BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

If you think this is harmful to the industry, think again, my friend. Black people are terrible, and most of them, if not rapists or drug dealers, have no job and just go around causing trouble to society. Sending them off to prison is actually a great idea; after all, it is a band-aid to overpopulation, don't you think so. Yes, white people do cause violence, but never as much as those niggers do. They are ugly and fat and retarded. Also, I have seen Asians and white kids being harassed by black people. However, we should not segregate completely, so in my humble opinion, the best way to deal with this is to have a strict, enforced limit of exactly one African/black family in every neighborhood. All remaining black families will be sent to prison until there is a neighborhood with no black family residing in it, and a black family will be randomly chosen to live there. What do you think of it? And by the way, black people tend to drop out after they graduate middle school and go work in the sex or drug industry.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

I'll argue against your arguments per line-paragraph thing. "1 in 3 black men will end up in prison" "Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. " Even if that is true, what about those who don't? Besides, having one black family per neighborhood wouldn't drop crime rate, and putting completely innocent people in prison will cost a lot of money and cut down room for actual criminals. So, we'll have a " living in an actual home" waitlist for blacks? No, that is completely asinine and you might as well have a waitlist for homeless people to live in a house. By an economic standpoint, this would partially crash the real estate industry, and be a huge downfall to businesses with black employees, which would make them have to rely on mainly employees from other races. Putting them in prison is like putting them in concentration camps. Also, people don't harvest the sunlight? How does this work? White people clearly have enough sunlight. So do black people. Sure, dark skin absorbs more light, but seriously, whites don't need all the sunlight in the world. By your logic, white people reflect too much sunlight towards the black people so it is their fault. (Not an actual argument, just stating ice's logic here) There is plenty of violence caused by white people everywhere. Consider the Las Vegas shooting, killing 58 and injuring 851, not counting for mental injury. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where black people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by white people. See what I did there?
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neighborhood

Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society. Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now let's hear a convincing argument from you.
There is no God

"can you tell me how you got put on earth,,,, in fact how did anybody get on earth???" No, I cannot. Religion can attempt to answer this large question, but with no evidence to support it's claims, then there is no reason to accept the church's idea that a supernatural and perfect being placed us here. If this was so, then there would be no evidence of mankind's evolution, which there is plenty (I have found Wikipedia to have a large amount of information on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, the fact that we are here doesn't prove that there is a god, it simply proves that we exist due to the fact that the earth is in an optimal area of the universe, ie- we are here because life can grow and evolve here. It is true that if the Earth were in a different location, it would not be able to support life. In conclusion, our existence proves that we live on a planet that can sustain life, not that we live on a planet the was created by a divine being. Also, I feel obliged to ask you a few questions. 1) If a supreme being created us, what was the origin of said being? His existence would have to be due to the existence of an even more complex being that would of created him. 2) If a supreme being exists then why is there pain and suffering in the world? I understand the fact that humans have free will, but what about when bad and uncontrollable things happen to good, religious people? (ANY Natural Disaster, Being Born into Poverty, Being Born into Starvation, Holocaust etc.) 3) If God is truly all-powerful, then why is there statistically no difference in what happens when you pray to him? (http://www.nytimes.com...) I await your response with much anticipation :)
A Fetus is Morally Equivalent to a Mature Human

I will argue, as Pro, that the unborn, from the moment of conception, are full-fledged members of the human community. Thus, I will uphold the idea that the moral value of a fetus is equivalent to that of a mature human. Definitions: Standard dictionary definitions will be used, unless otherwise noted and clarified by a debater. And context will further verify what is meant. The first round is for acceptance of the terms of debate. Thank you!
A Fetus is Morally Equivalent to a Mature Human

My opponent accidentally forfeited this round, so I'll just summarize the arguments here. Pro only makes one argument, the rest are rebuttals. His photo album argument, in my understanding, hinges on there being no other important distinction between human beings before and after childbirth (since I have already established that potential is not proper criteria for judging MTTHC). In order for Pro to win, he must explain why social identity and recognizability should not be important deciding factors in MTTHC.
The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations

1. Once again my opponent tries to say that the civilians will try and rise up but what he doesn't realize is once America occupies these nations and has established military and police forces in the area which are on high alert because of this threat the resistance wont have room to breath not even to think about attacking in a mass attack it wont matter if they hate us or not they wont be able to do anything and after a generation or two of them going to school living western lives they will see the advantages and will be happy under their western rulers. Also you see the Afghani's were losing their war with Russia simply because they couldn't stop the Russian Helicopters but America supplied them with rockets to take down the Helicopters giving the Afghanistan army a advantage. I beg to differ history repeats itself we must learn from the past the US government was built from the best parts of past governments also the Mongolian empire lasted a long time the Aztec empire lasted a long time the British empire lasted a long time. 2. America did not fail in Iraq they killed Saddam that was the entire job. 3. If we control their oil supply then that will easily pay for the troops their. C1. The Gulf war was not a profitable war because we didn't make it one if we had gone in taken Saddam's oil and anything else he had for a few years and refused to stop until he payed us a huge sum of money that would be profit. C2. Afghanistan still going because the soldiers aren't allowed to do their jobs the American people demanding an end to a "horribly bloody conflict" that really has been the least bloody major conflict in US history we have only lost 2,000 troops we lost five times that amount just landing on the beaches of Normandy the confirmed kill to death ratio in the war is 1 American for every 19 Taliban that's 38,000 dead Taliban confirmed killed who knows how many unconfirmed the Taliban are running out of soldiers to fight for their cause. C3. I could not watch your video because I have broken speakers on my computer and can not hear it.
The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations

1. Destroying the army =/= destroying the people. My opponents only claim is that people defeat the governments, this is true, but the examples I used where the examples to the populous. The populous wants to be free, not have the west pamper them. Killing the army is half the job, getting the people to support you is another field. If the people hate you, you will never stop anything, your authority is nonexistent, and nothing gets done, you get overthrown. Now, simple, the people hate us, and want to be left alone, they are ungovernable, and will never step own. Persist buggers. Also, my opponent claims the reason they won was because we helped them, that is not the case, much of their supplies where afghan made, and the reason they won was because they wanted freedom. [1] My opponent then cites examples from hundreds years ago, well get this: their rule was short lived, collapsed. And, really, does hundreds of years ago matter today? 2. England was the most powerful country in the world, they failed. We are the most powerful country in the world, and we're failing. Our Iraq war increased the terrorism threat. [2] So, current failings and past failings, will trying a failed method work? No, sorry. 3. That makes no sense, in iraq we tried to help them, they tried to say screw off, so your argument fails, they want happiness but not from america. Also, how would that lower spending? We would still have to have troops stationed there etc. Your argument is false and logically fails, you have yet to prove it lowers spending. So increased spending to occupy them lowers spending? Enlighten me. ******** C1: Cost so war is profitable? "Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy." [3] So, it is not profitable, thats a Keynesian myth. War is not profitable, all it does it increase spending, human costs through deaths, destroy, thats common sense!! Look: "Last weekend, the Iraq war had cost more than $800 billion since 2001; the Afghan war, $467 billion plus." [4] It costs money, and war has no profits. C2: Non-agression principle Extend argument, you drop the argument. Also, if we where so good a fighting rebels, why are we still in Afghanistan? C3: business See video http://www.youtube.com... CONCLUSION: vote CON!! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [4] http://www.csmonitor.com...
The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations

1. My opponent claims the middle east to be ungovernable but did America not destroy the Iraqi military force twice and had them begging for an end and also Afghanistan does not always win Alexander the great took over Afghanistan in a few months when they were using the same tactics they use now shoot at the enemy and ride in to the hills Alexander simply but his best archers on his best horses and had them go after the Afghani's soon forcing them to surrender and they stayed under Macedonian rule until the Macedonians were driven out by a tribe from outside Afghanistan so they are not ungovernable plus Afghanistan almost lost to the Soviets but America gave the Afghani's resources in which to make war causing their victory over the Soviet Union. 2. America is not England America has defeated England twice America saved England from inevitable German overtaking so don't assume because England couldn't do it America can't also if America takes the area over they will control the Arab population and if the Arabs decide to cause an international problem the Americans will hand them over to the Israeli's and let them deal with them which will end that problem quickly. 3. Even if they hate America they most of them want to live and have money and enjoy life and if they want that they will do as they are told = less spending C1. War can be profitable we just have to stop trying to defend enemy civilians until the nation surrenders. C2. And who is stopping us from breaking this NAP the UN? HA they will do nothing plus America has fought rebels before better armed better trained and smarter rebels than a bunch of angry Arabs with AK 47s C3. Who cares if its not our business if they can't defend it we have every right to take it its been done all through history. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)
The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations

I am devils advocating. 1. My opponent claims we could govern them better, but this first assumes they are governable. Now, this is historically inaccurate as when any country has actually occupied the area, they lose. Now the middle east is all of the middle east. I will use some examples of countries to make it easier, but in short they are not governable, hence no one can govern them better. When the UK tried to hold Iraq as their own after WW1, there where fierce resistance, blood shed, internal conflict, essentially hell. They tried to control it, but failed. The occupation failed, and they where deemed ungovernable. [1] The soviets too where attempting to control the middle east in the cold war, Afghanistan. They where forced to withdraw, concede, the war pushed them out. [2] The point there is, Afghanistan wants to be free, and they never lose. They have never been fully invaded forever you know. 2. Would it make it more peaceful? If you look at history, the UK attempted to protect israel from the Arabians before, with no results. They promised protection, where unable to give any, as they are ungovernable. The Israelis complied, the Arabs did not. The Arabs kept killing, killing, like the English government did not exist. The Arabs killed, even with large powers controlling them. In the Iraq war, there has been still a lot of violence and human death. [3] Does it really lower the human cost of it? No.3. Now, this is false. The people there would not work for the US, they hate us! They will cause damages, and will not help the economy due to their added damage, not to mention it would increase spending. More spending = bad.Case:C1: CostThere would he huge costs to the operation, the Iraq and Afghan war is expensive enough, but a regional war? That's like asking for another 15 trillion dollars in debt. But it it common sense it would be expensive. C2: Non aggression principle "The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another." [4]As they do not want rulers, they will rebel and defy you rule, it will be a war, hence it is aggression, being a warmonger does not decrease violence and cost. C3: It's not our businessIt isn't! I can be very brief here: Middle east is middle east, not america, it is not our business, like how your house is not my business. CONCLUSION:Easy vote. CON_________________[1] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://mit.edu... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations

I think the American people should expand their empire to include the middle eastern opec nations for these reasons 1. The Americans could take better care of them. The American empire could take these nations like Iran Iraq Saudi Arabia Kuwait Jordan Syria ect. and it would benefit both sides because after the war when the Americans rebuilt they would rebuild it with western architecture and western culture giving more variety to the people there then also the Americans would have a steady non threatened oil supply. 2. It would make the middle east more peaceful Iraq hates Iran the Arabs hate the Jews the Persians hate Arabs the Taliban don't like anyone and no one likes the Jews in the middle east its basically a giant Mexican stand off they all have their pistols pointing at each other but if some one were to get in on this little stand off with lets say a cannon then things wouldn't be as tense if the mighty American military system took out the Taliban and conquered some of the Arabic and Persian nations with oil then many hostilities would end because for one group to get to their enemies they would have to get through the Americans on what is now America giving the US forces a distinct advantage over the invading enemy. 3. It would raise the world economy. America is allies with many of the down economy nations like the Europeans if America took control of the oil supplies in the middle east with their European allies they could profit off from exporting oil to the east raising their economy. I think these are good reasons to why America should take over the middle east.
The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations

1. But with a police force in place I do not believe they would be able to for we would know who was who where they were and what they were doing also . http://www.helicopterpicture.org... . http://www.google.com... . http://www.google.com... . http://www.google.com... The photos on the links above will show you the elite Russian force these troops were facing their defense was hopeless if not for American support. As far as Iraq goes if we set up Iraq like America most attacks will fail and the people will get the point 2. We destroyed their military beat the insurgents badly the job was to kill Saddam which we did and out of the goodness of our hearts and wallets we agreed to pay for the damage but with all the bombings we kinda just figured oh I guess they like their country like this and decided to stop wasting money C1. In history if you raid the enemy and demand tribute they give it to you and you make money still works today C2. In a government by the people which is America they do effect the soldiers job by giving them less reinforcements also I'm not talking about making peace I'm talking about taking the sand forget non aggression the debate is that we should go on conquest. C3. If they can't defend it they don't deserve it who cares if its not our business we will make it our business .
The American Empire should expand to include the middle eastern opec nations

1. You claim having troops there deters them, this is false. Citizens there killed coalition troops all the time. Just because we have troops there does not mean they will not attack. [1] Also you have not justified CIA help of the afghans was the reason the afghans won. Unless you prove that point you fail on the point. [2] You must also prove that iraq would not fight back, they would. Your argument makes no logical sense. 2. LOL, they failed to make a stable country, we left with our head between our tails. 3. extend argument, your argument is irrelevant, having support from the army and civilians is two different things. **********C1: LOL, war is destructive, there would be nothing, we would be in constant fighting. In the current iraq war it hurt the economy, and we had the oil supply. War spending has little effect, and increased spending is not good for the economy. You have not refuted the point that this would increase governmental debt, then the doubt would increase, then another collapse. You are dropping my case.C2: Red herring. Public opinion does nothing to the soldiers job in Afghanistan. Peace means giving peaceful means, peace does not come from war. You have also not disproved the non aggression principle -_-C3: Its not our business to enter THEIR lands, you have not refuted this. My opponent has the full BOP, and has failed to meet it... Also this debate got lopsided____________[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://simple.wikipedia.org...
Jews are Naturally Sneaky

Since this is the final round I will go into detail about how my opponent has failed to even remotely defend his claim. The topic in this debate is this: "Jews are Naturally Sneaky" not only has my opponent failed to cite any evidence of this claim, but he has barely given any conjecture to suggest such a claim. He has diverted to racism, conspiracy theory, and he has claimed that rich Jewish people are destroying Americas banking, but instead of debating this poorly explained argument, I will simply state that that does not mean that all Jewish people are that way, even if the claim you make is remotely true. My opponent has delivered nothing in anyway to support any of the claims he has made and I would not be surprised if he fits in with the uneducated, slack-jawed crowd that is exhibited in such films as "American History X".