BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Affirmative Action

Con drops his argument and leaves my rebuttal uncontested.Are you suggesting that Affirmative Action is the best way to alleviate the burden placed on all minorities in today's society, or if it does at all?It tries.If minorities are largely accepted due to their race, and not their merits, how will they perform against their peersThis is a common straw man against AA. AA doesn't make a company hire if one isn't qualified. In 1995 a study was done by Pratkanis and Turner. They found little evidence that says AA recipients are less qualified [1]. Studies in the police and manufacturing field found no drop in performance after AA [2]. Many more studies have shown the work of minorities under AA are not lower than the majority's [3]. Some companies experienced positive benefits after hiring minorities [4]Should wealthy minorities inherently receive an advantage solely because of their backgrounds?Why would a wealthy minority ever be in a situation where he needs a job in the first place. If he's wealth, he either has a job or is from a wealthy family looking for a job. If it's the latter, then he must be in a sort of a situation where he needs money for some reason. If a minority is accepted to an institution, how will that minority know if he or she gained admission because of his or her own merit, rather than the color of his or her skin?Already answered above. The person must be qualified.Should a minority with lower scores across the board, an easier course selection, and few significant extracurricular activities with leadership positions be granted admission to a university over a non-minority that has higher scores across the board, the hardest course selection possible, and meaningful extracurricular activities with leadership positions solely because of his or her color?Answered above. She wouldn't be qualified.How is Affirmative Action different from discrimination and bias against a particular ethnic group? Not only is it insulting to hardworking minorities, but it also gives qualified non-minorities less of a chance to achieve their respective academic dreams. I already answered this in the first round. It doesn't give a qualified majority any less of a chance. It's just trying to even it out.If America begins to value color over accomplishments and achievements, then the future does not seem too bright for all Americans.It doesn't! Already answered ConclusionCon dropped his original argument which I rebutted, and kept arguing from a misunderstood view of AA. Con's arguments aren't very good and my rebuttal hasn't been contested[1] A. R. Pratkanis & M. E. Turner, The proactive removal of discriminatory barriers: Affirmative action as effective help (1995). [2] "Affirmative Action: Who Benefits?" a briefing paper of the American Psychological Association, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues.[3] Ibid[4] Ibid
Affirmative Action

Are you suggesting that Affirmative Action is the best way to alleviate the burden placed on all minorities in today's society, or if it does at all? If minorities are largely accepted due to their race, and not their merits, how will they perform against their peers? Chances are, they will not perform as well as their peers and not only suffer a poor GPA and potential change of major, such as engineering to English, but also they will likely delay the optimal four year graduation and obtain a large amount of student loans that they cannot pay off, thus digging them further into a debt hole (Mismatch by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor). Not only does this flawed policy hurt non-minorities by decreasing their potential chances, but it also hurts minorities because it may place them in situations that they are not well prepared for. A few questions: Should wealthy minorities inherently receive an advantage solely because of their backgrounds? If a minority is accepted to an institution, how will that minority know if he or she gained admission because of his or her own merit, rather than the color of his or her skin? Should a minority with lower scores across the board, an easier course selection, and few significant extracurricular activities with leadership positions be granted admission to a university over a non-minority that has higher scores across the board, the hardest course selection possible, and meaningful extracurricular activities with leadership positions solely because of his or her color? How is Affirmative Action different from discrimination and bias against a particular ethnic group? Not only is it insulting to hardworking minorities, but it also gives qualified non-minorities less of a chance to achieve their respective academic dreams. If America begins to value color over accomplishments and achievements, then the future does not seem too bright for all Americans.
Affirmative Action

First, there is a such thing as unconscious racial bias, numerous studies prove this [1]. Certainly, we shouldn't let minorities suffer for something we're not usually aware of. Second, Con is wrong because his argument is based on an equivocation fallacy. You cannot fight bias with bias; it doesn't work.Now, the first use of the word bias is in the sense of a negative bias. Yet the second use is in a positive sense. He's basically saying you can't fight negative bias with positive bias. The problem with his argument becomes clear.[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
The illuminati is a prevalent force in the American political system.

There are a vast majority of voters who know of the Illuminati's existence yet literally say 'yeah right it doesn't exist'. The illuminati was exposed so many times and yet the voters of today's politics just say 'thanks for exposing them you're an idiot and they are not real.' To have been exposed and still have the majority of American voters believe you are not just innocent but not existent enough to be guilty of anything shows true prowess in the political system of America.
I think rock music takes more talent than hip hop

Hello, I'm looking foward to a great debate. Here's my general stance on this because my topic may be slightly misleading. I enjoy hip hop, very much actually. But what I don't enjoy is hip hop artists like lil Wayne, drake, wiz khalifa, niki Minaj, ect.and I do not think they have much talent whatsoever compared to rock artists. What I do enjoy is lecrae, will smith, Tobymac, ect. They keep the music clean and slightly more talented then the music already is(which I find little). Yes, rapping does take skill, but what is that skill? Talking fast! I don't find that much of a skill when many other people out there can do the exact same thing. So that is my opening statement and I'm ready to hear what people have to say.
a resolution to ban road work during the hours of 6-9 am and 2:30-6:30 pm

Thank you for opening up this debate for me. I am a commuter and have to go through several construction zones on my way to my work (45-60 min drive). While I understand where you are coming from I recognize the needs the community has to have safe and efficient roads. ï¿½I have a question where are you getting your numbers? You make many statements, but provide no support for them. In response to the dangers of driving through a construction zone I have to say the construction workers are much more likely to be killed in an accident or seriously harmed in an accident than someone driving a car. Construction workers account for 1 in 5 workplace deaths (Work Injury Statistics). Therefore, we should take steps to protect them. By making the work until 9pm (when it is dark) makes drivers less likely to see them and puts workers further at risk. Furthermore, evening hour work quality is less effective and therefore takes more time. Floodlights aren't as effective as daylight and night shadows make precision work more challenging (Fontaine). Also, later in the year we couldn't be able to do necessary construction, such as paving roads, because cooler temperatures make this impossible (Fontaine). The cost of fixing roads on nights and weekends is about 30% higher than fixing them during the daylight and weekdays. These costs of course are paid from the cities coffers which the taxpayers fill. The floodlights use electricity and are pricey equipment which leads to higher costs. Costs are also increased for paying workers. These costs are higher on weekends and evenings (Fontaine). Breaking up the hours in which a construction crew can work also downs productivity. If you have "6-9am and 2:30-6:30pm" as the hours in which a crew can't work it results in a 4 hour morning/afternoon slot and a 2.5 hour evening slot (assuming we stick to your 9pm stop time). Crews would have to setup and take down every few hours like this. We would spend more time paying them to set-up and take down than to actually work (set-up can't be avoided as its required to protect the workers). I see these costs as more important than a little slowdown time for drivers. While it can be frustrating to be in rush hour traffic (which happens regardless of construction) I think it is a fair price to keep our construction workers safe, keep costs down, reduce project times and be more effective. I await your rebuttal. "Work Injury Statistics Workers Comp Lawyers."ï¿½Workers-Comp-News.com: Work Related Injury Resources for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Claims – Workers Comp Lawyers. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. . ï¿½ Fontaine, Tom. "State: Off-hour Road Work 30 Percent Costlier, but Drivers Benefit Read More Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com...; PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, 21 Aug. 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. .
a resolution to ban road work during the hours of 6-9 am and 2:30-6:30 pm

thankyou to whomever accepted this debate the hours of 6-9am and 2:30-6:30pm shall hensforth be known as rush hours...or the hours of the day when there is the most traffic on roads. seeing as how there are more people on the roads at these times, it only makes sence that there is more threat of accident posed on anyone on the road at these times. the risk is never gone, but at these times it increases. road construction during these hours causes citizens whos job function/ school function is valuable to society to be late to said work/ school there in causing said person to not carry out that function as efficiently or effectively. obviously we have to have road construction...so here is my proposition...in some large cities those employed for road construction use large gererator powered lights to see in some of the later hours of the evening. working until 9 oclock instead of 5 and reducing the danger risk is definently worth it...this is my intro to explain the case...i look forward to debating this case.
China must be checked

Checked: stop or slow down the progress of (something undesirable). [I suppose contained is another term used.] I suppose checked means by another power in the international community, or by a group of powers. It is not really the point of the debate. This debate specifically refers to the PRC's recent foreign policy, eg. the last 10 years under primarily Hu Jintao. Foreign policy encompasses some things others would consider domestic disputes, like disputes over autonomous regions and across the straits. Any questions, feel free to comment, and I will answer/elaborate. Look forward to a good debate. If you drop responding, I will consider it an automatic concession. No other particular rules come to mind.
Resolved: God Exists

This is a debate about the existence of God.There are some strict rules that apply. Voters MUST penalize violation of the rules. 1. (a) Forfeiture is an IMMEDIATE loss, granting me an immediate 7-point victory. Therefore, the opponent MUST NOT forfeit ANY ROUND of the debate EXCEPT Round 5 (see Rule 4). 1. (b) My forfeiture will result in my opponent gaining an immediate 7-point victory.2. The Burden of Proof (BoP) lies with Pro. Verifiable sources can be provided to strengthen the proof, but proof is necessary for all arguments.3. All arguments must pertain to the definitions given below. 4. PRO must begin the argument in Round 1 and, therefore, MUST forfeit Round 5. 5. Appropriate conduct must be maintained: No inappropriate, profane, and/or vulgar language No swearing/cursing No insulting of other members of DDO NO TROLLING IF appropriate conduct is not maintained, then my IMMEDIATE 7-point victory is guaranteed, and the argument WILL BE REPORTED to DDO authorities. If I do not maintain appropriate conduct, then Pro reserves an immediate 7-point victory and the right to report the same to DDO authorities.6. LOGIC must be accepted or rebutted; not refuted by claiming, for example, that God is beyond logic. The existence of God is subject to logic and rationality; God DOES NOT transcend logic.7. Failing to follow the rules will guarantee an immediate 7-point loss to the rule-breaker.Definitions:1. "God" - A sentient, intelligent being that acts as the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being; the properties of GOD in this debate are: OMNISCIENCE and OMNIPOTENCE.2. "Exists" - THIRD PERSON PRESENT FORM of "Exist": having objective reality or being 3. "Omniscience" - the knowledge of everything4. "Omnipotence" - the ability to perform any action whatsoever
Resolved: God Exists

Though I disagree with you stance on this debate, I must agree with you on the point that I have not followed the sanctioned rules of the debate entirely, but I do have the standpoint that this debate was flawed at it's very nature. Nevertheless, I am forced to agree with your victory to this debate. Thanks to @Tejretics for this debate, though I was doomed to fail from the start, I still had an enjoyable time debating this topic and I look forward to debating against you again.,
Resolved: God Exists

This debate was about the existence of God. Now you merely state that it is a possibility, but you must be certain. You have NOT fulfilled your BoP whatsoever. You accepted this debate according to the terms and conditions of Round 1. Your violations have been of Rule 2 and Rule 3. To make a positive claim, you MUST fulfill your BoP. I now invoke Rule 7 to grant me an immediate 7-point victory. I reserve the right to declare an immediate victory. The "expanded definition of omnipotence" is your own definition. If you wish to debate, you should have followed the DEFINITION provided by the debate. This blatant violation of Rule 3 grants me an immediate 7-point victory. Absolute omnipotence declares no impossibility, but your arguments seem to support mine. Vote Con. This is an immediate 7-point victory by the rules of this debate. Pro has violated these rules and has not fulfilled their BoP. Thanks to @Durrandon for accepting this debate. Pro cannot post any arguments in Round 5. Pro must forfeit Round 5. Do not penalize Pro for forfeiture of Round 5, as stated in Rule 4.
Resolved: God Exists

You have not fulfilled your BoP. All your arguments from Round 2 have been spent rebutting me, and you do not have arguments of your own. Since BoP rests on Pro, Pro must PROVE the existence of God pertaining to the definition. All Pro's arguments are for the existence of a creative force. But a creative force NEED NOT be the source of all moral authority. Pro must prove not merely the existence of Pro's own envisioning of God, but the existence of a God who is ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE DEFINITION. Rebuttals:You have not proven the existence of God. I rebutted all your arguments for the existence of God. You have only rebutted my rebuttals. You have NOT created a positive case, merely rebutting my negative case. All arguments presented so far have been proof of SOME source. Does that source need to be God? You have not presented ANYTHING to back this argument. It is not only the existence of God that has to be proven. By rule 2, "proof is necessary for all arguments". You have NOT presented proof for any argument of yours, nor have you provided an explanation for my rebuttal of your proof. This is a major violation of Rule 2. Nevertheless, I shall rebut your other arguments. 1. Moral AuthorityYou cannot assume anything in a debate. If you present anything, you must present it with valid support. You have not made ANY arguments to show that there is a being that is the source of all moral authority. You have merely stated that we must argue about this topic, without presenting any argument. I invoke Rule 2 to ask you to provide proof that religion is the source of all moral authority. Proof has not been provided, rendering this argument based on illogical assumption invalid. 2. The Omnipotence ParadoxYou are randomly providing your own definition of arguments. The definition provided in this debate for omnipotence is "the ability to perform any action whatsoever." There are no conditions of possibility imposed on this definition of omnipotence. This is another violation of Rule 3. I request the voters to invoke Rule 7 and penalize this violation of Rule 3. (Refer rules from Round 1)3. The Omniscience ParadoxDisorder is not stability. Disorder is defined as "absence of order", or "a state of confusion". Disorder states that there is no predefined possibility. God knows of a certain happening with certainty (according to the definition of omniscience: knowledge of everything). God does not enforce constraints; constraints exist out of randomness and disorder. Chaos creates and destroys the universe. Disorder does not create stability, disorder merely created the universe. Omniscience implies that all actions are predestined and, therefore, cannot be contingent. Pro has neither argued against this point nor has Pro accepted it. I extend my arguments from previous rounds because Pro has not properly rebutted. Invoking Rule 7, I criticize Pro's violation of Rules 2 and 3. By Rule 7, I invoke an immediate 7-point victory. I invite Pro to contradict this in the next round. Thanks to @Durrandon for accepting this debate. Source: New Oxford Dictionary of English
If gay marriage is right based on the Model PC Morality, so is incestuous marriage

I presume my opening words must have some truth in them after all, that my opponent was forced to quote Hemingway to justify his reference to omgfacts.com. Mind you, he quoted Hemingway- not Bob Unremarkable. I guess even he needs to reference a big shot to make a point, after all.Anyhow, moving on, I drop this last round as previously agreed upon.Thank you.
If gay marriage is right based on the Model PC Morality, so is incestuous marriage

Both me and Con have decided to void this round. But for the record, despite Con's disapproval with the quirky name of a website I used as a source, the substance itself I quoted is fact as I'm sure Con will concur. I'm sure my opponent would have approved of something with bigger words as the URL like perhaps ohmyhigherentity-factualities.com, But as Ernest Hemingway once said, "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"Thanks mate.
If gay marriage is right based on the Model PC Morality, so is incestuous marriage

Political Correctness has introduced a new so called 'open minded, all embracing landscape to society' but with this new zeitgeist, there are conflicts. For example, Gay Marriage has been legalised in both America and the United Kingdom now. But by the same logic, shouldn't incestuous couples be granted the same right to marry? In today's society there is a general consensus of accepting peoples life choices as long as they don't hurt other people directly. Yet this outlook seems discriminative in itself, as only particular lifestyle choices are picked to be embraced by the media, and therefore the people. I pose this question, the logical parameters of which should be based on:Political Correctness, the modern western world zeitgeist, Morality based on the general consensus (not in a subjective sense) For further clarification, this is not an argument about differing moralities, or getting caught up on semantics, so for this reason, we shall assume a base-line moral perspective based on the Model PC Person, which for this argument will be defined as: Model PC Person: Open Minded and embracing of those differing in religion, race, politics, sexuality and is completely tolerant of those who differ, with the exception of reckless beliefs that incur damage/hurt to society, in a direct sense, as apposed to just a differing moral compass. I then pose this question based on the moral outlook presented above: If it is considered okay for consenting gay adults to marry, then by the same logic, isn't it okay for consenting incestuous adults to marry? You must argue that while it's right for gay adults to marry, based on the morality of the Model PC Person highlighted above, it is however, in fact wrong for consenting incestuous adults to marry based on the same moral stance of the Model PC Person. In this debate, there will be no Burden of Proof, instead both sides will argue logically and present their cases. If you accept this debate, you accept you are arguing from the perspective of the Model PC Person presented and defined above, and therefore cannot present a differing moral stance. This is to objectify the current consensus of Political Correctness.Round 1: Pro introducing the parameters and posing the questionRound 2: Con presenting their case based on above criteria Round 3: Pro's rebuttals and their case based on above criteriaRound 4: Con's final rebuttals and summaryRound 5: Pro's final rebuttals and summary
world war 3

Europe will play a big part of the next world war. But that's not the only part of this war, there are many areas in the world that war could break out. Such as in Asian, in the South China sea, the northern part of Europe, or even in Syria or other parts of the middle east, plus we have the North Korea crisis, if the US and China don't handle this correctly it could trigger a war with each other. I know what happen in world war 1 was a build up before there were a actually war, like in 1908 there were sings the world were headed toward world. Then a few years of the military buildup, then a smoking gun happen in 1914, which the assassination of Austria president happen, after that things got out of hand. World war 2 had a other way of starting, it was around 1934 or 1935 before there were other signs of a world war happening again. Then Germany invading of Poland in 1939, then world war 2 happen. Another note that is important is both world war the general public didn't think world war would ever happen. Same kind of things is happening right now. I would say the military buildup started around 2014, so it will take some years before an actually war break out. Now we are in the middle of 2017. Some examples of what is happening in today world, is Russia and Nato's playing major military war games. Russia and the US is clearly not going to be on the same page in the world views, and that is leading to mistrust, and a heavy load of tense. Then we have China playing a major factor in today world. First China is clearly not helping the US with trading, nor controlling the North Korea crisis. China say one thing about the North, and then do the other. Now we have India and China threatening war with each other. Which can trigger some thing bigger, what side do you think the US will be on? Tell you this it's not on China side. The US also have a big issues on the islands china made in the south china sea. We have a other thing not favoring the US, and that is Russia and China are in a military and economies partnership. Both countries now having good relationship. If you really want to learn more about the cycle of war, read about Thucydides trap.