicated support of human rights before property rights while right-wing favored property rights over human rights. In the modern US, just about everybody is left-wing on the record and right-wing in private (at least, where individual property rights are concerned). Therefore, the terms are useless to this discussion. Couldn't the Republican/Democrat dichotomy suffice?
Republicans are not "racist" as the left claims them to be.

Since Pro has forfeited, I'll keep my counterarguments short. Lincoln was a big govt. federalist, who supported big tax increases to drive a moderate, progressive agenda. Lincoln would have found little if any common cause with modern Republicans, and if Lincoln were in politics today, Republicans would reject him as a socialist. I am surprised that a Native American would defend the Republican Party's record on racism, given the anti-Indigenous sentiments revealed during the Jack Abramoff Scandal a few years back. Abramoff was found guilty of collecting $65 million in lobbyist fees in collusion with Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist, while actively campaigning against the same Native causes he was paid to promote. His trial revealed emails circulating at the top ranks of the Republican power structure that stereotyped Native Americans as "idiots," "morons," "troglodytes," and most commonly "monkeys." Although Abramoff did time, Norquist and Reed remain as leaders in the Republican Party and seem to have suffered no criticism from Republicans for their participation in racially targeted fraud. Is there any other political or corporate entity that tolerates racism of this magnitude? I can't think of any. To summarize, so long as Republicans continue to rely on racial bigotry to garner the support of racists, especially the "southern strategy" of anti-black campaigning in the South, so long as Republicans as Republicans continue their efforts to prevent minority voting, they will remain the "racist" party. One does not need to ask democrats to confirm this opinion, Republicans themselves can and do acknowledge the racism at their roots.
Marijuana should be legalized.

I personally have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, I accepted this debate just for fun. I am aware my opponent picked con despite arguing pro, I was aware when i accepted and knew I would be arguing con. Best of luck to my opponent. 1. Marijuana is a gateway drug. Many say that it's legalization will remove to title "gateway drug" because they will no longer need to go to illegal means to get the drug. However, since many will now be able to get the legal drug and become addicted to the euphoria it causes, they may then resort to illegal means to get hard drugs for a more intense euphoria, after all in their mind, they may not see the big difference between weed and a hard drug, like heroin. Sorry for short start as I did not have much time, I'll work to make it longer round 2
The Universe (time, space, matter) has always existed - no beginning.

your first argument for the eternity of the universe, sounds like a variant of zenos paradox. The problem with your "Dividing on and on", is that no matter how many divisions you make, you will always have a finite quantity, which steadily and steadily decreases. This by no means means that the past is infinite, and to say that it does would essentially be like calling pi = Infinity, because in both instances you have a steadily increasing value. Pi is not infinity, because the all of the "additions" slowly decrease over time. Same in the universe illustration.
The Universe (time, space, matter) has always existed - no beginning.

There is solid evidence, both scientific and philosophical, that the universe began to exist.Scientific arguments:1. the second law of thermodynamics requires that the level of entropy in the universe increases over time, until the universe becomes a dilute soup where all heat is equally distributed. and. If the past is infinite, we would have reached this heat death an infinity ago! Their is no escape, for it would be impossible for new energy to enter the system and halt the heat death according to the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states that heat, as an energy, is subject to the law of conservation of energy.2. Regardless of your model of the universe, the Borde-guth-Vilenkin theorem holds that for any universe which has been on average expanding throughout its history must come to an absolute beginning."It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."- Alexander VilenkinPhilosophical arguments:first off, a distinction:an actual infinite is a collection of definite and discrete members whose number is greater than that of any natural number.a potential infinite is a number which merely grows towards infinity as an ideal limit.Argument 1:1. an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. http://kottke.org... 2. a beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite3. therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist.Argument 2:1. The series of events in time is formed by adding one member after another.2. a collection formed by adding one number after another cannot be actually infinite, as you can't count to infinity.3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.Your 2 objections I will handle in round 2.
The Universe (time, space, matter) has always existed - no beginning.

There is no solid evidence that the Universe as we know it truly had a beginning. And it makes sense for it to be eternal. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This means it had no beginning. I assert that this is true for the elemental properties of the Universe - including space, time, matter, and energy (STME). While we may be one of many versions of the Universes that has expanded and contracted, I find it more logical that at a base level STME has always existed. The argument of singularity is also flawed. How long was the Universe in a point of singularity ? And what in that static state happened to create expansion ? And look at time and space in this way: If the Universe was once 1 foot long and 1 second old, there must have been a time it was half a foot long and half a second old. Both these factors can be cut in half for every - there can never be a distance or age so small that it can't be cut in half. This is another reason that I believe the Universe is eternal.
Babtism is necessary for salvation

Acts 2:37-38 says "When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This is what Peter said at the Day of Pentecost after he and the other disciples received the gift of the holy spirit. When the people listening wanted to fix what they did wrong, Peter responded with "Repent and be Baptized." He did not say, 'Repent and if you want to be baptized because it looks good.' In fact, God is rather against doing things for public recognition. In Mathew 6:1 Jesus says "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." So it stands to reason that there would not be an act whose purpose was to show the world what you believed specifically taught in the bible to new Christians. Then we have the issue of 'Death bed confessions'. I believe, that God is just and merciful, and if he chooses to make an exception to the general rule, he can.
USA needs to significantly spend less

"This is an appeal to authority from con."Of course it is. Who would you trust to perform surgery on you? An award winning doctor, or some guy with an opinion on how you should be cut open?"Con's contentions here are idiotic."Ouch. I wasn't aware that not being familiar with a certain phrase meant I was an idiot. Is it too hard to explain what the phrase means? Pro stated that "it's not unheard of". That doesn't mean that there aren't people who haven't heard it."He's taking what should be obviously true, and twisting it, as he is basically doing with this whole debate. Given it is obviously true that our spending habits as a nation is a problem."This debate is not about whether or not our spending habits are a problem. This debate is whether or not we need to spend significantly less. I'm debating against the resolution, not Pro's claims. By the way, Pro has not provided a real argument during this entire debate. "It's just good common sense to stay within your means, yet con wants to argue that we aren't in troubled times, yet doesnt want to say when troubled times would actually exist."First off get that straw man out of here. I never said we are not in troubled times. I offered an alternative to cutting spending. Also, why would I say when troubled times exist? That's the job of Pro to introduce that argument. "he avoids the issue"Where did I avoid the issue?"I know the onus is on me to make the case,"Yes it is. "but con is being lax and lazy if he takes that approach"What?"as to a danger point, where is the magic line, where is the cut off an why, if not now or sooner than later? and why not sooner than later?"There is no magic line. Frankly I believe in more taxes to help the economy become solvent, but that is a debate for another time.In summary, I believe that Pro has not met his burden of proof that "USA needs to significantly spend less." I offered an alternative solution, and given the fact that Pro has not refuted the alternative solution, it still stands.
USA needs to significantly spend less

"Pro claims that our debt is out of control, yet states (at the end) "I'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return."This is a contradiction. Either we have control over the debt or we don't. fair enough. i should have said we are 'getting' out of control with spending. "the experts' 'they' i didnt just refer to these people. i referred to the CBO, david, china, credit agencies, etc. "a Nobel Prize winning economist" i cited professional sources that include nobel prize winners. this is an appeal to authority from con. 'developed v developing' it is not unheard of call the USA developed, as compared to other 'developing nations'. to apply that logic to whether we are different or not after WWII v now is not far fetched. con's contentions here are idiotic. 'drunken sailor' con is taking a figure of speech too far. he's taking what should be obviously true, and twisting it, as he is basically doing with this whole debate. given it is obviously true that our spending habits as a nation is a problem. suffice it to say, if we don't change our spending, our debt to GDP levels will be way out of whack and unprecedented. if we got to two hundred percent then what? it's just good common sense to stay within your means, yet con wants to argue that we aren't in troubled times, yet doesnt want to say when troubled times would actually exist. he avoids the issue. i know the onus is on me to make the case, but con is being lax and lazy if he takes that approach. as to a danger point, where is the magic line, where is the cut off an why, if not now or sooner than later? and why not sooner than later?
USA needs to significantly spend less

our debt is out of control. if you look at the experts, we see the congressional budget office, and plenty of current and former administraters in that and realted organizations that say the same thing. a noteable name comptroller david walker. our triple A rating has been downgraded a notch, and they warn us it could be more if we don't get our affairs in order. china is warning us that we need to get our affairs in order. only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention. he argues for keysian econonomics, that we can grow ourselves out by spending more. while keynesian econ has some merit to it, it's not applicable now. that theory says when we are in a recession we should spend so as to stimulate. now, we are not in recession, and while we are not optimal, i would argue it's the new normal. employment won't go down more, cause our economic structure doesn't need that many people working. and similar arguments could be made about other economic indicators. the measure of how much we should spend is often GDP v debt. we are about 75% debt to GDP, and the highest it has been was around WWII. what makes now different, is that the country was developing, and had a marked advanged over less developed and war torn counties. that allowed them to pull themselves out of the mire. now, we dont have things like that to pull us out. also, probably a better measure, is that we should compare debt to national revenue. if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion. also, within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending. i'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return. but we are getting there. things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor.
Should every children wear school uniforms at every school

I do think you make good points. == School uniforms keep students focused on their education, Not their clothes. But in the end, Like I said many will find loopholes. Shorter skirts, Fancier accessories, Etc. It still seems as much 'distracting' as normal, Casual clothes do. == Uniforms create a level playing field among students, Reducing peer pressure and bullying. As I stated earlier, The main reason for bullying is not because of the bullied because of the 'builler'. But, Yes I do see that many will not just see it that way, But as I said, There will be loopholes. As for finances, The cost of uniforms is pretty high considering most school I have seen. Although your debate about bullying does sound compelling. ==Regarding what you wear and the expectations from teachers and professors since they expect different from you as you are older and put you more in a higher standard. I think you make a great point. But the earlier we teach certain skills and virtues, The more mature and responsible we become as we get older.
Should every children wear school uniforms at every school

Style. "Some accessories for girls are considered inappropriate. " - Would you like to list some examples? I knew a girl that always stayed fresh at school even with uniforms. Bracelets, Necklaces, Earrings, Things of that nature. I never heard of a school that somehow restricts accessories (boy or girl) I assume we are from completely different parts of the world. Are you not allowed to wear a scarf? Why wear uniforms? Reiterating point: All comes down to following the rules and teaches you lessons. Pros for uniforms: 1. School uniforms keep students focused on their education, Not their clothes. 2. Uniforms create a level playing field among students, Reducing peer pressure and bullying. 3. Wearing uniforms can enhance school pride, Unity, And community spirit. 4. Uniforms make getting ready for school easier, Which can improve punctuality. 5. Students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. Bullying. I agree with your point on this. There should be a bullying debate on here, That would be interesting. Solution. So you're in a private school I see now. Understood. The high schoolers where you are wear uniforms? Yeah I think we are from completely different places now. "It is not a concern of whether if it gets better or not, I should not have to get better. "It all comes down to stages in life. Yeah during elementary to middle school your freedom may feel limited and it's really strict but as you get older (high school+college) you gain more freedom, Regarding what you wear and the expectations from teachers and professors since they expect different from you as you are older and put you more in a higher standard. Not discrediting younger people who are middle schoolers because I know many such as yourself are very sharp but unfortunately this uniform thing is just so prevalent and hard to control. Sometimes you have to roll with the punches. At the same time, I see where you're coming from.
Should every children wear school uniforms at every school

while I do find some of your points valid, Here my rebuttals for some I disagree with: ==Style Students who are in a district with a strict uniform policy lose their ability to express their individuality through fashion. In some regards, School uniforms teach students that it is more important to think and act like a group instead of thinking and acting like an individual. Although there are many influences that can shape mob thinking patterns, This type of policy can be a foundational element of it if the uniform policies are not carefully introduced and monitored. Some accessories for girls are considered inappropriate. And as genders increase, Uniforms get complicated and it seems much easier to be able to get your our choice upon stuff. ==Why wear uniforms? What's the point? In our life, We will be faced with millions of choices, But how will we face THOSE, If we still have our clothes chosen for us. We need to learn our independence before learning our restrictions. There are 4/10 chances that groups of students will get in a risky situation in school hours. While no "what ifs" should be taken and student safety Is outmost of many concern, There are other ways, Some which may even be better. ==bullying "Bullying occurs whether students wear uniforms or not. The root cause of bullying should be addressed. Teens should be able to develop self-expression and their personal identity. . . . Today's school uniforms seem more a punitive measure meant to deny students their right to freedom of expression" -The Internet ==Solution As a 7th grader in a private school, The high schoolers who go there DO HAVE TO WEAR UNIFORMS. It is not a concern of whether if it gets better or not, I should not have to get better.
Should every children wear school uniforms at every school

Should we wear uniforms? Yes. Why wear uniforms? What's the point? It teaches you the way of life and to follow the rules, Even though it may suck and it may be something that you don't want to do, That's life. Let's be real here, Who enjoys uniforms? They are annoying -- it just teaches you to follow rules. When you start a job and you're working, You can't wear anything you want. You must wear your work clothes that are assigned from your boss. In the long run, It's more of a good thing than a burden. Another thing is students can be easily identified which will increase their safety. Bullying. Bullying occurs whether students are wearing uniforms or not, But uniforms can reduce bullying. By students wearing the same generalizing clothes, It will help. Of course it won't help the bullying entirely but most likely, They will not make fun of your clothes since they are wearing the same thing. Style. You can make uniforms look good, I. E many accessories, Watches, Good looking shoes and things of that nature. Every person has their own unique sense of style. Uniforms may limit it, But it's good to make the most out of it so you don't feel unfree. Solution. The good thing is once you reach high school + college, You won't have to wear uniforms. You can wear whatever you want and express yourself much better and be more comfortable.
Should every children wear school uniforms at every school

Should we wear uniforms? As a student myself I can say from experience I don't see the point in uniforms. As children our forms of expression based upon personalities are limited, So the way we dress and carry ourselves reflect who we are as a person and if wearing a uniform would generalize us then it should not happen. As for bulling it will still happen. Bulling is not the reflection of the bullied but the bully. Generalizing clothes will not help, And many still will find work around. Shortening skirts, Fancy accessories, Etc. Such uniforms do nothing but add extra burden and financial if not time consuming weight upon a student and family
Overall Parliament gained power at the expense of the monarchy during the Tudor era.

During the reigns of monarchs between Henry IIIV and Elisabeth I many events took place which put the power of the crown into question, such as the increace of power of the house of commons over the house of lords, what is in question here is the increase of the power of Parliament as a whole at the expense of the monarchy. While the power of parliament did increace, the power of the monarchy did increace in proportion as well, such is the argument of revisionist historians. Since my opponent posted a vague argument I do challenge him against these specific point which do prove the increace of crown power. 1.The act of supremacy 2.Dissolution of the monastaries 3.The sustainment of Edward IV as a monarch a the arrest and execution of the duke of somerset 4.Edward as the first protestant monarch 5.The popularity of Elizabeth and the execution of catholic ministers.
Overall Parliament gained power at the expense of the monarchy during the Tudor era.

I claim that during the tudor period parliment gained power from the expence of monarchy 1) How The parliment gained power during the tudor era because many people disagreed with others opinions and so it was also at the expence of the monarchy at the time and you can tell because in result king henry slowly started losing respect. 2)when during the tudor period 3)whos fault i believe that it was mainly the parliments fault they did become a little power hungry at this time
Overall Parliament gained power at the expense of the monarchy during the Tudor era.

Apologies for the long topic title, and to clear things up, This Is exactly what I would like to debate. I pose that, during the reigns of Henry IIIV and Elizabeth I, parliament did not gain power at the expense of the monarchy. And that while parliament did gain power, the crowns power rose in in equal measure during this period (The Tudor period). My opponent may argue for any alternative to this, such as parliament gained power at the expense of the monarchy or vise versa. Anyone Is welcome to take up this debate, but someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge concerning history would be preferred! Cheers and good luck!