BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalized Prostitution

Unfortunately, I have been swamped with work lately and will be unable to give my 100% to his response as I type it lying on my bed What I would like to say is that con is attacking my sources that are simply stating abuse and STIs are a problem for prostitutes. The other source he attacks is what he describes as a feminist reporter. However the fact is that the source is from a real prostitute. I think she would know the truth of what's happening in a brothel more than anyone. To all cons points of violence, child prostitution and human trafficking. I would like to highlight the fact that con wants to do nothing to help prostitutes currently abused. He has not asked for any policing or investigation but instead stop it increasing. He says it will increase as he quotes economically orientated legalised prostitution. Where it is simply legalised for more taxes. What I have shown you is hope. Hope where real life brothels actually do have enforced condom usage. Hope that police care for prostitutes like humans and investigate all rumours of illegal activity. Hope that prostitutes aren't stigmatised to feel they have no where to turn to but pimps, drugs and alcohol. It can work, it has worked in some places. Do you really want to leave all the prostitutes in the he'll they're living just because cases like America and China lead to a dismissal of human rights. Get of your high horse. Prostitutes are people. Don't leave them when they're abused. Don't leave them when they're raped. Don't leave them to die. Help them.
gay marriage

What the heck, You challenge Me to my first debate and than you don't even show. Did you think I wasn't going to accept? Anyway, I put an awfull lot of stock in good structured familys, the future of mankind deppends on it. If we start messing with that, how far will the line be moved. The future looks pretty dim if we allow confused radical victoms to change the foundations of our society just to suit their own personal desires. Personally, I find the entire issue disturbing. Whats next, someone will want to marry a dog or a tree and we will have to except it into society, just so we can remain politicaly correct. NOT ME I would appreciate a response. take care
gay marriage

I disagree with gay marriage, not because of the benefits it intitles to the participants, but because of the use of the word, "marriage." I think it to be acceptable for two people who decide to devote themselves to one another, to be able to have hospital visites and inherit property and to make life or death decisions for eachother. But to call it marriage I think is changing the defenition of what I believe is one of Gods greatest creations, and the main cornerstone of all societies.
gay marriage

First of all, no I am not joking. I am exaggerating the facts to put it all into perspective. And second I did not say "God's sacred traditions", I said Gods greatest creations. There is a bit of a differance. I did not bring the Bible into this at all, but if thats what U want lets save that for a later debate, when you have more time. And third, why didn't you have anything to say about my true points instead of mearly attacking my exaggeration of the where we could be headed/via the comments box/. It was obviously above your head. I don't know what more there is to say to you on the subject, so I say, Goodnight, God bless.
You're old enough to have sex at the age of 17.

Well... now you know that not only an old virgin will vote it nagatively. What I am saying is that every action has a result, so does sex. We also had lectures about sex in school, but there still was a case when a couple ( the guy is my friend) for some reason didnt use contraception and it ended with abortion. That story convinced me that most of the school-age kids are not responsible enough to have sex.
You're old enough to have sex at the age of 17.

I said 17 year old is old enough to have sex, not a baby! And, even if teenagers do it in order to satisfy our sexual needs, is there something bad with that? And nowadays kids use contraception, you know. There are a lot lectures about sex even in schools now, so kids now are more familiar with sex as they were in the 'old days'. Only an old virgin will vote this debate negatively. And y'all know it.
You're old enough to have sex at the age of 17.

Yes, maybe they are emotionally ready, but they are still not old enough to feel the whole responsibility. Many teenagers do it for the first time in order to satisfy their sexual needs, but not in the name of love. In many cases it ends with unwanted pregnancy and broken lives. In case if a 15-16 year girl gets pregnant she can get serious problems with health during the pregnancy period and during the birth-giving.
You're old enough to have sex at the age of 17.

First of all, I think age does not matter, if you feel ready and you do it with the right person. I think you should still wait at least till the age of 16, BUT. 1. Some people will be ready earlier than others. Some people are just more mature than others, and that is a fact. 2. I lost my virginity when I was 16, and I knew I was ready and I am not sorry, because I did it with a guy, who I am still dating for almost 3 years now and you just know you did the right thing, and you did it in the name of love. 3. Some people are emotionaly ready even before the age of 17. Some, are not even at the age of 30.
Are Whites The Biblical Devils

Again Europeans are not the same. The only reason Europeans might share a gene as you call it is because of centuries of brutal rape by the Germanic kingdoms that ruled (quite ruthlessly) after the fall of Ancient Rome, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Anglo-Saxons, Danelaw. Many in countries like England, France, Poland, Italy probably have resentments against northern Europeans (quite understandibly) for all the brutality. There are some in those coutnries who consider themselves whites (especially bigots), but they aren't. And no there are not two races on earth. There are Nordic/Israelis, Romans, Asians, Arabs, Native Americans, blacks. Anyhow, this should have been a debate about European countries and their evils. Instead, you ended up trying to make silly claims. With all due respect, Whitesworstnightmare, Nation of Islam would laugh at this nonsense -- even they don't consider all the Europeans white. Malcolm X for sure considered Italians and Irish a seperate race from the Nordics.
Are Whites The Biblical Devils

l disagree.Sub Saharan Africans are different. Nigerians and west Africans in particular have bigger bodies and bigger heads compared to their southern African counterparts! Actually its very easy to tell which part of Africa they are from just by features only. But like l said before they are all black. Sorry l couldn't paste images for you to prove my point,but you have the internet right in front of you, l'm sure you could do a little research for yourself! My point still remains.Call a spade a spade.A white man is a white man, whether nordic, jew, German,Fin,Spanish Italians,all of you carry a gene which is white! So if these people are not white certainly they are not black so what are they?
Are Whites The Biblical Devils

First of all, you should not have taken this out of subject. But since you bring it up, I'll reply:West Africans,east Africans, Southern Africans all are different looking at their physical anthropology but all are blacks. Same as your nodics,Mediterranean,East Baltic,Dinaric and Dalic or Falic all are whites.lt dosent really matter the colour of the complexion darker white or bight white the common denomination is white! That's incorrect. Sub-saharran Africans tend to have the same facial features regardless of which part of the continent you are on. The same cannot be said about Europeans.Can you honestly say that: looks anything like: ?who is Nordic.No.Anyhows I've proven my point, that not all the European countries did horrible things. It was mostly Northern Europeans that went around robbing, looting, oppressing indigenous.What my opponent has done is make irrelevant and incorrect points. From looking at the picture, you can tell that Marisa Tomei is of a different race than Julianne Moore.Marisa Tomei is obviously of a Mediterranean, possibly the Roman, race.Julianne Moore (because of her Scottish ancestry) is definitely Nordic.No similarities.
Are Whites The Biblical Devils

People, the reason I even brought this up was because of this: Well l know of only one white race not two white races regardless of nationality.lf that person looks white then he or she should be labelled white!So let us continueAll images in your links above are all white people! There's no difference at all! Without mentioning their nationalities no one would know their A,B,C,D, nationalities.l can take a picture of an Israeli! ln that picture you wouldn't see an Israeli but a white person,its only when you're told which nation that person is from,that is when you can make you're mediocre statements about their race!Look, maybe you are confused! l'll clarify to you what the original is. There are two races on earth black and white and one in the middle of these two! The Jews of America are white .Look, you are even confusing me here with your denominations. These stereo type races of these days are man made! Of course the Jews are white. And the whitest, much like the Nordics. But then again Judaism is no race. It's a religion, but there's evidence that Israelis were Nordic. Much whiter than the Italians, French, Spanish or Arabs.Now, at least the Italians, French, Germans, and Greeks never went around looting the world like the British and Danish did. So there's no comparison whatsoever. Not all the Europeans (as I'll use for the sake of this argument) did those things. Not all of them are even white to begin with. Romans were a different race from the Nordics.
Are Whites The Biblical Devils

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com...... http://upload.wikimedia.org...... http://newyorktheater.files.wordpress.com...... http://www.stud-center.com......) (http://img.photobucket.com...... http://www.denstoredanske.dk...... http://minivannews.com......) All images in your links above are all white people! There's no difference at all! Without mentioning their nationalities no one would know their A,B,C,D, nationalities.l can take a picture of an Israeli! ln that picture you wouldn't see an Israeli but a white person,its only when you're told which nation that person is from,that is when you can make you're mediocre statements about their race! Look, maybe you are confused! l'll clarify to you what the original is. There are two races on earth black and white and one in the middle of these two! The Jews of America are white .Look, you are even confusing me here with your denominations. These stereo type races of these days are man made!
Are Whites The Biblical Devils

How silly. lolAre you seriously going to tell me that (http://images.huffingtonpost.com...http://upload.wikimedia.org...http://newyorktheater.files.wordpress.com...http://www.stud-center.com...)(the first two are Italian, the third is English, and the fourth is Italian) are white? Compared to (http://img.photobucket.com...http://www.denstoredanske.dk...http://minivannews.com...)the first is Scottish, the second is Danish, the third is northern English? Seriously. Mile a difference.Anyhow not all European countries partook in those devilish things you mention. Italy, Germany, Poland, Ireland, England (because the British Empire was really Scotland's doing), Greece, Spain, Finland -- those countries do not have that history.
Are Whites The Biblical Devils

Depends on which whites you are talking about. Andrew Jackson, James Polk, John Calhoun, Lars Lokke Rasmussen (who refuses to apologize for his country's conquest of Greenland), Jeremy Goodrich (of Funadvice), Rush Limbaugh, David Schwimmer? Yeah those are white devils to the core.Hitler and Mussolini, who weren't supremacists of any kind, were not devils. They were about restoring their country to greatness. Whether Germany and Italy can be considered white is debatable. But those are European countries that never really had empires and looted.
Are Whites The Biblical Devils

Satan is the Ruler of the World! Well in this day and age who runs the world?WHITE PEOPLE! Which Race crucified Christ? The white man! Not only this.The white man has deceived the world since history in order to promote themselves as the most supreme race, evens the bible warns us of the deception that will take place in the hands of satan! Whites are the inventors of nukes and every weapon of mass destruction,including biological weapons like Aids! The bible even says the devil will pose himself an angel of light! White people are genetically programmed for disaster posing as angels of light.We can see this in our history! If whites didn't exist,,most of the bloodiest wars in history would have never existed!Whites stand out from all other races,been so different from other humans in terms of behaviour and practice and thinking! Armageddon 3/4 of the world are expected to die! l believe 90 percent would be white people!
IS evolution true or not

Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed Earth's Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time. *Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome. * only one that's proven
IS evolution true or not

I had business to attend to. Regarding this, I would like to say for the sake of honesty that I always vote against a debater that has forfeited a round, unless there is some mitigating circumstance. That having been said, this does not seem to affect other voters the same way it does me, as from personal experience I have had opponents forfeit one or more rounds and still receive many votes, and seen it happen to many others. In the end, voters will vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they want. Yes, evolution is true by way of being factual. By your own definitions, excluding macroevolution, you concede this. Concerning macroevolution: In simplest terms, is it not evident that microevolution (which you admit as "proven"), given enough time, inevitably leads to macroevolution? From your statement in round two, as poorly presented as it was, I gather that you have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory, natural selection, and you seem to confuse cosmology with bio-evolution. You are new to the site, but this topic, along with "God exists" or "God doesn't exist," is the most debated, and also the most tired, subject around. Ketchup: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... That should get you started. I lay claim to all sources used by either myself or my respective side of the evolution debate. Britt
Teaching debating is an essential for the future of our generation

In reply to the 'demand for evidence' put forward by the negative side, I bluntly ask the question encompassing my second point- "How can we best prepare our children for the challenges of the future?" The negative believes that the benefits of debating can be achieved through other means that hurt society less and can be easily implemented. As the affirmative, I would like to hear an example of this other 'way'. In my opinion, challenges in the future will include combating global warming, releasing first-world countries from debt, managing diminishing resources and effectively curing diseases and hunger in impoverished areas. By just looking on the internet we can find many solutions for these issues but all are flawed and include side-effects. Our generations need to be taught how to effectively compare these strategies to come to a resolution and debating seems to be the only skill which can be equipped to teach this. Teaching debating is essential for the future of our generation.
Teaching debating is an essential for the future of our generation

My opponent agrees with my that intellectual thought is a priority. However, debating is not necessarily a necessary or even important part of intellectual thought. I demand evidence for my opponents claim that no other activities " develop a sense of resolution such as acquired during a debating preparation room". Additionally, stating that you can only acquire skills of debating from debating is essentially a tautology, and does not further my opponents argument. I restate that debating is not imperative, some of its benefit can possibly be achieved through other means in ways that hurts society less and is easily implemented.
White Americans usually do not need to compete with Asian Americans because of Affirmative Action.

You are saying, as all interviewers believe, that Asians work harder. Because of Affirmative Action, people are encouraged to hire other races, and people believe that Asians work harder and are therefore more likely to hire them. This is an advantage, and you are saying that white people have the advantage. Asians are believed to work harder, and are therefore hired more often and have a higher income, and that is an advantage.
White Americans usually do not need to compete with Asian Americans because of Affirmative Action.

I don't think you understood what I just said. Asians as a whole have a higher socioeconomic status. But this is not due to a previous socioeconomic advantage as many people argue. There is a large gap between first-generation Asians and second-generation Asians. The Asian who has the higher income is usually a second-generation Asian who never had a socioeconomic advantage. Therefore the Asian who succeeded on average did not have a socioeconomic advantage over white people The advantages of the parents are relevant because it is argued widely that Asians succeed because their parents are of high socioeconomic status. This is blatantly wrong. The first-generation Asians, the parents, are not advantaged at all. Note: After second-generation, Asians' socioeconomic status goes down until it is about equal with White socioeconomic status. Therefore second-generation Asians succeed because they work harder because of their culture.
White Americans usually do not need to compete with Asian Americans because of Affirmative Action.

So what your saying is, they have an advantage now, but they don't because their parents didn't? In 2010, the median Asian household income was double the median black household, and nearly $10,000 more than the median white household. How is this not an advantage, and how is the fact that their parents didn't have an advantage relevant at all? The source below from which the information was taken is a sociology textbook. Ann Morning. "Do Race and Ethnicity Matter Anymore." The Sociology Project. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2013. 276-83. Print.
White Americans usually do not need to compete with Asian Americans because of Affirmative Action.

Many people say that Asians are successful because of statistics showing Asians do better socioeconomically. This is true because you count all the Asians. The second generation of Asians and the first generation of Asians are lumped into a single category. In truth it is statistically shown that the first generation of Asians are at a socioeconomic disadvantage compared to whites. Statistics show that second-generation Asians do much better socioeconomically then first-generation Asians. The second generation of Asians works extremely hard because they are brought up with an Asian cultural background placing extremely high expectations on academic performance. Then the second generation of Asians brings the socioeconomic status of Asians up on average even though they themselves didn"t grow up with a superior socioeconomic status. This causes people to argue that second-generation Asians do better because of higher socioeconomic background when in truth second-generation Asians don"t have a higher socioeconomic background than whites.
Debaters have to have a US cell phone in order to be able vote.

I do not believe that Debaters have to have a US cell phone in order to be able vote. Contentions Contention 1: It is a fairly ineffective solution Someone who has friends or family members who also posses cell phones can easily get their permission to use their cell phone in order to create multiple accounts and cheat anyway, consequently this solution does not provide an actual solution, to the contrary it creates new problems. Contention 2: Discrimination A major issue that has to be addressed is that of discrimination, people who are not residents of the US or do not have cell phones are robbed of their right to vote. Also these groups will always start a debate voting period with one vote behind due to that they can not vote for themselves unlike the rest of the debaters. Contention 3: Objections I first entered the site this morning after a week and noticed a lot of change which with the exception of the the current debate topic I am particularly pleased with. I also noticed that many other people besides myself objected to the mobile phone solution, each one of them felt that it was unfair for their own reasons. I dare to say that I have noticed more objections to the solution than I did to the problem... So if many people object to the decision and many others don't do so openly but admit through the comment box admit they would change it if they could. How can we say that it is useful solution if many of the people it was made for, the debaters themselves don't agree to it? Contention 4: Alternatives There are many alternatives to the mobile phone solution that cause less problems and provide an actual solution unlike the current one. If a logical and creative human thinks for a while he/she may come up with many other better ideas. One is that of transparency (to see who voted for who and why), so if users notice any suspicious users (usually those without any debating experience are most possible to be second or third accounts of real people), they can report those who got the controversial vote. There are many more solutions that one can think of that would be more efficient in preventing potential cheaters to succeed. So why discriminate specific groups and cause problems in general for an infective solution, when there are better alternatives?
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Well, this is the end of the debate. Before I finish, I will repeat that I have answered the question Pro has just asked me in R5. This was already answered in R2. I will not copy and paste it, so I simply urge the voters and audience to look back on the second round about my whole courtroom analogy, and the rest of my argument. Now, it is not proof "and" evidence, but the resolution is proven false because the resolution claims that atheism has neither. Now, I urge the voters to vote Con, for several reasons: Conduct: Pro has misquoted me, and making it seem like I somehow agree with him. Arguments: Pro never refuted any of my points, and never even made a valid case. Sources: I provided sources, Con's quotes were faked. S/G: I quote from his R3:"you have just proven your not a atheist".