BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Slavery was detrimental to American Society

I feel like my opponents arguments are pulling us off topic. My topic was slavery being a detriment to American society and I feel as if we have digressed from the argument and my opponent needs to stay on point. I will no longer post about about Jews in Egypt or any other country I don't give a crap about but let the record show I am in fact an atheist and quoted the bible to make you religious zealots feel a little better. Back to the Issue. Anyone who does not agree that if slaves, and in this instance black slaves, are now contributing to the massive amount of crime, most of our money going to blacks on welfare and bull crap programs made for blacks so they can feel better about how they have been "wronged". First of all let me address the crime. 2/3 of all violent crimes committed are perpetrated by blacks. So is my opponent saying there would still be the same amount of crime if blacks weren't here at all? Second the welfare. 70 % of all welfare recipients are black. They are economic vampire sucking the money out of the upper class white AND black families. Third these affirmative action programs are absolute bull. None of the African Americans here today can claim any wrong done to them by slavery. I'm not arguing civil rights but slavery in specific. Why should you get special programs if you are "equal" Third since I am advocating that slavery was in fact bad does that mean that my opponent views slavery as good. Do you agree that people should be owned as property. I sure don't. I just think that if we had just left them in there flea covered lion infested country we would be better off as a society instead I have to deal with a bunch of money sucking violent ingrates who wouldn't know culture or working for the greater good if it came up and sat on their head. All blacks today see is an easy way out with pulling the race card and these programs allowing opportunities that shouldn't be theirs if they are given due to the color of their skin and not the content of their character.
Slavery was detrimental to American Society

My opponent first argues that the case is about African Americans and my "Asian" argument is not topical. However if you read it, i justify that even without slavery, immigrants would still eventually have flocked to America. My opponent tries to use fallacious attacks and vaguely states how i have no evidence. So he must have some pretty hard core evidence,right? Well one would only assume. Lets take a look at his first piece of evidence. "Now we can look back in history and cite other examples of slavery being a common denominator of not only social but economic downfall. Just look at the ancient civilization of Egypt. The Jews were enslaved for thousands of years and what did they get out of it? Locusts, water that turned to blood and a plague that killed the first born son of every Egyptian family." Not everyone takes in to account evidence from the bible, so your argument is unjustifiable. "Jews built Pyramids, Blacks picked cotton. Weaker service means weaker race." I shouldn't have to pick this one apart but the overwhelming bigotry and ignorance just makes me complied to. My opponent is stating that since Jewish ancestors built pyramids, they are in turn superior to Africans who picked cotton. First of all Egypt is located...Duh-Nuh-nuh-nuh! In Africa! Jews were not the only "Race" that built the pyramids! Africans had a hand in it to. So even if we took that argument into account (Which we should never because of the fallacy of it) It would contradict his statement that "Jews built Pyramids, Blacks picked cotton. Weaker service means weaker race." "My opponent questions my racism, which has nothing to do with the debate. I have stated historical facts and religious events and given plenty of facts so my bias should not be a concern. I did not hear one shred of evidence so lets see what kind of ridiculous statistics he can fake for his rebuttal." Really? Nothing to do with the debate? It is what inspires your insipid attacks towards African Americans. Just read the freaking case! Also, where the f*** were your so called historical facts?! The only evidence you gave was scripture from the bible, which again is not universally accountable! Not everyone is christian! and seeing how religion has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this debate you are completely off the topic at hand. I give it to the Pro.
Slavery was detrimental to American Society

The title is Slavery was detrimental to American society in which my examples primarily focused on the African American Race. My opponent used Asians as an example of a group that so graciously came to this Country and started reaping its many benefits. This is an untrue statement. Once again we are dealing with a group of people whose Monarch leadership sold Chinamen to America so we could rapidly expand our empire westward with our railroad that was to be constructed by slave labor primarily Chinamen. Now we have these Asian groups coming to America and using pro minority programs to receive education and take it back to their communist homeland. Now we can look back in history and cite other examples of slavery being a common denominator of not only social but economic downfall. Just look at the ancient civilization of Egypt. The Jews were enslaved for thousands of years and what did they get out of it? Locusts, water that turned to blood and a plague that killed the first born son of every Egyptian family. Jews built Pyramids, Blacks picked cotton. Weaker service means weaker race. My opponent questions my racism, which has nothing to do with the debate. I have stated historical facts and religious events and given plenty of facts so my bias should not be a concern. I did not hear one shred of evidence so lets see what kind of ridiculous statistics he can fake for his rebuttal.
Slavery was detrimental to American Society

I will ignore the fact that my opponents arguments are inherently racist and xenophobic. However i will address his main point. "We would not have crime and poverty if African Americans were never brought to America." However this statement is false. Ask yourself "Do we have Asians in America? The answer, yes we do. Were they enslaved by us? No they were not. But they still managed to make it here and integrate into our modern day culture. Are Africans any different? Of course not. America isn't multicultural mostly because of slavery. America is multicultural because America offers hope, change and endless freedom that attract all kinds of people. Now onto my next point. My opponent claims he is not racist. However he states that "I'm not saying that I hate black people. I'm just saying that educated white men are better." Is that really not racism at work? Feeling that a certain race is inferior to you is quite racist in our modern mind-set. My opponent also states that, "We should have left those America bound slaves right where we found them... in their feces filled mud huts" My opponent motives are obviously inspired by ignorance and racism, however i will set hat aside from now. White people (believe it or not) also commit crimes or are in poverty. Saying that only one race contributes to that is extremely and willfully ignorant. My opponent bears no statistics or evidence claiming that ALL crimes are committed by African Americans and that they are the only ones below the poverty line. I give it back to the pro.
Slavery was detrimental to American Society

The advent of African slavery has been black eye for America. When conquered by a competing tribe, African tribesmen were sold by their own countrymen to Captains of White American agriculture and industry, and ever since the white American worker has been paying the price. Whether it was dealing with a slave revolt at Harpers Fairy led by abolitionist John Brown or having to avoid certain neighborhoods due to rampant crime, bringing slaves to America is the ultimate source of our problem. Had we not brought slaves to America, completely ridiculous programs such as Affirmative Action would not be in place. My son who has achieved high scores all throughout school and was a stellar young citizen should not be denied acceptance to a University just because some poor dumb black kid can be accepted so the University may be seen as "more diverse." And tell me why does this naive liberal American public want to wage such an intense war on "profiling"? If the police pull you over and you have committed no offense, why is the color of your skin such an important issue? We all know that the only reason why the race card is ever used is when some black offender has a dime bag on him and thinks it is his or her way out of an arrest. Look I'm not saying that I hate black people. I'm just saying that educated white men are better. Why do we have a black history month when modern Ebonics are absolutely ruining the English language? I go to the DMV now and the black teller seems to be speaking in some foreign language that seems vaguely familiar but I can't concentrate on the enunciation because the absurd hair weave with or without corn rows, the 8 inch long acrylic nails and the gold teeth are throwing me off. And all of this is in my country due to their own tribesman selling their own kind into slavery. Yes theirs is a rich culture indeed, filled with loin cloths, betrayal and AIDS. Even now, with a black man as leader of this free country, descendants of African slaves still think that they don't have every opportunity that white children have, as if they are owed something. How about you take a hint from these hard working white children and put your nose to the books and somewhat attempt to educate yourselves. Even our President, who hides behind his title and takes credit for the strength of the white American worker, can't seem to handle simple mathematics. We are indebted trillions of dollars yet he wants to increase government spending. We are dealing with real money here, not coconut dollars "Mr. President." Look I can write you arbitrary facts and tell you about the plight of the white American worker all day but the fact remains we should have left those America bound slaves right where we found them... in their feces filled mud huts hoping not to be sold by one of their own countrymen.
The Bible is flawed text that is not the literal word of God making Christianity a flawed faith

Well, that is a good thought but just hear me out 1. Why would they be named after the disciples? A. Because the books were actually written by the disciples. In fact the book of Mark should really be called the book of Peter. Mark and Peter were evangelist buddies that were the best of friends. Mark named the Book after himself because it was still his work. And i am speaking from the conservative side of this topic. Christians debate over this topic all the time, and my question to you is if you are an atheist or a liberal? And you say in the topic that the Bible is a flawed text, you have only given debate about the Gospels. 2. The Septuagint You say that there are words that do not translate from Aramaic to Greek, they were translated into different words in the Bible yes, but if you are honestly a Bible Scholar then you know what words could mean other things. How do you think the Septuagint wrote the Old Testament? It was read and approved by Jewish Religious Leaders that knew Aramaic and would have shut them down very quickly. 3. Roman Takeover The world became Helanized after the takeover of Alexander the Great. When I say Helanized I mean that the whole world was influenced by the Greek way of life. So most nations during the time of the Roman Takeover would know Greek, along with their native language. The Jews would have known Hebrew and Greek, along with Aramaic (sorry for the auto-correct earlier). Ancestors language, Conquerors language, and modern language. The Hebrews would have read the Old Testament like we watch television. So if there were words in one language that was not in another, wouldnt they know what text would be different? The claim that you have presented is that the Bible is a flawed text, how can that be if the Israelite's were so strict in their teaching? They actually tried to throw Jesus in prison for healing on the Sabbath (they had a law that you could not do any sort of physical activity on the Sabbath). 4. Historical facts It has been proven that Jesus was indeed a real character in history that did claim that he was God, and who was hung on a cross for His belief . http://wesley.nnu.edu... This link will take you to the letter that Pontious Pilate(governor of Judea) sent to Tiberius Ceaser (Roman Emperor). It gives proof to my claim that Jesus was a real historical being, who had real disciples. You say that it was oral tradition that kept the Bible going, and at the same time talked about how some Aramaic words cannot translate to Greek. Some words in Aramaic mean more then one thing ( EX: Pneuma- Wind, Spirit, breath, anything that is blown).
The Bible is flawed text that is not the literal word of God making Christianity a flawed faith

Actually , you are partially correct in your answer , but incorrect in other areas. Christ and the disciples spoke Aramaic, and the first recorded gospel was written about 70 to 90 years after the death of Christ. Some of the other books of the Bible were written centuries after the death of Christ, The Books of the New Testament were not written by any of the disciples..Mark, Luke, Paul or John. They were written generations later based on stores told by the disciples that had been told from person to person. Nowhere in the books of Mark, Luke, John or Paul do they claim first person eyewitness account. The books are all written in the third-person, which is further proof that the disciples them selves did not write them. Lastly, the first recordings of the Bible were written in Greek. So, given these facts the following can be ascertained logically; There is NO possible way that the Bible contains the literal words of Christ and his teachings. There are words in Aramaic that do not translate to Greek, so what Christ "supposedly said" could not have been translated accurately. Just that fact alone proves my point. Furthermore , since the texts were first written almost a hundred years after Christ died, and were based only on storytelling since the disciples and Christ were dead...literal accuracy of what was said and events that happened could not have maintained their integrity when stories were passed from person to person to person over the years. It is impossible that these individuals all could have told the stores the same each time from decade to decade so they could later be written down. Finally, if one wants to ignore that the first gospels were written centuries after the death of the disciples and Christ, and argue that the disciples themselves actually penned the gospels during their travels with Jesus, then their argument is also flawed based on the company that Jesus reportedly kept. Only few could actually write because they could not afford to learnt to do so or afford the materials of which to compile such a narrative. Only the rich could afford the education to learn to write or the materials. The gospels allege that Christ admonished the rich and traveled with the poor. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely hat the disciples could read and write. Thanks for accepting the debate and for your perspective. I suggest looking into the historicity of the texts outside of just using the Bible. The Bible is full of contradictory substance and historical inaccuracy and is not a reliable source. if you are going to believe in something, make sure you are knowledgeable about its origins, do the research on your own and discover for yourself whats behind the stories you hear at Church. Dont be told what to believe, go out an find out for yourself the truth behind the dogma. Then your belief , whatever it may be , will be based on facts that you have discovered for yourself and not what you were spoon fed from a young age. I appreciate the discourse.
The Bible is flawed text that is not the literal word of God making Christianity a flawed faith

Christ and the Disciples spoke in Arabic, the same language of most of the area at the time, Book of Matthew- Written to a Jewish audience, that would know most of the OT by heart. And was most likely written in Judah Book of Mark- Written by Mark, a gentile, when he was traveling with Simon Peter. This was written to a gentile audience, and was written for Romans Book of Luke- Written by a gentile doctor named Luke. Written for Greeks Book of John- written by the apostle John to a Jewish audience , most likely was written in the land of Judah
The Bible is flawed text that is not the literal word of God making Christianity a flawed faith

I ask my challenger a basic question which , when if correctly answered, will help prove that there is no way that the reported happenings that are depicted in the Bible happened verbatim, and therefore are hearsay at best. The apostle's supposed eyewitness accounts are the basis of the books of the New Testament, that is undisputed. What language did Jesus and the apostles speak, and when and where were the earliest books of the New Testament actually written?
The Bible is flawed text that is not the literal word of God making Christianity a flawed faith

I am contending that the Bible should not be taken as historically accurate and cannot possibly be the word of God. Furthermore, the text shows that it indeed was written by various individuals who were not present at the time of Christ and who were not eyewitnesses to what they alleged happened in the New Testament. The anecdotes penned by these scribes, when analyzed, pokes holes in the Christian faith and their primary objective of following the word of God and the teachings of Jesus. My belief is that we cannot possibly really know what Jesus said based on the text, and that mankind, not God, implemented the Christian faith on humanity
Is the toilet paper at school recycled

This is my rebuttal speech. My opponent stated that it stated on a toilet paper role that it was recycled. However... 1. As i stated in my framework which my opponents didn't prefer to rebutt, we will assume that they agreed with us. And according to it, recycled isn't recycled unless it says 100% RECYCLED. 2. They must also prove this: they must get statistics saying that every single toilet paper roll in school in every country are recycled. They must get the evidence and the source. Finally, if the judge and the jury may consider, the opponent is very offensive and assaultive. Therefore, please take the opponent's offence in mind when voting. Thank you.
My first debate: something simple. "The Walking Dead" is the greatest show ever.

BOP is burden of proof. It requires you as the instigator to give proof to your claim. If you do not, or if it is found insufficient, then the debate is given to Con. Alright, as I have already posted sources and statistics I will provide my personal opinion as requested by the opposition. (I take all debates seriously, remember.) The Walking Dead is a good show to be sure, it might even be great. But it is nowhere near the greatest show of all time by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't have the ratings, the viewership, the awards, the critiques or reviews to warrant such an assertion. My personal opinion: I found the show to be entertaining as the first season of Lost was entertaining. Hell, I loved the show, but not nearly as much as I loved Dexter, Game of Thrones, Lost or any other show of that genre. Also, the fact (SPOILER ALERT!!!) that they kill of the best character at the end of the second season is terrible! It ruins the show. And Rick is just bad.
My first debate: something simple. "The Walking Dead" is the greatest show ever.

This is not a troll debate. T. V. shows are very, very serious. And of course, my opponent will not be able to uphold his BOP. Firstly, I'd contend that half of my opponents entire opening statement deters rather than helps him. "The acting is par at best but the writing is great. Unlike any other show, the writers aren't afraid to make an episode were basically nothing happens. " My opponent states that the acting is part at best and the writers are unafraid to write a stagnant episode. He states his personal opinions in between, but on DDO--opinions get you used tissue paper and a pocketful of lint. Let's examined the facts: "The first season (of the walking dead) had an average of 5.24 million viewers. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...(TV_series) Compared to shows like Seinfeld this is pathetic. Seinfeld on its finale received 76 million viewers! 76 million! And according to TV Guide, Seinfeld is the greatest TV show of all time. It has received tens of awards, great acclaim and has a higher rating on IMDB. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) The Walking Dead received 8.7 on IMDB. Which is impressive, but is dwarfed by such shows as Dexter, The Wire, Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad (All of which have more awards to their names and higher critic scores. ) The Walking Dead is also just LOST with zombies. And nobody likes a rip-off.
My first debate: something simple. "The Walking Dead" is the greatest show ever.

That's obviously your opinion. Mine is that Rick is a mediocre character played by a sub-par actor. He cannot carry the script which was instead carried by Shawn. Beyond that, you have faild to uphold your BOP. I accepted and responded under the stipulation that this discourse would be treated seriously so that I can count it as practice debating mundane matters. Your single sentence answers failed to do so. I'd reccomend that you check out some other debates on this site to get a grasp of how things are done. Good luck in the voting and welcome to DDO :P.
Abortion Should be Illegalized

To start this off, saying: "Also, abortion is not 'as unfair as it gets'. There are plenty of things that are more unfair than abortion" is essentially you admitting that it is unfair.Some invalidating phrases you used: "highly unlikely" "hypothetically" "most likely" "perhaps"When you say that "no one asks to be born," did you think that no one asks to die, other people ask them to die?We agree that we do not know if the fetus is sentient or not. So, imagine what would happen if we took our chances and did assume that babies aren't sentient, and supposedly say that that makes them 'not human.' So, what if, in years, we discover that the fetus is sentient. Then what? Do we excuse the doctors for taking a huge risk and it ends up being murder? Or would the fact that the fetus is sentient not matter and would it still not be considered human?Proof that the fetus is human: Like a_janis1 said, the fetus has human DNA. That makes it biologically human. And, as we agree, no one is sure if it is sentient yet. So, there is more evidence presented than not in favor of the fetus being a living thing. Besides, when I said that the mother and the fetus are on the same level, my reasoning was that they are both LIVING HUMANS. So, no, since the fetus is, in fact, living, bacteria is definitely not on the same level.Let me ask you a question. In fact, I am directing this to everybody reading this. Have you ever thought that your mother may have thought about getting an abortion while you were a fetus? What would you have thought if you knew that she would have been considering killing you for her convenience? In the eyes of the person being killed, what does it feel like? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't feel fair.