BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racial Profiling

I negated that. Now moving on to his second point, he is asserting it is a violation of equal rights. The only way I can formulate this argument is based on his interpreation of equal rights. He states " It violates the 4th amendment and many others because ones race is no reasonable reason to search" I entirely agree with this point, but this is not my case nor does it really show the net gains of profiling. You don't have to search anyone to profile them, and this is a fundamental flaw in cons argument. If you know (which I have shown) that a certain race is more than likely prone to commit crimes, then you can establish stronger patrols in areas where large numbers of that race live. Look at it statistically. If you know (x) race is 70 percent more likely to commit crimes than (y) race. Then you know a majorette of that race lives in (z). If you set a stronger patrol around location z, statistically you have a higher chance to reduce crime given a de facto truth about statistics. My adversary keeps asserting there is less equality and that race is being judged harshly. Maybe the judged harshly part I can agree but it is by no means giving them less equality which is the foundation to his argument. Less equality would mean denying them rights. Placing a stronger surveillance around areas that are more prone to crime is not violating any property rights or equality rights, it's about crime mitigation. He then asserts that most blacks aren't criminals again which is false. I already broke this down in a study above, it is a fact that most blacks are prone to commit crime, than most other races and by a wide margin. Thus we can negate this resolution as his definition of equal rights is violating those rights, and by watching a race more than others, we are not violating their rights
Racial Profiling

"I'm kind of lost. Pro just asserts that black people commit more crimes than white people, thus racial profiling is bad."I don't think you clearly understood it, I was asserting that racial profiling is bad because we can't put an entire race at fault just because of a few people. Also another reason that the statistics of blacks commiting more crimes may be due to the fact that blacks are targetted as criminals so whites can get away with crimes. Even if blacks are bigger criminals, does it matter?"Take the Us for example. Blacks statistically commit the most crimes in the United States[1]. If you look at that charm it's literally a truism. Blacks commit twice the amount of murders and rapes as other races, and nearly 1.5 times the amount of rape. A truism is an argument that is de factro true and that cannot be debated. Blacks commit more crime that is a fact. How does that tie into racial profiling?"And I mentioned before that racial profiling leads to racial inequality. While racial profiling may be a little safer like you have mentioned, liberty and equality are more important than safety in this society. A completely safe society would be a society with little to no freedom.Why should white people be seen as superior to blacks who don't commit as much crimes as they do? Racial profiling sounds like just another Jim Crow law to me. Should white people be seen as stupid compared to asians? There's a well known stereotype of asians being smart, does that mean we should pay more money to asians who have the same job/career was whites? Racial profiling leads to inequality and unfair advantages. Racial profiling may also mean white people will commit more crimes thinking that the police is only after blacks.
Chinese is more important than English recently.

To his contention (1) - My opponent is also using wikipedia so I do not understand how he can question it's authenticity. To answer his question, I posted that site as a reference to show that Chinese is not as "branched out" as my opponent would lead to you believe. Also to his first contention Canada does not have the largest population. Also 76% of Canada uses English as it's primary language, so my opponents point "Which simply means Two biggest in size and largest population countries use Chinese (Canada and China)." is incorrect. http://geography.about.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... To his contention (2) - Saying that we cannot benefit unless we trade with China is ridiculous. "The simple matter of fact is we cannot benefit much in the trades to other countries besides China, because China is the factory of the world" The fact is that China is not the only country we trade with. Granted China makes up a great amount of trade throughout the world, but English speaking countries still have more trade revenue then Chinese. To his contention (3) - If you'll notice the majority of China's trade is with English speaking countries. Now when a major power such as the U.S or the UK has a downturn, the rest of the world follows suit. It was not long after trade decreases in America that the world saw likewise decrease in trade. The same goes for the U.S stock market, we crashed the world crashed. To his contention (4) - My opponent has not told us how he"concretize how big the influence of China recently" is so I still stand that his Tang Dynasty example is irrelevant to this debate. And to his last words "I do believe that the majority of the people don't want to lose their jobs." Just because a person does not speak Chinese does not mean he will lose his job. Thank you for the debate, I had a great time.
Chinese is more important than English recently.

First of all, I would like to point out some errors from my opponent's statement: (1) I am questioning the authenticity of your source (http://wiki.answers.com...) this is not a official site or authentic organizations' site, and the answer only contains six wordings. I have no idea why my opponent posted this web site as reference. There's not just two countries take Chinese as official language. Besides China, Hong Kong, Macau, Republic of China; Mauritius and Canada take Chinese language as regional language. http://en.wikipedia.org... Which simply means Two biggest in size and largest population countries use Chinese (Canada and China). (2) "No doubt you can benefit from learning Chinese, but you can also benefit from learning a variety of other languages." My opponent stated. The simple matter of fact is we cannot benefit much in the trades to other countries besides China, because China is the factory of the world http://www.csmonitor.com... . (3) "The steady hand America and the UK have had in the economic market is really the greater of the two." Please do not forget banks in both of these two countries, US and UK , collapsed one by one, but how about China? None of the banks in China close down. The influence of both countries is decreasing, but it growing rapidly in china. (4) "Also his example of the Tang Dynasty is irrelevant to this debate because (a) That was over1500 years ago, and this resolution poses the word "recently" and (b) we did not have as much globalization back in that time period," I addressed the history of China, because I would like to concretize how big the influence of China recently and China is used to be a strong nation. Lastly, I would like to quote one of the Jim Rogers‘s words, "Let your kids to learn Chinese is the most valuable present to them." Regard to my opponent's answer of my question, I do believe that the majority of the people don't want to lose their jobs. Thank you !
Chinese is more important than English recently.

First I would like to address my opponents first standing point that "There is an urgent need to learn Chinese in order to earn Chinese people money, People can benefit from learning Chinese with no doubt." Yes, no doubt you can benefit from learning Chinese, but you can also benefit from learning a variety of other languages. And since the resolution states that "Chinese is more important than English recently" we are not dealing with benefit, but importance. Learning Chinese is not more important than learning English, because as I have previously stated, to this day there more English speaking countries then Chinese. So if you were wishing to expand your trade barriers with a language, you would do better to learn English because you will then be open to a larger amount of countries. Now see how the numbers of English dominated countries weigh in against Chinese speaking countries. You will see the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://wiki.answers.com... My opponent's second standing point is indisputable China is a major power in the world of economics and trade. Again no doubt that learning Chinese to be able to trade with China will be important, but it still cannot be placed above the importance of learning English. If we have a French student who is given the choice to choose between learning English or learning Chinese, I do not doubt he would choose English. Simply put English is better for diversifying your language boundaries. More national entities speak English therefore it is more beneficial and important for one to learn that language. In a global economy you cannot deny that English is as important, if not more important, then Chinese. In fact 98% of the United Kingdom speaks English, along with 76% in Canada, and 83% in America. With these numbers as is, the importance of learning English cannot be disputed as well. http://en.wikipedia.org... Trading with China is, and will be, an important factor in determining a countries economic status, but you just cannot deny the overwhelming importance of learning how to speak Chinese. Also my opponent broaches the topic of China's rapid growth, but the steady hand America and the UK have had in the economic market is really the greater of the two. Also his example of the Tang Dynasty is irrelevant to this debate because (a) That was over1500 years ago, and this resolution poses the word "recently" and (b) we did not have as much globalization back in that time period, so it's relation to the economics of today is questionable. To answer my opponents last question, I would choose the language that let me speak with more people in a given part of the world. I would choose the language that let me have a better future, and I don't think that my opponent has proved that Chinese is the language that can help you more than English will. Thank you and Good luck I look forward to your response.
Chinese is more important than English recently.

To begin with, I would like to address one of the things my opponent has stated in his argument. " many predict China's GDP to fall to 7.5% in 2009 and even further, 5.8% in 2010. Now if this is the case how will learning the Chinese language be more beneficial to people when there GDP will continue to drop in years to come. " But, The Economist and other press also predict China is moving to the centre stage of the global economy and the China economy size is larger than some countries which put English as the first language, such as US and UK. . http://www.economist.com... There is an urgent need to learn Chinese in order to earn Chinese people money, People can benefit from learning Chinese with no doubt. Besides, China is a huge export market for the US. 1/5th of the world's population lives in China. Overseas Chinese dominate the economies of many countries in Asia, and speaking Mandarin gives you an edge in doing business with them. Countries with large overseas Chinese populations include Singapore, and Malaysia. Trade is not only from China to the US, but also the other way. As China's influence in the global economy is growing rapidly, the needs of learning Chinese is co responsively growing. And, today, many people around the world want to learn Chinese, not because their curiosity, but it is necessary to do so. Just like Tang Dynasty in Chinese history, because of china is prosperous and strong at that time, many people from other countries which on the land of Asia and Europe, whom want to trade with china, all they need is to learn Chinese. Chinese will soon become the most popular language, though English is popular among the people right now . I would like to rasie a question to my opponent, would you use a language to communicate with your friends for fun, or a language that bring you money to eat ? Thank you.
Chinese is more important than English recently.

Is Chinese more important than English in recent times? The answer to this question is no. English is not more important than Chinese, but my opponent does not ask whether English is more important. He simply states "Chinese is more important". Now how do we judge the importance of a language? Do we see how much people speak that language in contrast to other languages? Do we see how many Chinese people speak English and vice versa? Or is there some other form of determining the importance of a language that my opponent has not pointed out? First I would like to address some of the things my opponent has said in his opening arguement. "Regard to the GDP of the China still grows 9.9% in the first three quarters, though china is facing the global economic recession. " Yes and in this global recession many predict China's GDP to fall to 7.5% in 2009 and even further, 5.8% in 2010. . http://www.economist.com... Now if this is the case how will learning the Chinese language be more beneficial to people when there GDP will continue to drop in years to come. "And because of China is a member of the WTO; it is no doubt that china play a very important role in the global economy nowadays. Most probably you will need to work with Chinese companies in every business sectors. There is a urgent need to learn Chinese. " This can be said about many countries. The fact is China is not the only country in the World Trade Organization. China only plays a part in the languages of the world, an even smaller part then English due to Chinese being specific to the country of China. English is not held too one country, in fact many countries have English as there primary language, and if not there primary then it is there secondary language. China is a useful language, but you cannot overlook the necessity of learning English. Also due to the out of control birth rate of Chinese males in China, you cannot expect Chinese population to be maintained in years to come. With the birth of so many boys, and so little girls, the population of China will decrease dramatically reducing the need to learn China as a language. This has been my first arguement against the resolution "Chinese is more important than English recently". Remember he does not ask me to prove English is more important than Chinese, but I believe I have. That's all folks.
Chinese is more important than English recently.

This is the first time for me to debate, that's why I chose this easy topic. No matter how the result is, my purpose is to learn through practices. Thank you! Definition of the topic: Would Chinese be more important than English in nowadays? We should focus on whatever factors of why these two languages are important, and debate which is the most important. Because of I am new in the field of debating, so that would be easier for me to take the pro side. Here we go. Regard to the GDP of the China still grows 9.9% in the first three quarters, though china is facing the global economic recession. And because of China is a member of the WTO; it is no doubt that china play a very important role in the global economy nowadays. Most probably you will need to work with Chinese companies in every business sectors. There is a urgent need to learn Chinese. I am not saying that English is useless, but the Chinese definitely would be the priority language in the world right now.
how we can prouve that there is a hell and heaven

My Brother, I do agree that having no hell or heaven in this life or in the next is unfair - I do agree that the crimes of Hitler do warrant some type of extreme punishment. However, you fail to show us why a hell or heaven is at least more likely to exist than it is not. Just because life is unfair and that we cannot all go to eternal bliss in heaven or the eternal punishment of hell, that does not mean that these two places exist as default. I do not see you prove that these places exist, so I think that you have not fulfilled your burden. I should win this debate due to no arguments that are topical being made (while the arguments that you did make were truths, they did not advance you on your end of the resolution). As for your last sentence, I will try to search for God in my search for big-t Truth, thank you.
how we can prouve that there is a hell and heaven

My sister, I use Google to translate This life without a day of jugment and without hell and heaven is not fair do you know why?? For every one that stole and raped and all the acting is decent and not held accountable for them and the examples are lot can not escape or to survive without being held accountable and to clarify the idea I would like to give an example. my example is Hitler..Everyone knows his crimes and everyone knows what my sister committed by Hitler..He has to burn six million Jews and millions of people were killed, but in the fourth he suicide, if some one was arrested him What is the maximum penalty .. who will receive life imprisonment to death ,Do you think it would be a penalty just kill him.What about the remaining 5999999 Jewish people ??? For this life there is no Justice without the Lord of the Day of Resurrection and be held accountable for all the pains. Finally, I ask God to open your heart and guide you to the right Amin
how we can prouve that there is a hell and heaven

Brother, I do agree that theft and terrorism are bad things; I do forgive your modest English (although you appear to be fluent)! However, this is besides the point, brother; we are here to have intelligent discourse on the nature of Heaven and Hell - my moral ideas are not relevant to this discussion! Please, brother, I want to hear your ideas instead of asking me questions that appear to be besides the point - for we only have one round left!
how we can prouve that there is a hell and heaven

In the name of Allah the Merciful, "O my Lord! Open for me my chest, And ease my task for me;And make loose the knot, That they understand my speech" Surah Ta-Ha (Quran). At first my sister I ask your forgiveness on my modest English Sister, I'm not here to win, or something like that .. I just want to tell the message Perhaps the reward comes the Day of Resurrection. I want my sister to give me an answer for a couple of very easy questions and all agreed Is theft a good thing ?? All agreed that it is not so Is terrorism and extremism is good ?? of course not Is this true sister ??
Censorship is good

My opponent says that if something controversial or taboo is released to the public, then there may be a backlash from the public to the people who made the controversial/taboo content. This is true, and I agree that this is bad. However, this does not mean that the content made by people should be censored in order to appease the public. Take, for example, people who have drawn cartoons of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. These people usually get death threats from radical Muslims, who interpret Islam as saying that it is forbidden to draw pictures of Muhammad. Should these people who have drawn pictures of Muhammad be censored just because some people don't like that they're drawing pictures of Muhammad? No. It is their right to express themselves by portraying the prophet Muhammad. My opponent also says, "If something is made that insults a certain race, sexuality, religion, or other group that may be insulted, then using censorship to keep everything under control, and keep fights and anger to a minimum, can be a smart idea," but I have a rebuttal to that. Suppose a hypothetical situation in which someone writes a book saying that white people are superior to black people. Would it be morally right for the author to write this racist book? Absolutely not. But should that book be censored? No. If the author wants to publish that racist book, then the author should be allowed to do so, even if that book is morally wrong (which it is).
Censorship is good

I will agree on the point of parenting, and will no longer debate that. However, having content that is more adult that children can possibly be exposed to can cause an uproar from the public. If something is released that is controversial or taboo, then the general public will usually respond badly to it. People may send hate mail or rude and offensive things to authors/producers about content that they produce. People may also get in arguments or even fights about certain released content. In order to keep the public calm, and to keep everything safe, censorship can be used. Censorship is a tool that is not always right to be used, but to keep people's emotional states in check, and to not outrage or insult people, it can be sensible or necessary. If something is made that insults a certain race, sexuality, religion, or other group that may be insulted, then using censorship to keep everything under control, and keep fights and anger to a minimum, can be a smart idea.
Censorship is good

For the record, I do not consider parents dictating what media to which their children can and cannot be exposed to be censorship. I consider that to be basic parenting. I think that all parents have a responsibility to determine what they should and should not allow their children to see, hear, etc. I am not attacking my opponent. I am merely clarifying what I mean when I speak of censorship. I agree that parents have the right to dictate what media their children can and cannot be exposed to. My opponent says, "Some books or movies are censored for content that may be inappropriate for certain ages. For example, censoring certain amounts of nudity in movies can be for the sake of the audience. Some people may be bothered by it, and others may dislike seeing certain things. Censorship is for the good of the general public, and when not over-used, can be helpful," but I disagree. Unless it's the creator censoring their own work (i.e. self-censorship), which I have already discussed, I believe that it is the responsibility of the audience to learn about movies (or books, or video games, etc.) before they see them so that they can be prepared. If they don't like to see certain things, e.g. nudity, then they should either learn about the work they're planning to see beforehand or take a risk and see it anyway without learning about it.
Censorship is good

Censorship can be useful, and even needed in some circumstances. Some books or movies are censored for content that may be inappropriate for certain ages. For example, censoring certain amounts of nudity in movies can be for the sake of the audience. Some people may be bothered by it, and others may dislike seeing certain things. Censorship is for the good of the general public, and when not over-used, can be helpful. After all, you may see or read something and not be expecting something of that level. Children may pick up something at home that the parents don't want them to have, and censorship can protect the child's emotions as well as the parent's rights to dictate what the child has access to.
Censorship is good

In this debate, I am going to argue that censorship is bad. There are many kinds of censorship. One of them is self-censorship, which I am not going to be arguing against, just to be clear. Self-censorship is when someone doesn't want their audience to be exposed to something, so they leave it out. My problem with censorship is that it forces creators to leave out stuff, often against their will, which makes their work suffer. If it's the creator their self who's censoring the work, then the work doesn't suffer, because it's creator-approved. I have already stated why I think that censorship is wrong.