BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racial dating preferences are a form of racism.

By "equality" I will assume we mean that no race is inherently inferior or superior to any other in any way. Under this definition I fully acknowledge that going by reason and the pertaining social and scientific disciplines, there is no basis at all for believing any race unequal to another. We could even say races don't exist, as I'll mention further bellow. As for those who have racial dating preferences, they are not assuming any superiority to any race. People like to date those they are sexually attracted to, and sexual attraction is a matter of subjective taste. Straight people don't usually date those of the same sex, and gay people don't usually date those of a different sex. They have a sexual preference. I hope my opponent would not call them sexist, but I see little different in his calling those with racial dating preferences racist. If Joe has a sexual preferences towards Asian women, he will prefer to date Asian women. When it comes to your chances of going on a date with Joe, your odds will be increased if you are Asian and a women, though Joe will probably also date women from most or all races. Perhaps Joe will even date men. Everyone is less likely to date someone he/she is less attracted to and race plays a role in how attractive one person is to another. Does attraction assume superiority? No. Sexual attraction is a matter of subjective taste. It would be racist to believe certain ethnic groups were objectively better dating partners--and those who do are being racist, but few would. It is not racist for it to affect one's desire for dating partners. Sexual desire has nothing to do with any race or individual being superior to another. I find Alison Brie more attractive than Kerry Washington, but many 'disagree'. Neither preference is the right one. That's why it's called a "preference". Alison Brie's features better match my personal sexual preferences, partly due to race. I don't think her features are actually superior, they just happen to be to my liking. Racial dating preferences do not satisfy the criteria for racism. By have a dating preference for one or a few races, people are merely exercising their sexual preference. Some have broad sexual preferences and some have narrow preferences. Some tend to be attracted more towards their own race, others to different races. In the end, it is all subjective, and subjectivity is entirely detached from notions of superiority and inferiority. Thus, racial dating preferences are not racist, they're just subjective preferences. I would finally note that the term "race" is biologically obsolete[1], or a matter of semantics, but this fact does not have barring in this debate. I've used the term for conveniences' sake, but believing races exist, or being unaware of the science, or disagreeing on how we define "race" or categorize humans doesn't make one racist. Back to Pro. [1] http://wupa.wustl.edu...
Racial dating preferences are a form of racism.

By the definition presented, the belief that certain races are superior to others is racism. Do racial preferences satisfy the criteria for racism? Yes, they do.1. Racial preferences assume the existance of race. In order to possess racial preferences, a person must first assume that humans can be categorized into races.2. At least one of the races is considered more desirable than the others. This is racism. If all races were considered equal, there would be no way to have preferences. The existance of preference is an admission that at least one race is more desirable than the others. Therefore, it is admission that ome race is, either in whoe or in part, better than the others.
Racial dating preferences are a form of racism.

Preferring to date a person due to that person's race, either in whole or in part, is, I will argue, racist. It is racist to have racial dating preferences. I will argue that a person with such preferences is a racist.Rules:1. Citations are mandatory. When necessary, citations must be provided. For example, "People of mixed raced are usually unhealthy" or "Race doesn't exist in nature" would require citations. Valid citations come from experts, usually academics, researchers, and other people who are qualified to speak on a subject. Non-expert blogs (Tumblr, LiveJournal, etc) and websites of unknown (random sites that come up during a Google search) or biased affiliation (Stormfront) are not valid. However, news sites, like Fox News and MSNBC, are valid. Wikis are not valid. 2. Avoid fallacious reasoning. Only valid arguments should be presented. No opinion without reasoning a citations to support.3. Stay on topic. This is a debate on whether racial preferences are racist. 4. The first round is for introduction. The last round is for conclusions and summaries. Debate will take place during rounds 2-4.5. The definition of racism will be taken from the Oxford English dictionary:"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." [1]6. You must accept these rules in order to debate. You must include "I, [your username], accept the rules outlined during round 1." at the top of your first response.6.1. If you do not meet the rank criteron, you may request an exemption in the comments section.---Citations---1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Racial dating preferences are a form of racism.

Racism is a touchy subject, but necessary to talk about. As per the debate structure, I will only be summarizing and concluding this round. Viewers can look to the previous round to see my arguments and rebuttals in full. The definition of racism accepted in this debate was "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. " "Equality" was accepted to mean that no race is inherently inferior or superior to any other in any way. In a nut shellWe are both agreed that races, if that is a valid term, are inherently equal under the relevant definition. Pro, however, argues that having a dating preference for certain races treats races unequally. "If all races were considered equal, there would be no way to have preferences. The existence of preference is an admission that at least one race is more desirable than the others. Therefore, it is admission that ome race is, either in whoe or in part, better than the others" (From R2). I contend that the only difference between any race is visual, and that visual differences have nothing to do with the accepted definition of equality, i. e. visual characteristics do not pertain to notions of superiority and inferiority. It is a fact that races look different, and is not racist to admit this, since there's no valid concept of a superior visual features. Thus, races look different but are equal. Sexual preference is based partially on the visual appearance of persons. Straight females are more attracted to males, and gay males are more attracted to males (this isn't only based on appearance but it plays a great role). Furthermore, some people are most attracted to their own race, and others to different races, based on appearance. It follows that if someone is most attracted to people of a specific race, he has a dating preference for that race. However, since his preference is just a "preference" and treats races different only so far as how they look, it is not in any way racist. Being more attracted to some races over others is purely subjective, and doesn't assume that one race is inherently superior or inferior to another. Any person who believes a race to "look superior" is being racist, but those who recognize that their preference is just their preference, are not racist as they recognize the subjectivity of their preference. Sexual attraction towards some races more than others is not a sin, just as being straight or gay isn't. Racial dating preferences have nothing to do with the inherent superiority or inferiority of any racist, and are therefore, not racist.
Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable

After three weeks, I finally have had a good debater ask to take this up, so I'm looking forward to a good discussion. Full Resolution Young earth creationism is improbable. BoP is shared. Definitions Young Earth Creationism: "...the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago."[1] Please also accept the idea of a six-day creation account. Improbable: "Not likely or probable; doubtful; unlikely."[2] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
God Exists

This is a direct challenge to lannan13. I thank Lannan for this debate. Full ResolutionGod most likely exists. BoP is shared. DefinitionsGod - a supernaturally powerful, immensely great, transcendent, and intelligent creator and ruler of the universe. Exist - have physical, objective reality. Rules1. Forfeiture is not allowed.2. No deconstruction semantics/trolling/kritiks.3. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in an external link (e. g. comments section, closed debate, Google Docs).4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
Are the Klu Klux Klan a bunch of idiotic rednecks.

"We know very clearly that they are an evil, fascist and right-wing organization [...]"Actually that's true of Klansmen, not the Nazis. The Nazis were quite leftist. Hitler is said to have been an athiest. I can't write much because you only allowed 700 characters."Pre-slavery African nations also practiced expansionism and invaded many other African nations. A perfect example of this is the Zulu tribe which expanded through many nations in the southern area of Africa. You can't blame imperialism for racism."Actually you could. While there were conflicts in Africa long before the English and Danish came, much of the racial bigotry that came came from the English and Danish explorerers who looted and murdered Africans. So yes
Are the Klu Klux Klan a bunch of idiotic rednecks.

Well of course they are! This is exactly what I am arguing in the first place. We know very clearly that they are an evil, fascist and right-wing organization and hopefully they do not obtain any power within the government and are able to pass laws in congress which result in something like the 'Nuremberg Laws' wherefore no one of any particular ethnic profile (such as myself) other than Caucasian would be able to live in any form happiness. Pre-slavery African nations also practiced expansionism and invaded many other African nations. A perfect example of this is the Zulu tribe which expanded through many nations in the southern area of Africa. You can't blame imperialism for racism.
Are the Klu Klux Klan a bunch of idiotic rednecks.

How could you ever consider the Klu Klux Klan to be a clever organization? Of course some very important politicians have been members of this disgusting organization but if you're going to state their non-existant intelligence you are going to need to back it up with hard evidence. The politicians in question are known for all the negative influences they have had on the United States. 90% of the people in question are from the most deprived states notably in the south (funnily enough the former confederacy). I highly disagree with you.
Are the Klu Klux Klan a bunch of idiotic rednecks.

It's unfortunate that pro can't come up with any refutting arguments. As I'll recap, the reason the KKK isn't what she claims it is is because the KKK has done a lot of damage to their victims. They were evil and brilliant. Evil murderers. If the Klan had power again they'd do the same thing again. The KKK is evil. Pure evil. Nothing can justify what they do except for hating another person because of their race.
Are the Klu Klux Klan a bunch of idiotic rednecks.

"This is exactly what I am arguing in the first place."Actually, no you were arguing that they were stupid. And whether you knew it or not, you were agreeing with my by saying that.The KKK has had a negative and despicable effect on race relastions in this and many Northern European countries. Evil in the likes of Martin Luther. Imperialism was also a product of racist mentality and evil. There's a reason the KKK called themselves "imperial wizards," implying Paganism and witchcraft.Also there is more to show that the Nazis were not racist, as they were anti-Judaism. But anyways, the KKK was a brilliant organization. They took over most of American politics by putting fear into Anglo-Saxons and Scandinvians of races different from them.
Are the Klu Klux Klan a bunch of idiotic rednecks.

As we can see, she forfeited this round. Anyhows there's more reason why the Klan is brilliant and more evil than the Nazis. The Nazis rose because of a percieved injustice done in Germany by the Anglo-Saxons and Danish. The KKK on the other hand was purely to lynch blacks and anyone who was not Anglo or Scandinavian. As for Hitler, he was a Catholic who hated Protestantism actually and despised it. He persecuted Protestants. But that's not the point the KKK is purely an evil bunch and to call them stupid is wrong. If Newman on "Seinfeld" were a Klansman I'd find that more believable. Nazis would be hated by the KKK as well.http://qph.is.quoracdn.net...;
Abortion should be illegal

Tell me one thing if you intemate with your girlfriend who is just 15-16 year old and you are 16year old and you are unemployed. Do you still want to give birth a child, who will be your side ? Your parents or girl parents or who ? Dear friend, it should be legal just because of some certain reason and i am saying it should be done in a legal way. Just imagine now you are married and have one 3childs and you don't want more but one day will having intercourse your condom broke down and your wife become pregnant and now its too late to take any interceptive pills than what will you do. Most probably this is the common case which happens to everyone if we don't do abortion legallised than governmemt will not be able to control the population.
Abortion should be illegal

To answer your question,yes a person should be sent to jail if they commit a serious crime. It will stop them (most likely) to commit that again. Also you can get sent to jail for an abortion because most teens have them. Why! Because they don't want to upset their parents and are scared. If abortion became illegal I think they should make then go to jail just for a week to think about what they have done. That way you wouldn't have a serious punishment however you would think hard about what you have done, killed your child. So jail would not become a huge factor in this discussion. Abortion is wrong no matter what reason you think they have them. Give me the best reason for one? You can give it up for adoption if you can't support your child, face your parents they will find out. There is no logical reason to kill your child!
Abortion should be illegal

Well one thing, its true we have no right to kill anyone but if you think it from another way it not wrong to do abortion legal and abortion is not illegal anywhere but their are some place where it is ban but having some conditions. And these are the laws, there is one question in my mind i think you can tell me, if a person is caught doing any crime like snatching, taking drug, and anything why should he sent to jail for years. If you see the persons life many year wasted due the small crime. When our law and orders are made for ruining any one life then i think abortion is not so crime and should be illegal. But it should be done in a proper legalised manner.
Fixing society

man you keep saying the sakes things told differently. 1.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. I did infact never say anything about polygamy. Also polygamy was an ideal practiced by the morman church. That is a christian church. There are still so many different beliefs from different people. The fact that you only recognize christian ideals is racist. That is similar anti gays saying that they have gay friends. 3. the bible is different then the torah or quaran (enough said). 4. Where does it say that you may only have sex if your a husband or wife? (don't use the bible to support your awnser because that would be relating to #3 and #2) 5. you state that you are unsure. Like i said before there are different religions then christianity. You have used incorrect data and only listened to the sound of your own voice. You have also just rephrased what you have said in different ways. Obvious decision Vote Con. PEACE
Fixing society

1. The constitution at no point ever mentions separation of church and state. It says that America cannot establish a state religion or prevent the practice of a religion. Bringing biblical philosophies into government and schools will not affect this. 2. I can see where you are coming from except that your logic supports polygamy. Guy A likes Girls B,C, and D. Why choose, why not marry them all. He is doing exactly as you said, he is marrying the girls he likes. 3. Christianity is already the majority religion of the United States. In addition, many of the principles discussed in the bible can also be found in the torah and some in the Quran. 4. Sex is supposed to be something married people do. Society is teaching that it is something that it is something adults do, and it becoming something that it acceptable for teenagers to do. 5. I seriously doubt that bringing in the biblical philosophy would make society worse than it is. Again, I am saying philosophy, i don't even care to teach creationism in school(though I believe it, knowing how the world began does not affect society like my other points). 6. Society can use biblical ideals for determinning things like abortion, murder, gay rights, education, parenting, government, and many more things. Few can disagree with what the Bible says. Society will not get worse by adopting the Bible as a tool. Vote Pro. Thank you everyone who reads and votes.
Fixing society

You have just repeated your points rephrased in different ways 1.Even a little bible will still be mixing church and state. America is the melting pot with all different religions so are you saying that we should only introduce bible and not torah or quaran. This is a form of racism because you will only listen to belifes of people like you. 2.marrying someone is always a special thing. You say I'm going to spend my life with this person and i really love them. If god gave us free will then why can people not marry who they like. 3. people are stupid! We all are stupid. If you don't give out condoms and you are horny or want to have sex do you think learning abstinence will stop you? Not at all. You will have sex because you want it. The bible is something that you can not take your ways of life from.
Fixing society

1. Mostly, I am supporting the adoption of the basic philosophy, not the entire thing. 2. I simply support the sanctity of marriage. By having sex outside of marriage and including gays, marriage is no longer a special thing. It will become nothing more than what people advertise on tax returns. 3. If I do not want babies born without one parent, both parents, or teenage parents why not teach abstinence. It maintains the sanctity of marriage and is more full proof than a condom or birth control pills. Do not have sex, do not get STD's or pregnant. You ignored my points on the changes in punishments and my ideas about defense of one's self.
Fixing society

1. It is stupid to bring bible into the government. People are not just christians in america and that would be combining church and state wich has never worked before. If we followed every word in the bible we would stone people who are having affairs, all grow beards, and will only teach our children ideas from a book surrounded by mystery. 2. SEX IS NOT A BAD THING. It is what people do when they want to show affection for each other. Humans are supposed to have free will and they have the right to marry. We have the right to chose who we love and why is there so many people protesting gay marriage and no one protesting divorce? because they use the bible as an exuse. 3. students need to know how to have safe sex not no sex. If you don't want babes born then why are you anti contraception.
Fixing society

1. I believe that we should bring some of the Christian philosophy into the government. I am not trying to teach creationism in schools or things like that. I am trying to fix the society by doing things like using the bible to discuss abortion and the definition of marriage. I believe that we should emphasize many of the ten commandments in the schools. I will add more as the debate continues. 2. I believe that the government should change its focus. I would start by giving the death penalty to murders, rapists, and child molesters. I support taking away things that go against the Bible like gay marriage and abortion. More will be added as the debate continues. 3. The schools should change their focus. How children are raised influence their choices later on in life. I support teaching abstinence and that sex before marriage is bad. I support teaching that divorce is bad(I am sympathetic to those with cheating spouses or abusive ones). I support emphasizing leadership and speaking one's mind. I support emphasizing defending one's self, both physically and verbally. More will come as the debate continues. The burden of proof is shared. I must prove my plan and you must prove your plan or lack thereof. The first round is you stating your plan. No criticism here. The rest is fair game.