BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with a constitution that calls for racial equality.

What is one's country? Is it the homeland from you came and your tradtions identify most with or one's current abode where one has citizenship and pays taxes to? In the Western world every country (exclduing Cuba and maybe Venesuala) is a liberal-democracy (i.e. democracy in which basic freedoms like speech, religion, and liberty and enshrined with foundation legislation). One of the most imporant of these aspects of course is racial equality. Many of these countries though (not so much in the New World other than Quebec) have historically been country forged from some sort of common culture, relgion, tradition, and most prominently of all langauge and heritage. Spain, France, England, Norway, Sweden, Quebec, Dennmark, Holland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, etc all are countries (except Quebec), but they are "nations" as well and feel strong bonds with people of a common heritage. However with their declining birth rates they are all receving much of their new population through immigration, mainly from Asian and African countries who are bringing their own tradtions, religions, hertiage, languages, cultures, etc with them. ALthough for practical reasons they will likly have to learn tounges other their native one (I was yelling at the Quebecers only because they failed to recognize Canada's other official language as a viable prerequisit, many immigrints see English as a more of an asset than French). With this new influx, many governments are unsure about whether to promote assilmalation, sometimes a little too aggressive into their societies as to fit in better these immigrints and showcase their national pride. But is this really compatable with the values of racial equality? Why shoukd one feel pride for one's heritage, is this not the very core value that has been known to run amuck in the cases of the Hotus, Serbs, Nazis, or for the whites in Darfur? When one says that one feels pride in their ethnic lineage is this not by extension saying that other cultures are inferior? Otherwise why would one be proud?
Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with a constitution that calls for racial equality.

The basis of this argument says that cultural identity cannot be retained in a republic that calls for equal rights for all citizens. However, it is clear that diversity of ones culture can be retained at the same time being equal to all the other cultures around them. Take a look at the US policy on this issue. An example being African Americans, Hispanics, and other European Americans that have retained their customs and beliefs, at the same time being completely assimilated into American culture. I will expand on this in my next post. So, America is known as the melting pot however it is really a salad bowl. Everyone is thrown into one bowl "of equality" all meshing together yet still retaining their different qualities (onions, olives, crutons, etc) America is a prime example of the more diverse a culture is, the better the rights of all peoples are. It is understandable for governments that are far away from what we have achieved in America to want to retain their culture. Probably because they have very little ethnic diversity in their nation. The fact is that these countries are a bit more ethnocentric in the case of culture. Where we as Americans pride ourselves on understanding and equality of all cultures, some other countries pride themselves on retaining the old style and beliefs of their countries history. So I am for whatever the popular vote of the people says. If they want to have discrimination based on not being able to speak French or whatever than thats fine with me as long as it doesn't happen in America. The people in Canada for example need to find out what they hold most dear, their cultural diversity/history or equal rights (workplace, political office, etc) for all citizens.
Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with a constitution that calls for racial equality.

Although not so much a problem in the New World, many European nations (among others) a finding themselves in a sort of identity crisis and are facing a resurgence of far-right nationalists such as LePen (French), Sovereignty-Identity-Tradition (Pan-Euro), Flemish Interest, Swiss People's Party, Action Democratique (Quebec), etc who say that pride of one's heritage is important and that the cultures in question must be preserved. Although with such just, fair, burdensome constitutions there is little to restrict immigrants rights many attempts such as Quebec's initiative to make it illegal for immigrants to hold government posts without speaking French or the new language laws enforced in Flanders. When asked why they are doing these sorts of things it is always the same "It's for preserving our culture because we love it so much and want our spawn to be the same as us. We don't like these new influences. Our culture is dying, etc". But is this really bad? Why can't the government just stay out of culture and allow each person to pursue their own? Although one could understand patriotism, and love for one's country, nationalism based on historic bloodlines or traditions has no place in the liberal-democracies that currently inhabit the Western world. Culture does not need "protection", free nations can determine their own ideals about what types of language or arts best fit their current situation.
The universe can not exist without an intelligent designer

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Pardon my illiteracy, but where exactly is EVIDENCE of an intelligent creator? Pro compared an intelligent designer to the designer of a video game, then extended his argument? Judge here's what your going to vote off of- 1) Sources, Evidence is huge in this debate, i asked for a definition before the debate started, from here we will go to look through sources and factual evidence whether or not a creator may exist. I sited only 1 source, which gives a breakdown of what exactly the big bang theory is. Now, Pro could have easily disputed this (as this was a rushed argument, but...) A) Singularities, pro never explains how This intelligent designer could create a singularity and B) Where exactly does a constant expanding universe tie in with a creator of quote a "Video game designer" that creates a video game, and then begins to mass produce it? Judges, Clearly If the Universe was created by an intelligent designer, it would have been finalized, as all video games are, according to my opponent. The big bang theory immediately disproves this. The Universe has been proven to be constantly expanding, even if you accept other universal theories besides the big bang theory, one thing is for sure. The Universe is constantly expanding, Video games do not constantly "expand", all video games run out sooner or later. 2) "Nobody made this game, I got it from a zip file." That alone disproves his entire theory of an intelligent designer judge. Major contradiction both because it has no source and No one CREATED this game. This game was created on it's own. Now my opponent has suffered from a turn- The Universe was created before an intelligent being, and the intelligent being "just opened it up" Srry this was rushed vote con
The universe can not exist without an intelligent designer

Now I would like to show you that cons argument does not change, if not support my argument. First of all, the singularity is just like my zip file example, it still needs a source beyond space and time, which can be two things. 1: numbers, or 2:an intelligent designer. Now numbers can't cause anything, they just exist. But if we had an intelligent designer to put them into action they can do a lot. ï¿½ As to the big bang theory. When I say an intelligent ï¿½ ï¿½designer created the universe, It still could have done that through an event like the big bang. So all your arguments don't change or support my evidence. ï¿½ Thank you for reading this and I hope you find my evidence defends my case.
The universe can not exist without an intelligent designer

Con has two BOP according to Pro, Refutations (given) and his own (Universe can exist without an intelligent designer) Con's case will give a theory that supports the universe existing with no "Intelligent designer" 1- The Big Bang Theory- 13.7 Billion years ago, our universe was created from a singularity, before i go any further, what is a singularity? Singularity- (Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes. " Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities. ") A common misconception of the Big Bang, was the Bang. There was no true explosion, in fact, it was just the singularity constantly expanding, much like the universe does today. An "Intelligent Creator" could create such spectacles without this, this singularity is slowly growing, and unless my opponent stands up here and says we aren't even "Partly through the "Video Game"" I see no way he can refute this argument. Pro needs to prove the Big Bang began by this "Intelligent Creator" with a valid source. Reasons Theory may be true- 1)We are all certain the universe has a beginnig 2)Galaxies move away from each other at distances relative (or proportional) to one another. 3) The abundance of Elements such as Hydrogen and Helium further boost this theory. . http://big-bang-theory.com... Sorry but i had to do this in a hurry, I will be gone for 2 days or longer, i apologize. Next round is argumentation i presume.
The universe can not exist without an intelligent designer

Intellegent Designer: A being beyond space and time that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient who created the universe. 1. In many ways the universe is like a video game. A. The universe has laws of physics like gravity. In a most third or first person games, there are some lines of codes that create the law of gravity in that game. B. The games "laws of physics" do not just appear there or have always existed, they have a coder, someone to "write" these laws of physics. C. A game also has "matter" in a sense, just as the universe. D. Once again we need a coder to create the "matter" of the game. E. Since the universe has laws of physics, it needs someone to "write" them, just as a game. F. Since the universe has matter, it needs someone to create it. Even if you say: Well, it came from a compact ball of energy and matter ect. It is the same thing as saying: Nobody made this game I got it from a zip file. It still needs an initial source. Therefore the universe can not exist without an intelligent designer.
The lowering of the voting age>>>

http://www.bbc.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... It's all pasted right there. However in your first argument you gave no facts or sources and all of your statements were opinions. That goes to show how illegitimate your "arguments" were. When you said that a fourteen-year old could have the brain capacity to vote wisely, you are wrong, a fourteen-year old would still be undergoing many changes in his or her mind. This includes synaptic or neural pruning (they are the same thing), or when a brain starts strengthening often used synapses, or pruning unused synapses. As sourced below. http://en.wikipedia.org... This goes to show how young adults (at least twenty and below) are only still developing. I also wonder are you really for the lowering of the voting age in the U.S., or are you just disagreeing with my first argument?
The lowering of the voting age>>>

First, just because you went to Ivy-League college doesn't mean you know everything. Second, my argument is completely logical and is completely supported by hundreds sources and is backed up entirely by science. Third, the more educated a person is, the more mature that person will become and the can make better choices. However I understand that people are not immature until age twenty-five, but on average the human brain is not fully developed. Fourth, the more mature people are, the better off our nation will be (the United States). Its that simple. There is nothing more to it.
The lowering of the voting age>>>

Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.
The lowering of the voting age>>>

Until the age twenty-five, the human brain is not at its full potential and the human being has not yet developed foresight, or an ability to see consequences in advance, however some develop quicker than others, by far the majority do not. What I am trying to say, is that humans can't predict how their choices will affect their own- and others- lives until the age of twenty-five. By lowering the age limit on how old someone can be to be able to vote would be the suicide of this nation (the United States).
The lowering of the voting age>>>

The United States has some of the best colleges in the world, therefore producing some of the best minds in the world. Thousands of students graduate from our Ivy colleges with brilliant minds and continue to go on to being great inventors, scientists, etc. And I would like to remind you that I am not arguing for the voting age to be 16, but rather 21, which is the drinking age. If you keeping the status quo because some people aren't capable of making correct decisions, why not raise the drinking age as well? Hundreds die per year because of drunk drivers and other drinking-related accidents.
The lowering of the voting age>>>

First, you are using the same argument over and over again about how my statistics do not apply to everybody. In that case you are correct. There may be in fact teens who can vote wisely, but I suspect that it would be a minuscule percentage and could not be taken to a real debate. I also agree that generally Wikipedia is an unreliable source, but I believe that the information is accurate for this topic. But here are some more reliable sources. http://www.pbs.org... http://www.newscientist.com... http://www.nimh.nih.gov... All of these suggest that the brain does not fully develop until the 20s. however I could not find any statistics comparing my statements to the U.S. population.
The lowering of the voting age>>>

There are also studies that show that not all brains develop the same way: https://www.extension.purdue.edu... http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org... You can't take one statistic and apply it to everyone. I admit that not all 14 year olds have the capacity to vote intelligently, but I also am going to say that some 14 year olds do. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and would usually be disregarded in a real debate tournament. I don't have a personal opinion on this matter. I could go either way.
Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure

I apologize for my misconduct. I had written an argument, but I fell asleep after clicking review, forgetting that you have to click submit. I am just informing, I expect to be marked down. I think your right that this argument boils down too our different beliefs about the bulls mentality. For all that matters to me, is the bulls suffering, if it wasn't for that there would be no debate. Nobody can seriously dispute that its an art, nor that is has some positive cultural impacts. For it does have positive impacts on society, and cultural expression is a good thing. cultured activities shouldn't be continued at the expense of defenceless animals however. However, if the bull was a human you would disagree with it. So the problem is that you don't see the bull as important enough to be treated with the same respect as a human. You liken them to turnips for example, and say they have "non-existent rights".That is what this debate is about. For this is the attitude that I wholeheartedly disagree with. That is what this debate has been about. My opponent likens a bull to a turnip, he clearly has a very old-fashioned opinion of non-human life. For those of you who also share this attitude, I will attempt to quickly bring you up-to-date. My opponent says: "Bulls are not self-aware, by which I mean they have no concept of being alive".There are a number of things wrong about this. Firstly how can anyone know for sure? Secondly; whether they are self aware or not, it doesn't mean they don't suffer. 'Suffering' is an adaptation used by mobile creatures to avoid death and damage, its primeval. Because it is such an ancient mechanism, its probably the similar to experience for all mammals. Therefore, intellect doesn't make suffering worse. So my opponents argument that, because we are more intelligent, Bulls don't deserve rights that protect them from suffering, is founded one on a false assumption. It is wrong because being intelligent doesn't make you suffer less, and so its not right no make others suffer, on the grounds that you are more intelligent. The same reasoning legitimizes almost all cruelty in the world. My opponent is one of those people who cannot see what they are doing, as they are too caught up in their culture. They struggle to see outside of their culture, and others must suffer for there traditions. Your entire argument is only legitimatised on the grounds that bulls are 'like turnips'. If, one day, you realised that other life forms are also important and not so very different, perhaps you would disagree with bull fighting. There is nothing more to it than a lack of empathy or lack of understanding of the creatures that you use for your game. Modern societies wouldn't allow it, because they have moved on. More primitive societies take time, members of that society struggle to see outside its paradigms. Its easier from a more forward perspective to look back, than for more backwards societies to look forward. I am not more philosophically enlightened than my opponent, I am mearly part of a more enlightened culture. Thank you.
Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure

It is a pity for my opponent's own sake that he forfeited the last round. He has as of yet neglected to answer any of the points I set forth in defense of the ethical licitude of bullfighting and, as in the last round he cannot set forward new information, I find his position unenviable. I extend my arguments and provide for your entertainment an extract of Bizet's opera Carmen:
Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure

I accept. I am going to argue that we, by all understandings of the word 'ought', ought not to do harm unto others for personal pleasure. I ask that your opening argument considers well the justifications you have for exploitation and cruelty. For this is pretty much the only grounds I have for disagreeing with you. And to me, it is the only relevant angle from which I can debate this issue. Hope to have a good debate with you.
Bullfighting is a form of art which ought to perdure

The title seems self-explanatory, but just in case my oponent to be is of the school which regards the definition of art, for instance, controversial, I will define the terms. Art: The expression of concepts and emotions by external signs. Bullfighting: By bullfighting we will understand the standard form of "toreo" (Corridas de toro) in Spain Some terms will be in Spanish, as some terms would be in French if we were to speak of fencing, in Japanese if judo or English if rugby. I will try to reduce this to a minimum and will always provide at least an approximate translation. Round 1 is only for acceptance and round 5 only for conclusions. Good luck.
With John McCain, the highest chance of World War III will be upon us.

To be honest, this round has been spread out so quickly to make it so that each argument hardly holds any weight. So I want to see the third round to direct the debate into voting issues for the judges. By me continuing line by line arguing, I think it just makes it a messy debate. I will be pointing out important arguments, but besides that, it will basically be summarizing how I support my burden of proof. First of all, however, my opponent did not show when McCain would be willing to use diplomacy. He did say that diplomacy is useless… but this is simply ridiculous. We should use diplomacy because it A) It works most of the time and B) Violence only comes when it fails. However, McCain only wants to use violence. HE CRITISIZED OBAMA FOR WANTING TO USE DIPLOMACY. Violence should only be used when there is an imminent threat. However, in Iran, there is no imminent threat. (Cross apply the 10 years to nuke predictions in 1990, 1995, 2000, and even 2005.) There is still not enough intelligence to be able to go to war over Iran. Yet McCain says "I know how to deal with Iran and I'll deal with them." Well, you have yet to say that you're willing to use diplomacy, so what other option is there… war? At this point, I would like to point out how easily World Wars can take place. In WWII, possibly the biggest war this world has ever seen, it was stated by the matter of a couple invasions. ONE LEADER, Adolf Hitler. I'm not saying that McCain will be the next Hitler, but it doesn't take much to get people even more ticked off at us. The current foreign relations are not good at all. We've invaded Afghanistan and then invaded Iraq with false pretenses. America to Iraq could be like Germany to Poland. Perhaps America to Iran will be like Japan to America (Pearl Harbor)… I've asked my opponent to point to another action that gives us a greater chance for WWIII. He has given none. He says that there is not a very good chance for WWIII, but that has nothing to do with which ‘is greater'… Let me explain, each president that we have offers us a 2% chance of WWIII. With McCain, there could be a 2.1% chance and the resolution would be proven true. You say that McCain gives us the least amount of chance for WWIII, BUT your only analysis is that ‘he knows what is going on.' To be honest, he may THINK he knows what's going on. But ever since he has become so proud of ALWAYS being in favor of the war in Iraq. That would mean that he has always (and STILL) been in favor of invading under false pretenses. Now, you can make all the side arguments you want, but the aggressive nature that John McCain has taken with EVERY foreign issue has shown his war mongering nature… and since my opponent has offered NO other people that would offer a greater chance, by default you vote PRO. I do have the burden of proof. And I HAVE proven that John McCain offers a greater chance of WWIII then anyone else. (and the anyone in this round is no one.) Because of all of this, I urge you to vote PRO. Thank you and good luck round 3!