BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racism

I would like to point out that my opponent has not responded to my first contention, so he can be considered to have conceded it. My opponent is misrepresenting my second contention. At no point did I state that races should be forced to do labor. What I meant was that, since certain races are better at certain tasks, those races can be preferentially hired by employers. Every single man and woman still gets to make their own career choice, but even so, certain jobs can be further optimized. My opponent's scenario about a decrease in productivity makes no sense. If people are working the jobs that they are best at, society becomes more efficient. My opponent has made up a series of fantastical scenarios in which society becomes less efficient, but in reality, this is not possible. In conclusion, I have shown that racism leads to a more productive society. People cooperate more efficiently. Contrary to what my opponent believes, racism will change the world for the better.
Racism

What if the group that is better at doing a task, lets say it's mining. No one really likes mining, but some race would have to do it because they are better at it. What if that race wants to be doctors? They can't do it because the race that is better at being doctors are all doctors. If every race had to do what they were best at, eventually a job like chauffeur or taxi driver would be done by the race who is fifth best at it. If the race who is best at driving is better at computer programming, they would do programming. If the race who is second best at driving is the best at interior design they will design and not drive. This would continue until the job goes to a race who isn't that good at it. This might not necessarily happen to all driving jobs, but maybe pilots or something else that involves transportation. This would make people late and decrease productivity. It could also go to a job involving making stuff, this would make products not as good as they were supposed to be and therefore it would decrease productivity.
Racism

My opponent has avoided my real points and has extrapolated unnecessarily. He has committed the slippery slope fallacy [1, 2] by asserting that if some races are thought to be superior to others, then the "superior" race will necessarily oppress the "inferior" race. My opponent has yet to explain why this follows. "[That some races are superior to others] is true, but in no way proves that being racist is a good thing." My opponent has conveniently left off the rest of my contention. If a race is superior, it should be acknowledged as such: truth is to be upheld as an important value. My opponent would have us deny the truth, simply because of his own wild predictions. Reality must be held in accordance with the truth. "It is bad if someone is being forced to work in tough conditions just because they are better at it." My opponent has not said why. But he even assumes that simply because a race is acknowledged as better at a certain task, that peoples of that race will be forced to perform that task. It is enough simply to know that those people are better at the task in question: that way they can be hired more frequently, encouraged to work in that field, etc. Interestingly enough, my opponent's paragraphs are in conflict. In his first, he states that "[t]he superior race would most likely oppress the other race(s)", but in his second he states that "[i]t is bad if someone is BEING FORCED TO work in tough conditions just because they are BETTER at it." (My emphasis.) The first phrase claims that superior races will oppress other races, and the second claims that superior races will be oppressed. Not only does my opponent have no evidence for either of these claims, but they are contradictory. "This is not helping that group if they are better at something." As a matter of fact, if people are working at what they are better at, society is more productive, so it actually does help the group. "Racism does not help at all." As I have proven, racism is not only on the path to truth, but it is actually helpful, and boosts society's productivity. [1] http://www.nizkor.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Racism

"Different races are necessarily genetically different: therefore, some races are superior to others." This is true, but in no way proves that being racist is a good thing. Being racist would hinder the inferior race's quality of life. Knowing that you are worse than someone is not comforting information. The superior race would most likely oppress the other race(s) with the knowledge that they are better. They would make the inferior race do everything they don't want to, and oppress them economically. If the superior race accepted the other race, they would both benefit by being able to work together. "Some races are better at certain tasks." Once again, this is true, but does not justify racism. It is bad if someone is being forced to work in tough conditions just because they are better at it. This is not helping that group if they are better at something. If they use their superior skills to oppress the inferior group, that is also bad. Racism does not help at all.
Racism

I want to begin by saying that I am in no way a racist and do not necessarily agree with what I am saying. Because this subject is a touchy one, I request that readers vote based on who presents their arguments more effectively and not on who is taking the side generally accepted by society, or any similar measure. To clarify, I am arguing that racism is just under the proper circumstances. My opponent is arguing that it is never just. Though some may say that this reduces my BOP too much, I would like to point out the nature of the topic, and also that it is nearly impossible to prove that racism is acceptable all the time. This topic is analogous to the death penalty: those for it only argue that it is acceptable some of the time, while those against it argue that it is never acceptable. Definitions (The American Heritage Dictionary) Race: A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Superior: Of a higher nature or kind. ======== Contention 1: Different races are necessarily genetically different: therefore, some races are superior to others. It is undeniable that different races have genetic differences. At this time, I wish to invoke a more elaborate definition of "superior": one entity is superior to another if it is more capable of the continuation of its genes, i. e. gene survival. Since two different races have different genes, it is very statistically unlikely that they are each exactly as adept at gene survival; therefore, one race is evolutionarily superior to the other, and should be treated as such. ======== Contention 2: Some races are better at certain tasks. For example, races with dark skin are better at tasks involving extensive outdoor labor, as they are far less prone to sunburn. There are other less obvious examples, which I do not care to spend the time necessary to think of. It directly follows that certain races are superior regarding certain tasks, and racism on a limited scope should be employed when determining who should be chosen to accomplish those tasks.
There is proof for the existence of God

I apologize to my opponent, for I have been busy. Any way, I shall used our beloved bible. I will be using summarizations of what it says and historical proofs. The Bible- As far as anyone knows, it could have been written by a family(ies) the may have been there and witnessed those events or told the writer of these events. Or God could have told them, but how could he communicate? So he used an angel to do so. History- If you take the bible and look at the history of the world, all the events in the bible really happened, maybe not the exact events but the time frame and the events are real so far. What we know may have just been stories that god told himself to teach man kind very important life lessons or Jesus, as we all know, was really alive, may have told these stories for the same reason, and maybe he wrote the bible.
There is proof for the existence of God

The universe had to be made somehow. The Big Bang only describes HOW it came into existence. (You know... Everything expanded from one single point, etc.) There has to be something that set off the Big Bang. Matter doesn't randomly create itself by the Law of conservation of Matter. This is where the Kalam Cosmological argument kicks in. http://en.wikipedia.org... My other proof for the existence of God is from the Quran itself. The Quran is miraculous Lingustically and Scientifically. Let's start with the Linguistic proof. Linguistic Proof: The Quran when read in Arabic is very unique and miraculous. Here's an explanation with some evidence. http://www.hamzatzortzis.com... The Quran also gave a famous challenge to make a Chapter like one in the Quran. Nobody succeeded even though the Challenge was introduced where some people were very literate in Mecca that they could create a thousand lines of poetry on the spot. But none succeeded. (Quran 2:23) "And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful." Scientific Proof: The Quran has multiple verses that show knowledge of advanced science that was impossible to observe in the time it was revealed. Here's some verses: "And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander." (Quran 51:47) Expansion of Universe discovered by Tom Hubble "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (Quran 21:30) Look how it is similar to the Big Bang Theory Here's the verse explained (since this one will be misunderstood alone) http://www.youtube.com... There are much more. Thank you
Democracy & Capitalism Don't Work Together

Your argument is supposed to be that Capitalism and Democracy do not work together (I assume you meant they do not work because they cause too much corruption together), yet my solutions prove otherwise. I was explaining solutions to prove that Capitalism and Democracy do not have to allow extensive corruption in the government, and this is proof because it had already been done by the founders of what became by far the most powerful and innovative country in the world, the USA. They believed if the government interfered with the liberty of the people as little as possible, it would allow for a happy and prosperous people. In order to do that, they needed a government elected by the people and had it's powers separated among various branches. They knew the corrupt would try to take it over and enslave the people, so they made it as small as possible with as little power over the people as possible, so there would be little opportunity to use it to exploit the wealth of the people for themselves. That kind of government is the only government that has as little corruption as possible, and it is democratic and allows a free market. The point is it is possible to have a democratic government that allows capitalism with very limited corruption, which you were arguing can not be the case, because it has already happened when the current government of the US was established, it's just that progressive ideas of big government and over-regulation has made it as corrupt as every other democratic, capitalistic society. Your argument is Incorrect because what you said can not happen, did happen, and it is so corrupt today because it is not what it originally was. My source: The Constitution of the United Stated of America (the original one, including the bill of rights)
Democracy & Capitalism Don't Work Together

Okay if you say soStatement 1 – The problem with your entries is that they currently only explain an alternative to a situation but have not stated in any way that Democracy & Capitalism actually work together. Going through what you said you currently are saying my statements may be correct in the right situation. You also spoke a lot of corruption but failed to mention how it has nothing to do with the chosen political systems. My belief is that together Capitalism & Democracy makes it a lot easier to create corruption how can we make sure that these people working in the government are being fair by the laws when they create the laws.Statement 2 – Altogether I like both democracy and capitalism I believe they are fair and good political systems that if done correctly and fairly can do good towards the people it works for. Problem is when these systems are in practice those being hurt by them the most are often the ones at the lowest end of the scales and the current social status system found in democracy makes it harder for those on the bottom to make their way upwards towards a better life. I feel for a fair system the current western method is no longer working I wouldn’t say they should be eradicated entirely as they both possess values built on freedom which everyone should be entitled too but gone are the days where it was really that simple.Closing Note – I hope that we realize our current systems are far from perfect and we need to further evolve them to create less corruption. For some it is harder to see the issues because with our system it can easily just dust these issues under the rug and creates a belief among others that we should only care for ourselves and what happens to others is their own problem I believe it is everyone’s problem as it causes us to further grow apart.References http://foreignpolicy.com...https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Democracy & Capitalism Don't Work Together

I wasted that round out of fairness. Rebuttal 1: This would not be a problem if the government is small with little money going through it: the more money going through government, the more opportunity there is to use it for corrupt purposes. Also, the less agencies and parts of government with unelected officials, the less corruption there will be, because if they are a part of a scandal, the people can vote for a replacement, and there will be less officials to be corrupt in the first place; small, efficient government is ultimately the best way to prevent corruption. The ability to impeach a public official also aids in the prevention of corruption. Rebuttal 2: As long as you can vote for an official to represent you, without manipulation of votes, it is a democracy. whether the official is corrupt or not is irrelevant to it being a democracy. The problem is that big, inefficient government is a strain on an economy, because its money, taken through high taxes, is used to "employ" supporters of corrupt officials' campaign into a useless agency rather than promote the common good, because that is how the corrupt gain funds. Also, when people vote for an official simply because they promise to take a successful person's wealth and give it to them, the official is buying those people's votes. The rich do not buy the corrupt nearly as much as the corrupt buy the poor. Regardless, democracy does work with capitalism, and if you want to limit corruption (there is always some amount of corruption in any government, no matter the economic system of the country), the government must be small, efficient, and contain no unelected officials. Logically, the less money in government, the less corrupt, because the corrupt are following the money.
Democracy & Capitalism Don't Work Together

No you didn't win but you did just waste an argument round. I've been studying for my degree and I overestimated my due time so I accidentally missed the date so yeah. Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.Statement 1 Although Capitalism isn't a direct form of government it heavily shapes a society and in turn the government as well. Who do you think has the most effect on a government the poorer classes or those who can afford to shape the government. This can range from taxes all the way to how much you pay for electricity and other necessities. If someone wants to knock down a rain forest for a car park who would the government most likely listen to the one who is willing to pay for the ability to create the car park or the ones with nothing to offer except their opinion and effort. In the worst cases money is what causes rigged elections with the person who promises the more powerful companies the most is the one who will most likely win the election. This doesn't have anything to do with fairness or what is right. Corruption is so easy in a democratic government especially when we must put so much trust in people we don't really know. Statement 2 Most are claiming that the two cannot work without each other this is untrue as democracy can work with socialism and some other forms of political systems as well. Capitalism does work best with democracy but can work around other systems if changes were made to that system but this is more of a focus on democracy than capitalism. These ideas are forced onto us that one cannot live without the other but this is untrue because these two work best together for people with the power and money to manipulate them. Even if they cannot work without each other this would show that these political systems need to change as democracy would no longer actually be democracy because it purely derives on the the ability of everyone to have a say on their government and when that right is taken away it no longer is "democracy".
Democracy & Capitalism Don't Work Together

"I as pro believe that it is not possible for Democracy & Capitalism to coincide in a government. Con would believe that they can work together in a government." According to Dictionary.com: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Capitalism is not a system of government, therefore it can not coincide with anything in a government; however, it can coincide with a government, including a democratic government, because it is the inevitable system of an economy if a government has a minimal interference with the economy. Capitalism coinciding with a democratic government is always a POSSIBILITY, due to the fact it is always a possibility with any government, so long as it's interference is minimal in the economy.
Democracy & Capitalism Don't Work Together

In this debate the argument is that Capitalism & Democracy cannot work with each other. I as pro believe that it is not possible for Democracy & Capitalism to coincide in a government. Con would believe that they can work together in a government. Guidelines:- This debate will be based both on the theoretical side of those ideologies as well as real life instances- New users will need to be sure they can finish the debate as I have had alot of people dropping out of debates lately. - All rounds would need to be referenced (wikipedia not recommended)- Do not sign up if there is a chance you may not finish the debate. - Personal opinions are allowed but more structured facts are recommended for this debate.
How americans lost their political experience

Note: The debate wording is wrong. For simplicity, just say I oppose him. Habit of reading the news is a very good test of one's capability of researching. 72% of American who has mobile device uses internet to read the news. http://pewrsr.ch... So 28% of them do not do their job. You cannot judge the whole America from these 28%. It is not a fair representation. You mention bad internet debate. I'd like to argue you get bad debate by chance. 28% chance is a big chance.
Cell phones should be allowed in schools preferably elementary and middle schools.

My opponent has provided precautions that can be taken in order to prevent cell phones from being a distraction- turning phones to vibrate, placing phones on a teacher's desk, and the right of a teacher to bring a student to the principal's office or another authority to check cell phone history. Firstly, none of these precautions will eliminate distractions in school. If students have their phones on vibrate, and they receive a phone call or text message in class, they will be likely to check to see who has contacted them- therefore disrupting their own attention during class time. If students place their phones on a teacher's desk, the phone could still potentially go off during class, if someone else tries to contact them. And if a teacher has to bring a student to the principal's office in order to check cell phone history, that in itself is wasting vast amounts of class time and is a huge disruption to the class if the teacher has to bring the student out of the room, to the school authorities, and then return to the classroom. Secondly, and more importantly, if these precautions are going to be taken, I see no reasons given to have cell phones in school at all. My opponent has given methods to eliminate distractions if cell phones are in school, but has not explained why cell phones should be in school in the first place. He provides potential methods of preventing distractions from cell phones, but the best way to prevent distractions from cell phones is to not have cell phones at school at all. Therefore, since cell phones do cause distractions in class, and there have been no stated benefits to having cell phones in class, cell phones should not be permitted in elementary and middle schools.
Cell phones should be allowed in schools preferably elementary and middle schools.

Thank you very much for excepting my challenge and I definitely understand where your point of view has come from. I say that the cell phones in school should be allowed and there are ways for preventing distractions and cheating in the use of cell phones. When cell phones do go off in school it causes a distraction but there are methods to prevent these. First is just simply turning the cell phone on vibrate and if the student doesn't the teacher has the right to take it away till the end of the school day or week unless the parent comes to get it from the teacher. This shows students that there is a risk of having his or her phone taken away. Another possible way would be to take all the students' cell phone during class and putting it in another place like a closet in the classroom or on the teacher's desk. There is also another possible way to prevent the distraction of cell phones. For one, the student could just merely put the cell phone on their desk till the end of the period. If the teacher may believe that the student was using their cell phone then the teacher has the right to take the kid to the principal room or another room with authority and check the cell phone history. To make sure that the student wouldn't delete his or her's text message the teacher could take it away till the two go into the office. This shows students that the teacher is aware of them and their cell phones.