BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States government should continue to uphold Affirmative Action legislation

While I disagree with my opponent's belief on this matter, I cannot help but admire teenagers who care about political issues, and I sincerely hope my arguments do not make him uncomfortable with sharing his perspective. In light of his forfeit, I must return to his words concluding round 1: "I acknowledge that this debate won't do anything but I will bring it up in the future as i make my way through the political scene."Whether making his case to persuade his audience or to search out his own stance, I believe my opposition would have submitted a much stronger argument had he accepted this debate with a purpose. For my closing arguments, I must refer to my post from round 4, adding a source that I ought to have referenced before [1], which concerns the role of the slave era in propelling the economic status of Caucasian Americans beyond that of African Americans. I provide highlights, but out of sheer fascination I recommend the entire article to my opposition and any readers of this debate.My thanks to shuffledybot for accepting the topic.1. It is inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed North and South America and the Caribbean without slave labor. Moreover, slave labor did produce the major consumer goods that were the basis of world trade during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: coffee, cotton, rum, sugar, and tobacco. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all U.S. export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured good that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers . . . Furthermore, slavery was capable of producing enormous amounts of wealth. On the eve of the Civil War, the slave South had achieved a level of per capita wealth not matched by Spain or Italy until the eve of World War II or by Mexico or India until 1960. http://www.gilderlehrman.org...
The United States government should continue to uphold Affirmative Action legislation

Undisputed that only 33% of welfare recipients are black - but only 12.6% of U.S. citizens are black, while 74.2% of U.S. citizens are white [1]. White people outnumber black people by a ratio of nearly 6/1, but white people on welfare outnumber black people on welfare by a ratio of less than 2/1. I always thought the welfare rates were a function of the unemployment rates, not the other way around. Either way though, black people apparently do try hard enough to become employed, and are held down by a number of cultural factors including racism. The claim that affirmative action was resolved in the Civil Rights act of 1964 requires more explanation than the pasting of links provided by my opposition.[2] 1. Demographics of the United States: Race and Ethnicity http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. "The debater has a responsibility to be clear, so it is in the category of a spelling and grammar penalty. The second reason is that saying for, example, "that's the fallacy of the contrapositive" doesn't say what the problem is directly, but invites the reader to construct the argument in accord with the hint of what it is. The error ought to be claimed explicitly, not given as a homework assignment. It's akin to saying that an argument is given in a reference -- the argument must be made, not referenced." - Roy Latham, http://www.debate.org...
The United States government should continue to uphold Affirmative Action legislation

My opponent has given a source that does in fact show that the "White" race is more employed then the "African American" race. The problem with that is it is due to their own fault. 61% of welfare recipients are white. only 33% of Welfare recipients are black. In order to get welfare you have to actively be searching for a job. ( http://www.google.com...= ) And also, we should not have to need Affirmative Action laws. Affirmative Action was in a basic sense solved in the Civil Rights act of 1964. http://www.archives.gov... http://www.archives.gov... (these are the two pages of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that talks about equal employment) Affirmative Action is just using the tax payers money to put people who dont try hard enough to get jobs into the workforce.
The United States government should continue to uphold Affirmative Action legislation

I agree wholeheartedly with my opposition's reasoning that a benefit to one group warrants benefits to every group. If a group is born more likely to succeed due to no strength of its own, that benefit ought to be buffered to our best ability as a culture. Whites are born more likely to succeed due to no strength of their own. Blacks are born less likely to succeed due to no fault of their own. This appears to contradict my opposition's conclusion. I look forward to the day when we are truly born with equal opportunity, and my opposition's logic will be valid.See "Economic Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age." Bureau of Labor http://www.bls.gov....
The United States government should continue to uphold Affirmative Action legislation

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business", usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination. (Wikipedia: Affirmative Action) For many years both men and women have been fighting for equality. Affirmative Action is taking the idea that a group if underrepresented should be given benefits. If you want equality then you should be treated the same. If one group of people gets benefits, shouldn't every group? Whether by race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, Affirmative Action needs to be stopped right now. I acknowledge that this debate won't do anything but I will bring it up in the future as i make my way through the political scene.
The United States government should continue to uphold Affirmative Action legislation

The economic and social health of the United States stands to gain from monetary and legal investments in equality. There is no evidence to reasonably suggest a compromise of the positive effects of competition in the free market through affirmative action. In the context of the nation's history, economy, educational system, media and law enforcement, net racial tension does not stand to increase due to affirmative action, nor does it stand to decrease due to the absence of affirmative action.
I am GOD

Zaradi, I thank you for your patience. For some reason, my notification didn't go thru that someone accepted. Anyway, I am GOD. There are many possible arguments to show that this could be true. If any of the following ideas are unfalsifiable, then my opponent cannot prove me wrong and must yield. Please note, I am not saying that all of the ideas are true. 1. This is a solipsystic reality and you are merely part of my consciousness. 2. A human body is made up of trillions of cells. You exert control/influence far past the range of those cells. Your awareness is past that of your body. The more you learn, the further your consciousness actually extends. Basically, we (you, I, and everyone else) is the universe trying to figure itself out. The universe is "everything" and we are the universe's self-awareness that is slowly growing, much like how a child's nervous system grows out slightly slower than its physical body. 3. I created everything, then gave up my power and walked away from it... deciding to settle down inside my comfortable little creation. So, I am GOD... but taking a breather. 4. I am GOD, but one not as usually understood as such by a developed nation. Basically, I am a GOD to a small tribe in the Amazon. 5. I legally changed my name to GOD. 6. I am GOD but you would unable to perceive it as such because in the true reality, you are just a butterfly dreaming of being a man debating GOD on a website.
Abortion is okay.

Note that Con has not responded to the essence of my argument. Extend these through.Life begins at conception.Development may begin at conception, but that does not mean that a human life forms at conception. I have argued that human beings have cognitive abilities; lack of these is grounds for morally acceptable termination. My example of the unplugging of the braindead patient demonstrates this. Con has resorted to assertion, without actually proving that a full human life, subject to all necessary rights and protections, begins at conception. Again, an egg is not a chicken, a seed is not a plant, a fetus is not a human life. It's essence is irrelevant. Rape.Firstly, a woman does not consent to a child from rape. An abortion merely removes the unwanted visitor; death is a side-effect for which a woman should not be held responsible. We see that human beings have a very strong right to autonomy, which pregnancy from rape abrogates. A woman should be able to control what happens to her body, just as I should not have to house a hungry, homeless burglar who enters my house against my will.Secondly, forcing a woman to give birth to a baby resulting from rape would cause more emotional harm, such as PTSD, depression, etc. [1]. Extended exposure to the rape's physical consequences could result in even worse emotional results, perhaps even higher rates of suicide than already exist [1].Abortion is emotionally and physically harmful. This is untrue. Over 90% of women feel relieved after an abortion, and over 80% felt that it was the right decision for them, even with some negative emotions involved [2]. Therefore, it appears that abortion, rather than being an emotional stress, is actually an emotional relief. Moreover, abortion is a safe procedure. Less than .5% of women have serious complications from an abortion [3], which is very low for a medical procedure. Compare this to the 94.1% complication rate from pregnancy, including an over 15% serious complication rate [4]. The fact that only 347 women have died from abortion, compared to over 10,000 women from pregnancy [4], is telling. The source for the breast cancer link is a biased one; most scientists finding there to be no causal link [5]. ConclusionI have demonstrated that a fetus is not a human being, and, therefore, temination of the fetus is not immoral. I have argued that women have no duty to accomodate a pregnancy resulting from rape. I have shown that abortion is a safe procedure, medically preferable to pregnancy. Meanwhile, Con has argued via assertion alone, failing to show that a fetus is equivalent to a human being. As a result, this is an easy Pro ballot. Thank you, floor, for reading this debate. Sources1. http://ptsd.about.com......2. http://thinkprogress.org......3. https://www.prochoice.org......4. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov......5. http://www.cancer.org...
Abortion is okay.

My argument is not whether or not this action should or should not be legal, I believe that is strictly the mothers choice. However, i do argue that it is potentially wrong. " Development of an embryo begins at stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes and oocyte and together form a zygote." - Life Before Birth. 2nd edition. (Direct quote. I am not claiming its my own words) The life of a human being begins at conception . To say that life does not begin as a mans sperm and woman's egg meet is quite irrational. The importance of this does not lay in the size or weight , however in it's own essence. (Human.) This ball of Cells that has been produced by man and woman has a unique genetic pattern that will form into a human being. If a mother does not want to keep her child then she can just as simply put the child up for adoption after she has given birth rather than killing the baby before it has the chance to life a normal life with parents that are looking for a child. Even if a woman is raped and cannot handle the stress of having a child at that moment, it would be selfish to terminate the unborn child's life just to be able to not suffer through 9 months of pregnancy. As humans, we know that we cannot erase a tragedy with another tragedy which is exactly what an abortion is. A tragedy. You cannot overcome being raped by killing the unborn child you were blessed with. Also, throughout the pregnancy the woman has a chance to change her mind about the baby and whether or not she would like to keep him or her. If the mother decides on an abortion without giving much thought on it she may regret the decision a few months later. The procedure itself is very risky. LifeDynamics.com has composed a list of the 347+ women who have died from this costly procedure since 1973. Also, it is proven that women who go through with an induced abortion are at a higher risk for breast cancer by 50%. Not only can it harm the woman physically, it can also harm her mentally and emotionally.
Abortion is okay.

Thank you, Con. Since this debate is only two rounds, I'll get right into things with a constructive, and then I will rebut Con's argument. ConstructiveMy constructive will focus upon the idea that a fetus is not a human being, and, therefore, is not subject to the same rights and protections as humans are. If this is the case, than abortion should be permissible and legal. The reason this is the case can be seen in the definition of a person as a subject of rights and duties, as human. To be human, one has to have cognitive abilities, that is, sentience [3] [4]. This ability to have sentience, to reason, is the result of evolution, which caused humans to develop a frontal cortex to allow for sentience, reason, thoughts, emotions, etc. A fetus, before the point of viability (which is the current standard), does not have this. At 3 weeks fetal development, for example, a fetus barely has arms or legs, and certainly does not have a developed brain [5]. The absence of this cognitive ability is clearly acceptable grounds for termination, as a human being has not formed yet. We see this standard come into play when we allow for the unplugging of braindead patients on life support. They have lost all cognitive ability, their brain is not functioning, and, as a result, they lose derivative right to life claims. Thus, they can be unplugged, terminating their existence, though, by that time, they are already dead. If we similarly apply this standard, we can clearly see that a fetus does not have the same rights claims that human beings do because they lack sentience and cognitive abilities that rights are designed to protect in the first place. Thus, since I have demonstrated that a fetus is not a person, abortion, at least in some instances, is permissible. RebuttalIt is never entirely clear what Con is trying to argue. Con repeatedly claims that a fetus is a person, or at least will be, and, therefore, terminating a fetus is wrong. However, Con's argument is all assertion, without any argumentation or sourcing. We never get an argument for why a fetus is a human being; rather, the necessity to call a fetus a POTENTIAL human being is the critical distinction. I concede that a fetus, provided nothing goes awry in its development, will become a human at some point. However, as a fetus, it is (before the point of viability) a ball of cells with no cognitive ability. Destroying potential is certainly, in no way, equivalent to destroying an actual life. A seed is not a plant, an egg is not a chicken, and a fetus is not a human being. This is simple, as I have demonstrated, and we have seen no real argument to the contrary. Thank you. If I get a more comprehensive argument, I shall elaborate upon these points further. Vote Pro. Sources: 3. http://www.sciencedaily.com......4. http://science.howstuffworks.com......5. http://americanpregnancy.org......
Abortion is okay.

There are several arguments throughout the world pertaining to thoughts about abortion. Many people say it's okay and many people say it isn't. Abortion is killing. No matter at which point in the pregnancy abortion takes place you are still taking away someone's life. People try to argue the fact that if the woman decides on abortion soon enough then it is okay due to the fact that the "baby" is not even a fetus yet. However, it is still a ball of cells which grows into a fetus or baby. Sucking out that ball of cells is equivalent to sucking out a fetus because by taking it out, you are destroying the potential of a child's life.
need for confirmation is suicide

Why does vi_spex keep this up? Senseless debates that mean nothing and carry no coherency whatsoever. Confirmation: "the action of confirming something or the state of being confirmed." (google dictionary) Need: "circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity." Suicide: Obviously killing yourself. So, stringing these words together we get: Circumstances in which the action of confirming something or the state of being confirmed is necessary are suicide. Which doesn't really make sense. So if we need to confirm something we are killing ourselves? This doesn't make sense, is not logical, and fails. This is a pointless debate that I probably shouldn't have wasted my time on. Pro's position is obviously false. Pro says, "yes." I say "no." His argument is therefore refuted and I win, especially since I actually supplied some reasons.
The new breed of malware is indestructible

Rules: 1. I am hoping to debate a tech expert or someone that works on computers. 2. Please do not hang up the debate. 3. 24 Hour debating period. Argument: The new breed of malware targets the firmware running in your PC. If you browse online most articles will claim that firmware rootkits and malware that infects the BIOS is rare, but they are more common then most people realize. The threat of infected USB flash drives, external drives, and other peripheral usb devices has brought the BIOS virus back to life. The latest threat is called badusb. Badusb is not traditional malware that targets files on a USB, it targets the firmware that is running in the USB micro controller. The firmware in the USB device can be modified in such a way: 1. The USB can mimic a keyboard and mouse 2. USB devices like the Logitech unifying receivers can mimic a network card. The receiver can redirect all internet traffic and even allow other hackers to directly connect to your PC. 3. Infect the BIOS or other firmware running in your PC 4. Reprogram The USB port, so that any devices that you later connect via USB will get infected. Badusb is a serious security flaw and it can't be patched or fixed. Badusb is virtually undetectable and can infect virtually every operating system. If your IPhone and android get infected via badusb that device will infect any USB charger, USB charging hub, KIOSK, you plug your device into. If you go to a friends house and use their charger, you will infect their usb charger or device. https://www.wired.com...
animal testing.

I believe animal testing is a good thing. The animals are not treated with cruelty at all. The dogs are walked, and the animals are given toys to play with. If we didn't test cosmetics on them, companies can be unknowingly spread all sorts of infections to millions of people, and get sued. Animal testing saves lives each day. For example, lukemia. The survival rate used to be 5%. But they tested therapy on mice, wich raised it to 80%. Tell me what's closer to your heart? The life of a thousand rats, or the life of a thousand humans. I'm against animal cruelty, but this is one of the most important things a rat could do with it's life. Testing in animals has brought enormous advancement in the field of medical research. The cure for rabies and anthrax is thanks to animal testing. It also can lead to cures because of animal testing such as arthritis, whooping cough, leprosy, diphtheria, rubella and measles. And treatment to cardiovascular diseases. William Harvey had used dogs to find facts about blood circulation. Then later Stephan Hales discovered the means to measure blood pressure by using hares. Then Jean Poiseulle used dogs to messier blood pressure giving the world the first of it's mercury manometer for measuring blood pressure. None of this would happen without animal testing. I'd also like to emphasis humans suffering through varies diseases such as cancer and HIV can have some relief and not suffer through as much pain. Vaccines for lots of illnesses, antibiotics for infections, and insulin for diabetes have all been discovered thanks to animal testing. Not all animal testing is harmful to the animal. Animal food companies use test animals to see if a little of this or that oil in the diet makes for a healthier coat etc. People against animal testing complain it's killing animals. 95% of research animals are birds, mice, and rats. The same creatures we set out poison for so they do not get into our basements and attics. We eat them! Those are for survival, and so is animal testing.
animal testing.

The an of it like answer to your first question: yes and no. We do animal testing for a reason. It's not Like they take the animal and say,"lets stick this needle into it just for the fun of it." Think of it like this, your parents don't take you to the doctor for a check up because they like paying the doctors money, they do it to make sure you are well. In response to your next question, no I would not because: 1. That guy could be a spammer, he could just wanna steal the dog, how do I know he's a scientist? He could be some ordinary Joe. 2. It's my dog so he has no right to take it. 3. He isn't paying me. If I own him, no one can come to my house and be like,"oh I'm gonna take him to test cosmetics." 4. Another reason is that I am against animal testing on cosmetics. I'm only for drug testing and other medicine or vaccine testing, and scientific research.
animal testing.

Well, I've think I've tell you everything I can do. But there are two things I want to ask you " Do you really think it is okay to kill other organism for human's comfortable?, don't you ever think about animals mind? " Even though animals can't express their feeling to us, they have their own egoist we have to respect even though we can't understand their thinkings. Also, please answer one more thing. Let's put the case that you're raising a dog but one day, one scientist came to your house and said " Can I take your dog? Cause, I have to test my perfume whether It's harmful for me. " I know it's sort of self will. But what are you going to say? And if you're going to say 'No I won't let you to do animal testing with my dog,' please tell me the reason why you're not agreeing about letting your pet to use for animal testing.