BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black People Should be Classified as Apes

I think black people should be classified as apes, because they are abnormally dark, ugly, and stupid. They are also muscular and violent; thus, black people should be considered apes, and they belong in zoos, and have no human rights and don't count in censuses. You have 3 rounds to argue, and an upper limit of 8000 characters per round. You've got 3 days to come up with a good argument to counter me. Let's go!
Black People Should be Classified as Apes

You are not making an solid argument. Your arguments are all subject and therefore hard to debate. Take the pictures, I can truthfully say I see not resemblance and then you say well I can see the resemblence. Then we can act like two year olds and go back and forth saying no yes no yes no yes. But that doesn't accomplish anything. And the examples you do give are largely anecdotal and not based on solid facts. I have already said everything I want to say. Color does not dictate being human.
Black People Should be Classified as Apes

Okay. Morally, black people are not humans. They have substantially higher crime rates, and they also cause a lot of violence. How can that be moral? Also, black people have below average IQ's, so that makes them genetically different from non-blacks. Behaviorally, black people can't really behave well. In classrooms, they make noise and distract people from learning. Physically, they look like primates. Just follow the link I pasted below: http://renegadetribune.com... See, black people evolved from apes.
Black People Should be Classified as Apes

First of all of course I don't think any group of people are apes. Overwhelming majority of people are very kind, hardworking, and We are all created in the image of God, and therefore have intrinsic value. When I say 71% of high school drop outs are from single mothers we are talking about 71% of 30,000-40,000 thousand when there is around 10 million high school students total, so we aren't talking about that many. (This is according to US Board of Education). As I said before, men are far more likely to commit crimes than women, making up 90% of prisons, but with the prison population being 1.5 million it is not statistically significant. Compared to the greater population, the number of blacks who are criminals are by far in the minority. Also accepting that 1-2% of convictions are wrongfully handed down, that would decrease the number as well. And I could list dozens of cases where white people acted absolutely terribly, either in violence, sadism, laziness, or generally in self interest. For starters, Karl Marx, who was a bag of human feces. 3 of his children died of starvation, because he wouldn't work and didn't have money for food. Next, Joseph Stalin, he had people murdered, executed, and sent to prison camps because they didn't support him in the exuberantly enough, or criticized him, or simply because he didn't like them. Next, take the French Revolution with Robespierre, it was freaking mob rule. The mobs would drag people of their homes, often beating them, stabbing, and abusing them before trying them on a kangaroo court and have them beheaded, then disrespecting the dead bodies, dumping them ins mass graves, putting their heads on spikes, and sometimes leaving them in the streets. Do you want me to go on? I didn't even mention Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, the mobsters, and many more. Violence is not a problem of this ethnicity or that ethnicity, it is a problem with humanity. Every people group has its heroes and villains. You are basically saying I hate these people and therefore I get to decide whether of not they are humans. It's absurd. Everything says they are humans, morally, ethically, genetically, mentally, behaviorally, not to mention physically, and if they are not human neither is anyone else. Need I go on? All you do is make subjective claims and then say see I got you there.
Black People Should be Classified as Apes

Well you see, black people cause too much violence, which is why they aren't really humans. Also, just look at this video and you will see ape-like blacks are: Don't you think that black people are savage apes? I think so. Okay, so you said that "71% of high school dropouts are from single mothers." You also said that most single parent homes are more likely to produce criminal children. Obviously, most single parent families are black. Here are the stats: http://open.lib.umn.edu... Well then, it's because black people are too violent and too unfaithful in marriage, they divorce and result in single parent households. But still, they resemble apes in physical appearance. What do you have to say?
Black People Should be Classified as Apes

First and foremost, I dearly hope this is not a serious opinion. First I want to assert that they are fully human, they are not animals. You can see this throughout history that there were many Black civilizations that flourished. The birthplace of civilization was in northern Africa after all. If you mention their strength. Since the start of weightlifting in the Olympics, medals winners as well especially gold have been mostly European by a very large margin. Same if you look at boxing, majority European or Hispanic or Asian, hardly any from a black African country or African American. If you want to make the premise of strength, at least be consistent. That being said, strength does not exclude you from being human. That being said, even though there is a high number of African Americans in prison, there is a higher correlation between coming from a single parent home and crime rates. (Among African Americans rates of single parent households is 67%) Take poverty which has a strong correlation with crime: according to the US Census 30% of single parent families live below the poverty line. Take education, 71% of high school dropouts are from single mothers. Just saying statistically they are more likely to be violent and therefore not human you would have to say the same thing about men. According to Psychology Today, men are responsible for all violence. If you are using tendency to violence you would have to consider yourself not a human. You say they are apes, but leaving out morally and intellectually which I will touch on later, scientifically they are not apes. Scientifically they are humans. Whatever color or nationality you are, you are able to reproduce and create and child that is able to reproduce as well (I know there are cases of bareness but there is no significant difference ethnicities). Also if you look at mitochondrial DNA which is passed down only from the woman, scientists have found that we all came from one single woman. The differences between mitochondrial DNA are consistent with predicted mutations. This shows that they are just as human as any other ethnicity.
Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest In Life More So Than Religion Does

Con is looking forward for a mutual learning experience in a constructive debate. Con would not have taken on this debate if the titled began with the phrase, In General, "Scientific Knowledge ..." However, the current title “Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest In Life More So Than Religion Does,” is an absolute statement and would be unfair to a teacher I once had in parochial school.In general, I would agree with Pro and it saddens me, for example, “True, there is the thesis of secularism, according to which science and technology, on the one hand, and religion, on the other, are inversely related: as the former waxes, the latter wanes” (http://plato.stanford.edu...). Yet, those of faith will take issue with this thesis of secularism. Back to my teacher who taught both Religion and Science. Con found her approach simple and brilliant. The Religion class taught the handwriting of man about God, where in the Science class we studied the handwriting of God. Since God created everything, that includes the physical Laws of Nature and therefore, these Laws are the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to decipher God's handwriting.In the Religion class she left the impression, for those of us of faith, including preachers when interpreting the prophets, should be careful when studying man's scripture about God. We must remember that man is fallible, and those who study such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets—and, in some cases, God help us all. Her focus was on the aspect of social morality, throughout the scriptures, being the fingerprint of God. Such a fingerprint, embraces peace, charity, goodwill, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, etc.In Science class, we studied when man understands and morally follows God's handwriting, amazing things happen, advances in technology, the miracle of medicine, mass food production, the stables throughout the world today. As man understands more of God's handwriting, mixed with the wisdom of morality, the “interest in Life” is one of improving the standard of living mixed with social evolution in the pursuit of happiness, making this world a better place to live. Needless to say, in part, her influence set me on a course in a rewording career in the sciences. Recently, I came across two complementary and interesting books. It was like meeting her again in a Science Class at the university level; seculars, need not be afraid. http://www.amazon.com...http://www.amazon.com... In closing, the balance between “Religion” and “Scientific knowledge” equally increased my “interest in Life.” Therefore, the absolute statement of “Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person’s Interest in Life More So Than Religion Does,” is not true in my case. In addition, I'm sure most in my class, back in that day, would also agree today.
Scientific Knowledge Increases a Person's Interest In Life More So Than Religion Does

Essentially I'm Arguing That Any Scientific Study Into Reality Tends to Increase a Person's Fascination Of And Interest In Life, Living And The Universe.Whereas, Having Ready Made, Doctrine Based Answers, Such As Religon Teaches It's Indoctrinees, Does Not Increase Their Enthusiasm and Fascination For Life, Living And The Universe as Much as Scientific Studies do. I will leave whoever takes the Con position to detail their argument first.Thanks to whoever wants to take up the position.
Desalination is a Viable Response to Water Crises

Greetings. I will argue that desalination is a viable response to water crises. Definitions (from Google) Viable: capable of working successfully; feasible Desalination: any process that removes the excess salt and other minerals from water in order to obtain fresh water suitable for animal consumption or irrigation Water crisis: a situation where the available potable, unpolluted water within a region is less than that region's demand Format Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: main arguments Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: conclusion; no new arguments Time per round: up to 48 hours Characters per round: up to 10,000 characters Rules No trolling; serious debaters only please Forfeiture results in a loss If there are questions, please write in the comments. Thanks!
Donald Trump will make a great President

Before I begin my rebuttals, I would like to point out that Con has failed to negate any of my statements in my previous rebuttals. Con has also failed to refute my contention about Mr.Trump's generosity and about the proposed Muslim ban. For these reasons, I believe that I've won. Rebuttals: Just because Mr. Trump is not a politician, doesn't mean he won't be a great President. Current politicians have done nothing for the nation because of conflicting opinions from lobbyists. Again, I mention that Trump has no lobbyists and speaks his free mind. As for Trump's failure in businesses, I admit that he had some businesses that failed. However not every business will be successful. Just saying that some of the businesses failed cannot determine the fact that Mr. Trump will not be a good President. According to Michael Bloomberg, the 8th wealthiest person on the Earth, 80% of new businesses fail in the first 18 months.[1] Even with this statistic, Mr. Trump has a net worth of 4.5 billion dollars. This proves that Trump has what it takes to run a country. As for Trump University, 98% of the attendees have an approval rating of Trump University.[2] I would strongly urge Con and judges to check out this website which consists of students personally saying they approve of Trump University. The front page includes a statement of Tarla Makaeff who sued Trump University. In summary, she says that she loves Trump University. Being a good businessman benefits the economy as businessmen know what deals are good and bad. Our current leadership is making horrible deals with the Iran deal and TPP each benefiting other nations more than the United States. I would also like to know how my contentions and rebuttals are superficial, as I have evidence supporting my claims. You claim that Mr. Trump's Mar-a-Lago hires foreign workers instead of Americans. He is the reason why: I'm sure Con knows that Florida is a popular tourist place. As a result tourist season requires far more workers than the offseason. In addition, Americans in the local area prefer a long term jobs not just during the seasonal time period. To fulfill the need of workers, Trump hires foreign workers.[3] Con claims, Mr. Trump does not follow his ideology, but in reality he does; he said he'd fundraiser for out veterans and he raised 5.6 million dollars. Once again I would like to state that Con has failed to negate any of the claims and evidence I have provided in the rebuttal section of round 3. For this reason I believe that Con concedes on all of the claims. For all of these reasons I urge a PRO vote for this debate. Con, thank you for a very civil and factual debate. Judges, please vote based on evidence and the performance, not your own personal belief about this issue. Thank You! http://www.forbes.com... http://www.98percentapproval.com... https://theconservativetreehouse.com...
Donald Trump will make a great President

Rebuttal: Donald Trump is without a doubt a successful businessman, and is very knowledgeable about the economy. However, Donald Trump is not a politician. He may have what it takes to employ the people of his businesses, but that does not mean he will be able to find a way to employ the millions of Americans without a job(from a political standpoint). Trump has been proved to fail in many business situations as well; he is not all just success. Take a look at the scandal involving Trump University. At the start, Trump University violated the law of operating without proper license, according to the NYSED license code of conduct.[1] Given the fact that Trump had violated laws in order to make money suggests how Trump may not even be that great of a businessman in the end, considering that he has to break laws in order to make his fortune. (Not to mention, the numerous lawsuits upon Trump following the scandal). Due to these reasons, the argument that Trump would make a good president because of the fact that according to Pro, he is a "good businessman" is faulty. (Not to mention the fact that your contention is extremely superficial) Contention 2: Trump would not make a good president because he does not practice as he preaches. Trump says that as president, he will look to employ American workers, and find Americans specifically, jobs. This is a faulty Trump statement as he has even openly admitted that in his companies, he does not employ as many American workers as he should. Trump turned down 94 percent of job applicants from American workers.[1] Trump promises to get more Americans employed, but is that what truly wants? If that were truly what Trump wanted, he would not have declined 94 percent of American applicants for his companies. Trump would make a poor president because he does not practice what he says his ideology is. Thanks for the great debate! You had strong arguments! Citations:http://www.nationalreview.com...
Donald Trump will make a great President

Rebuttal: You claim that Trump is not a politically correct person as if that is a good thing, and your only defense to that is that he sees things by the truth which is approved by many Americans. You claim that he sees Illegal immigration and is honest about it. However his only idea to stop illegal immigration would be to build a wall and deport illegals. This idea is highly unrealistic, as the wall would cost an estimated four hundred billion dollars, which would be a terrible idea considering the United States" extreme nineteen trillion dollar debt. [1] Trump also intends to deport 11 million people in the United States? I don"t think so. Not only would this idea be extremely expensive considering our debt, but it would take almost our entire task force to get the job done in a reasonable amount of time. Would he be able to deport some illegals? Yes, but all 11 million? Absolutely not, especially considering our current government spending. Deporting Illegals and Muslims would be financially unrealistic, and is not nearly as easy as Trump makes it out to be. Contention 1: Trump would make a poor president because he would have awful decision making, which would end up compromising our relationships with other nations. Ted Cruz, a senator and credited politician while talking about how Trump would be unfit to be president said that we might "wake up one morning and Trump had bombed Denmark"(Cruz, 1) Trump targets and discriminates against people of Mexican heritage which would compromise our continental relationship with Mexico. Trump had said recently that a judge was unfit to be a judge because of his Mexican heritage, despite the fact that the judge was born in America and a citizen of the United States. These irrational remarks are pieces of evidence showing how Trump as president will destroy our relationships with other countries. Citations:http://www.alternet.org... http://www.politico.com... http://www.cnn.com...
Donald Trump will make a great President

Contention 1: Mr. Trump is not a politically correct person. He sees and tells the truth the way it is and is non political correctness is approved by many Americans.[1] By being politically correct, issues cannot get solved, like the issue of Radical Islamic and the issue of Illegal Immigration. Muslims must be banned in order to prevent more terrorist attacks in the United States. For Illegal Immigration, the illegals came here ILLEGALY. They broke the law to get here and they should be punished by being deported. I will post my rebuttals and second contention in the next round. http://www.rasmussenreports.com...
In United States public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to se

Probable cause does not have an acceptance for schools. There is no difference in where it is mandated, nor is there any difference in arguments for and against it just because the victims in this case are children. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." He explains in this quote that if we let the government into everything we own in certain cases, they gain access to what they want if their best interests begin to differ from ours. The at most about 30 students that die in a school shooting won't compare to the insurmountable lives lost from a governance that allows no privacy. Not to mention that the quote negates your point on the constitution. Bottom line is if we have teachers learn to properly use a weapon and ensure they're sane, we can arm them and protect children easily, more definitely, and without violating the rights of the populace.
In United States public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to se

Note: The framework of this debate is based on net benefit promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people more specifically that students" safety is the most important duty of public schools. Our first contention is that probable cause is detrimental to school safety. Without probable cause, it is much harder for law enforcement and school administration to find hidden weapons, with can lead to school shootings. In these situations, students" lives are at stake. Students" safety is imperatively more important than a privacy of an individual. Also, the Preamble of the Constitution states that the purpose of the government is to protect the general welfare of its citizens. This clearly shows that the safety of many outweighs the privacy of an individual. In our 2nd contention, we discussed that anonymous tips will become useless if the probable cause standard is implemented. Because anonymous tips are not enough for probable cause, then they will be rendered useless, despite the fact that they can provide information that can be used in life and death. Thus I negate.
The Accused is going to Hell (For Rejecting Catholic Dogma)

"3) John 21:16 never used the Greek word " Poimonate" at all and hence, your argument is null and void." Did you even look at the Greek? Compare John 21:16 , Revelation 2:27 http://biblehub.com... http://biblehub.com... Greek Says : "Shepard my sheep" : "Shepard with a rod of iron". Bible Says: "Tend my sheep" : "Rule with a rod of iron". Thus, the obviously correct meaning is "Rule my sheep" : "Rule with a rod of iron". "4) I don't think this means Papal Primacy of Peter but given the overall scriptural context with Matthew 16, we are only to conclude that this denotes Simon's Honor of being "the Rock"." Take a close look at Acts 15: 6 Everyone is arguing 7-11 Peter rises up and speaks 12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling stories. Why did everyone shut up after Peter spoke? He exercised Papal Authority. "5) The early church fathers ONLY validates the necessity of submitting to Rome in doctrine not in jurisdiction to avoid heresy" Why were they in submission to Rome? Because that is where Peter's Successor was. 1 Peter 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. Romans 15:6 "That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Note: The true Christian faith is of one mind, one mouth ... not 25,000. - Notice the necessity of unity. Again in Acts 15 we see that Paul and Barnabas, though guided by The Holy Spirit; could not authoritatively decree if circumcision was necessary; the decision was left to Pope Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. We see that, no Protestant Leader can form any sect and make dogmatic decrees without putting themselves at higher authority than Paul and Barnabas - Protestants are false prophets. The Petrine Authority was first exercised in the 2nd Century by Pope Victor over the Quatrodecimanism Dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org... We see he used the Keys of Heaven to excommunicate the Churches that wouldn't comply with his Papal Decree. Here is a lecture about it: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com... And a set of lectures about the Papacy from the 1st to 4th centuries: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com... Frankly, I can put out 100 bible verses that stress the importance of unity. Forming disagreeing sects is not unity, and is also to "Choose at variance" i.e. Heresy.
Omivorous diet vs Vegan Diet

Your original contention was Humans needed animal meat to be healthy and productive. But does the Human body NEED animal meat? the Answer is a resounding no, there is nothing the human body needs to be healthy that plants cant provide. I first refer you to this article about our Evolutionary development where meat is concerned.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;Next I bring in the University of Oxford to attest to the Benefits fo a Vegitarian diet.http://www.ox.ac.uk...;The Australian government seems to recognize something is going on here as well :http://www.international.to...;There is no such thign a a special protein that you can only get from meat thats preffered over protain from nuts and berries. http://www.richroll.com...;Pointing out the simulaties we have biologically with one group or another is pointless. The Human body has no special need of meat.