BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No race is smarter than any other race

Thank you for this topic and allowing a chance for me to debate! I will start with definitions and then move into arguments. Race: a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. Smarter: having or showing a quick-witted intelligence. Since we have established that let me begin my argument. A1: Intelligence is not inheritable We as society tend to judge people by their skin color or religion, etc. We assume that "All blacks are dumber than whites" or "Asians are smarter than everybody." However, there are acceptations to the "rules" (Stereotypes). Ben Carson is black and one of the best neurosurgeons in the world. What's more, 20% of the Nobel Prize winners are Jews. Therefore one cannot assume that a race IS ALWAYS smarter than another. Moreover, a study by psychologist Robert Sternberg concluded that the skills and knowledge you have are the result of your family. **However, it is not a genetic relation, but rather, an educational one.** This proves that the intelligence level comes not from genetics, but rather from the level of education, the opportunities to spread this information, and the society you grow up in. No one, when two different children are born, can come up to you and tell you that child A is smarter than child B. Therefore, I find it illogical to assume that race can determine intelligence and "smartness". Asians tend to grow up in education drilling families and governments, where African Americans may not have this opportunity. Therefore, it may seem that a race or ethnicity's "smartness" exceeds that of another, however, as humans, if we were all provided the same environment to learn in, we would, more or less, have the same intelligence level. Then you can factor in work ethics and motivation, but assuming that one race is smarter than another is false, when it is not based off of genetics. Thanks! Source: http://elitedaily.com...
Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke should be banned

Before I refute or make my arguments, I would like to point out that you said it SHOULD be banned. This is a matter of opinion, and although it may be supported by the 1st Amendment, that does not mean that it SHOULD NOT be banned, that just means that it CANNOT be banned.In fact, in that sentence I refuted your first argument, and in my argument I will also be refuting your second argument.Now, the title suggests, at least to me, that there is a confusion of boundaries. These "Blurred Lines" are the boundaries that people are often expected to respect, but when someone is intoxicated, their "lines" are "blurred." (All lyrics come from Source 1) "OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you But you're an animal, baby, it's in your nature" It is clear that he is talking about a woman in this line, and it is common knowledge that "[domesticating]" a woman is to "wife her up" as some would say. "But you're an animal" suggests that the woman is wild and can therefore not be "domesticated.""I know you want it."This is pretty self-explanatory in the context of the song. "It" either referring to himself or sexual actions he can perform."The way you grab me. Must wanna get nasty."..."I hate these blurred lines."There is nothing about these lines that is in any way innocent or pure. Because his lines are "blurred," his perception is blurred, and because of this, he takes "The way [they] grab me. Must wanna get nasty." This is a disgusting message that should not be broadcasted throughout the nation or any other nation that values human dignity."You the hottest b-tch in this place."Calling a woman a derogatory term like "b-tch" should not be a message that should be spread anywhere.Finally, to save time and effort, "One thing I ask of you. Let me be the one you back that a-- to."No explanation needed.Though you can argue that it would be unconstitutional or that the song is not about rape, the song should be banned. Just because it should be banned, does that mean that it can be banned? No. I think maybe you should have said "Blurred Lines should AND CAN be banned." But, you said it SHOULD be banned, and yes, it should be banned.Source:1. http://www.azlyrics.com...;
Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke should be banned

Argument one- Banning it is unconstitutional[1] The first amendment of the constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"[1] This you can not pass a law that prohibits the playing of a song, because songs are protected under freedom of speech.[2] Argument two- It doesn't encourage rape, like opposers of the song claimAny emotionally disturbed enough to rape somone, based on song lyrics, has far more serious problems. [1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...;[2] http://www.pbs.org...
Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke should be banned

The definition of the word should is clear to me, but apparently not to you. When you use the word should, you neglect all legality of an issue and focus on the morality of an issue. Your argument is based on legality rather that morality which is why this has turned into a debate on should vs could/can. There is no next round, this is the last round, so yes I know to rebut and conclude.Earlier my opponent stated, "... and if we banned this song we could also refute other amendments." But when asked which other amendments, my opponent replied, "To my knowledge the first amendment is the only one that it would violate." This is grounds enough to negate all arguments on other amendments.My opponent's only argument has been that banning a song is "unconstitutional." Yes, banning the song would not be in accordance to the first amendment, but I would like to show that the original intentions was not to protect a song, but rather to protect our freedom of speech against the government. Nowadays, there is no denying that this action would be "unconstitutional," but that does NOT mean that the song SHOULDN'T be banned. My opponent continues to debate the legality of the topic instead of the morality of the topic and therefore is not following under their own resolution. Though they state the legality is "reletive" as they "prooved," it is not the basis of this debate. My opponent is debating that we should, morally, follow the Constitution and has neglected to prove that Blurred Lines should NOT be banned.That is all.
Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke should be banned

Should- used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.Could- past tense of canCan- Be able toI am using should to convey that as citizens it is our duty to obey the constitution. It is our obligation. Sorry that I didn't post the definition earlier but I thought the definition of the word should was clear. Also, next round is the last round so you can't post any new arguments, only rebuttals."First, I would like to ask which other amendments it would violate because in my AP Government class we have studied many amendments and I do not see one that banning a song would refute." To my knowledge the first amendment is the only one that it would violate, but the notion that one is not enough is ridiculus. "Also, you are saying that we shouldn't ban it because it is unconstitutional, which is not the case."It is completly unconstitutional. Defintition of unconstitutional is "not in accordance with a political constitution, esp. the US Constitution, or with procedural rules." and it is not in accordance with the constitution.""There are people that do not agree with some parts of the Constitution and that is why amendments are added to either add or repeal rights."Yes, but this is the current law and has never been repealed. Of course people disagree! Some people disagree on every matter. "So to say that we can't do it constitutionally, so therefore we shouldn't do it, is illogical."No it isn't because this is the current ammendment of the constitution, and so long as it remains that all laws must fit in accordance to the constitution. This isn't a debate about weather or not the First Ammendment should be repealed. "You are talking about can and cannot not should and should not."No, as prooved by my prior definitions I was tallking about should not"You are talking about the legality of these actions as opposed to personal opinions."My personal opinion is that the legality of these arguments is reletive.My wording was completley intentional.
Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke should be banned

"The Constitution was the basis of our nation, and if we banned this song we could also refute other amendments, which is why it shouldn't be banned. It also couldn't, but that's another point entirely."First, I would like to ask which other amendments it would violate because in my AP Government class we have studied many amendments and I do not see one that banning a song would refute. Also, you are saying that we shouldn't ban it because it is unconstitutional, which is not the case. You agreed that should and could are two different things, but it seems that it is mixed sometimes in your arguments. Regardless, we cannot say something shouldn't be banned because it is unconstitutional because should or should not is an opinion whereas could and could not are fact. There are people that do not agree with some parts of the Constitution and that is why amendments are added to either add or repeal rights. So to say that we can't do it constitutionally, so therefore we shouldn't do it, is illogical.You argue that we have the right to listen to the song and just because it's disgusting doesn't make it wrong.Okay, again. You are talking about can and cannot not should and should not. You are talking about the legality of these actions as opposed to personal opinions. If you wanted to debate the legality, you should not have used the word should in your resolution. No personal attack, but some of your grammar mistakes lead me to believe that you sometimes do mix "should" and "could." This whole debate is subjective, so to call my argument subjective is irrelevant and repetitive. Also, all lyrics are sexual, you cannot deny it unless you have "blurred lines."Now, like I said, the song should be banned, although it cannot be banned constitutionally.And yes, the song should be banned because the lyrics are suggestive, the video is suggestive and the VMA performance of this song is subjective.
Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke should be banned

"Before I refute or make my arguments, I would like to point out that you said it SHOULD be banned."Yes, and I made my position con. I did this to avoid a positive supporting a negative, I thought it might be confusing. "This is a matter of opinion, and although it may be supported by the 1st Amendment, that does not mean that it SHOULD NOT be banned, that just means that it CANNOT be banned."The constituition was the basis of our nation, and if we banned this song we could also refute other amendments, which is why it shouldn't be banned. It also couldn't, but that's another point enitrely.You go on to explain how the song is sexist and therefore wrongJust because you think it is sexist, and have evidence that you beilive supports that, doesn't mean that it should be banned. As Americans we have rights to play and listen to the music we choose to, and we shouldn't deny those rights regardless of the song. "There is nothing about these lines that is in any way innocent or pure."Nore is the song attempting to be pure. "This is a disgusting message that should not be broadcasted throughout the nation or any other nation that values human dignity." You never state why. "Calling a woman a derogatory term like "b-tch" should not be a message that should be spread anywhere."That's subjective. ""One thing I ask of you. Let me be the one you back that a-- to."No explanation needed."I beg to differ, explain to me why this should lead to the song being banned."Though you can argue that it would be unconstitutional or that the song is not about rape, the song should be banned."Why, because the lyrics are disagreeably? Keep in mind, I am not arguing it couldn't be, nor was I attempting to. Argument 1- Freedom of speech (Again)Freedom of speech is "the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them."[1] This should protect the song, as it is one of our nations ideals[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Euthenasia

When someone is in pain and is in the clutches of a terminal sickness how much do they really want to go on. If you are dying of brain cancer and you don't want your family to see you melting into nothingness would you really just continue on even though you had less than six months to live. Put yourself in their shoes, no we don't mean the elderly we mean the young people who don't want to waste away and be in pain for the last years of their life. Of course strict laws would help to limit the amount of people who choose the option and no government would have the right to choose for you. While you and many others may argue that it is inhumane I believe that the topic must be discussed and that a federal law must be passed setting it in stone weather assisted suicide is a choice for people suffering everywhere or if they will have to spend there last months in pain and losing their minds.
Free College Tuition

Use this round as more of a summary* I would like to offer the following reasons about why I believe that I have won this debate. 1. My opponent didn't attack a single one of my contentions. They also ignored my value of equality. And since silence is compliance my opponent must agree with me. 2. Think about an America, in let's say 10 years. With free college, more people will be able to move on and get higher degrees, and make more money, therefore being able to fund future generations. We CANNOT DENY the right to education to these students. 3. It is immoral NOT to have free college. We need to offer everyone this. Students who thought it was over after high school would have the chance to a higher education. 4. I believe my opponent is using a logical fallacy. The are using the fallacy of appeal to tradition. They have said that is immoral for people who had to pay for college, to have to pay for others. Things change. Think about the possibility's available to students who wouldn't have gone to college. Voters- Thank you for reading this debate and I request your vote today. Opponent- Thank you for debating me. Good Debate.
Free College Tuition

Many of my arguments have confused Pro, I will therefore take the time to clarify my points by answering their questions. 1. Yes, "free" education is immoral. Because the people funding it are not the students enjoying it, the people funding it are the taxpayers of this country who are spending tired hours labor to help raise their families in proper conditions. The solution to fixing the economic crisis we are currently undergoing is not to pile more taxes on the people and force them to fund the free education of others, it's actually immoral. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine, that's the prospect of capitalism. The government shouldn't be allowed to say, "you're funding a strangers college or paying fines and possibly going to jail or 'tax evasion'" and have that not even remotely be classified as theft! 2. Uhm, no, I'm not. I myself am a college student as of now and I do not deny anyone anything. People need to take personal responsibility for their own ambitions, not live off of big government and other peoples' money. I am not responsible for a stranger's life, nor should I have to be in any circumstance. Any charitable act should be voluntary, otherwise it is just forced and loses its meaning. 3. No, I wouldn't. Because, again, even if I did contribute tax dollars to fund "just one" generation of college students, that money would go towards the destruction of the American economy. Again, I refer both Pro and potential voters to the article which clearly states the government would need to spend $22 billion ending student debt, and that is too expensive for us to splurging that money on right now. We need towards making college affordable, not free.
Free College Tuition

First I would like to offer up a value of equality. For my rebuttal- For my opponent's contention 1- They have stated that free collage would be too expensive. But I would like to point out that my first contention stated That associates degrees inserts Lifetime earnings. So the point I am making here, Is that If we can put a generation through college for free, then they will be able to help fund future generations through college too. For my opponent's second contention- They stated that free college would be immoral. That it creates cultural Marxism. that it obscures our first ammendment rights. I don't see how any of these statements are true. I would also like to ask my opponent if the think that the American Public Education System is Immoral, just because there is no direct tuition involved. How is something Immoral because you are not directly paying for it? Also with my opponent stating that Free college is Immoral does this make the equality that it causes immoral? Does this make education Immoral? What exactly is Immoral about free college, What is immoral about diversity, and Learning? Since I fail to see how this argument even applies to the resolution I would like my opponent to respond to these questions in their next speech. 1. Immorality of free education???? 2. By saying that college shouldn't be free, You are denying the possibility of a better future to thousands of Students. What do you have to say about that. 3. Would you be willing to fund even one generation to go through college, so that they can fund the next generation and so on. Eventually someone that you know could benefit from this.
Free College Tuition

(1) Free college would be too expensive. (1a) Fiscally speaking, free college would be a burden to bear for all American taxpayers. In fact, estimates and economical calculations have come to conclude that student loan debt relief would cost the federal government $22 billion alone. A staunch supporter of the idea of free college, Bernie Sanders, seems to have convinced many young students that his economic policies are stable. But it is quite the contrary. Sanders' plans are estimated to raise the debt ceiling to $36.9 trillion over a span of ten years. (2) Free college is immoral. (2a) It may seem ironic that giving American students free college is ironic, but it really is not when broken down. Simply put: stealing the money of a working American who *earned* their money just to distribute it to a subsidized education system that is barely affordable to the government is heinous and incredibly rights-infringing. Why should the average American taxpayer have to risk not only their own -- but their whole country's -- financial and economic stability so some American college students can go to school free of debt and burden? (2b) Free college would give more of a sense of entitlement to the many already entitled millennials who use college campuses to create 'safe zone' bubbles of Cultural Marxism and political/economic ignorance. There is reason to believe that by expanding on free college, many millions of these free college liberals would continue flooding dorms and obscuring the First Amendment rights of students and guest speakers. SOURCES CITED (1a) . http://www.politico.com... . https://consumerist.com... (2b) . http://www.usnews.com... . http://www.npr.org... . http://www.breitbart.com...
Tony Stewart is a Better Driver then Dale JR.

To wrap everything up: So what Dale Jr won a nationwide championship? Tony Stewart also has an IndyCar championship which further proves he is the better driver. Tony Stewart runs a team in the Sprint Cup Series which is the highest level of stock car racing. He won a title this past season while running his own team. His other car the #39 of Ryan Newman also made the Chase. Stewart can do it all. He won five total races last year whereas Dale Earnhardt Jr hasn't won a race in over three years!!! Tony Stewart's worst finish in the Sprint Cup Series was 11th back in 2006. Dale Earnhardt Jr has finished 16th, 11th, 19th, 16th, 12th, 25th, and 21st. How can you justify that Dale Earnhardt JR is better than Tony Stewart when Dale Jr has SIX seasons worse than Tony Stewart's worst year. Tony Stewart has raced in 462 Sprint Cup Races whereas Dale Earnhardt Jr has only raced in 412.Tony Stewart has 44 wins, Dale JR only has 18. Tony Stewart has 264 Top 10's while Dale JR only has 159. Dale Jr has 94 Top 5's and 65 million in career earnings. Tony Stewart has 162 Top 5's and 71 million in earnings. Tony Stewart has raced in 50 more races than Dale JR. Even If JR won every one of those 50 races which is an IMPOSSIBLE feat. He'd only be edging Stewart in wins by 14, he'd still be behind in top tens by over 60 and be behind 20 in top 5's. It just goes to show you how much better Tony Stewart is than Dale JR. Dale Jr has a team in the Nationwide series, which is the minor leagues to the Sprint Cup series. Dale Jr doesn't even race for the team so their is no added stress. His dad was one of the best driver's ever, but He passed away over ten years ago. There isn't much pressure on him now. If you watch racing or talk to fans all they want to do is see JR do well. He could move up from the 15th spot to the 14th spot and you'd hear the crowd roar like there was a lead change. JR is beyond popular. As long as he is behind the wheel the fans will give their undying support. There is no pressure or stress at all for Dale JR. When JR takes over the lead at any track you hear roars and cheers like you've never heard before. Tony Stewart runs his own team which won the title this season. That is considered stress. If his car wrecks or blows an engine that is money directly out of his pocket. He also was racing for the championship going into the last race whereas JR was no where to be found. That is called pressure. Tony Stewart needed to win the race to win the championship and guess what he went out and won the race. So where is his pressure/stress on Dale Earnhardt Jr? Those were all of my main points throughout the debate. Please elaborate how Dale JR is better than Tony Stewart?
Tony Stewart is a Better Driver then Dale JR.

So what Dale Jr won a nationwide championship? Tony Stewart also has an IndyCar championship which further proves he is the better driver. Tony Stewart runs a team in the Sprint Cup Series which is the highest level of stock car racing. He won a title this past season while running his own team. His other car the #39 of Ryan Newman also made the Chase. Stewart can do it all. He won five total races last year whereas Dale Earnhardt Jr hasn't won a race in over three years!!! Tony Stewart's worst finish in the Sprint Cup Series was 11th back in 2006. Dale Earnhardt Jr has finished 16th, 11th, 19th, 16th, 12th, 25th, and 21st. How can you justify that Dale Earnhardt JR is better than Tony Stewart when Dale Jr has SIX seasons worse than Tony Stewart's worst year. Tony Stewart has raced in 462 Sprint Cup Races whereas Dale Earnhardt Jr has only raced in 412.Tony Stewart has 44 wins, Dale JR only has 18. Tony Stewart has 264 Top 10's while Dale JR only has 159. Dale Jr has 94 Top 5's and 65 million in career earnings. Tony Stewart has 162 Top 5's and 71 million in earnings. Tony Stewart has raced in 50 more races than Dale JR. Even If JR won every one of those 50 races which is an IMPOSSIBLE feat. He'd only be edging Stewart in wins by 14, he'd still be behind in top tens by over 60 and be behind 20 in top 5's. It just goes to show you how much better Tony Stewart is than Dale JR. http://www.youtube.com... Watch that video. That is how a driver wins a championship! Dale JR has not even sniffed a title yet on the stock car racing's highest level