BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such thing as White Community or White Culture.

Thank you for that response.Now moving on to a rebuttal argument.My opponent did not define the debate, and he admits that this is true.If pro does not define the debate then it is the privelege of con to define the debate. That's exactly what happened.The resolution wording does not reflect what my opponent wished to debate, but as he failed to establisht that, we are left debating under my definitions. I would also like to point out that the resolution states "no such thing." This is a phrase that means that the white communities do not exist.Therefore, to be clear, this debate has been defined by me, and as such, this resolution is conceded that there are ethnically based, white communities and/or cultures that exist.If we debate this the way my opponent wants to, then we are debating a truism, which means I will lose.Obviously, there is no such thing as a unified white culture across the world. People from England are much different compared to people from Germany. Both groups are different from Americans. American culture overall is widely diverse. Thus either we accept my interpretation, or this resolution is completely unfair.
There is no such thing as White Community or White Culture.

For the most part, I'm going to take the liberty to provide some definitions, since my opponent has not provided any. White: Belonging to or denoting a human group having light-colored skin (chiefly used of peoples of European extraction) [1]. Community: The people of a district or country considered collectively, especially in the context of social values and responsibilities [2]. Culture: The attitudes and behavior characteristic of a particular social group [3]. If more definitions are needed my opponent can provide them, but I think that's mainly what needs clearing up. It's just confusing to talk about a "white community" when we could be talking about completely different ideas. Ideas are great, but unless there's a written and agreed about version, there is no certainty of unity. Now it is written, and since my opponent has not provided any, then we must agree on them, because it is first his job to define the resolution and my job afterward if he does not fulfill that duty. Anyway, since my opponent's argument was short, I'm not going to make this one too long either. I'd just like to draw your attention to a sentence at the beginning my opponent's argument, which I will copy and paste below:"This is often just an old unquestioned assumption, or because the person who believes it DOES exist in a culture that has a strong ethnic basis. "I suppose my opponent may not have realized what he was saying, but he has admitted to there being such a thing as a white culture or community. Essentially his logic follows the same way as this sentence, "There is no such thing as unicorns, and people who believe they exist are often the people that own one as a pet. "Perhaps my opponent can clarify what he meant. Until then I prove you with another example of a white culture: the Ku Klux Klan. I know this is probably a stereotypical response, but it's a stereotypical response for a reason. If you are in the Ku Klux Klan, you are white. It is definitely either a community or a culture do to the fact that it is a specific and organized group of people. While not all whites are in the Klan, the Klan does find fundamental importance in white skin, and thus draws its community values from an ethnic background. Therefore, on two accounts (first being my opponent's possibly accidental concession and the second being the Ku Klux Klan) I may reasonably say that there is such a thing as a white community or a white culture. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. -----------Sources:[1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
There is no such thing as White Community or White Culture.

There's an idea that exists in many people's minds that there is an ethnic basis for many cultures in the US. This is often just an old unquestioned assumption, or because the person who believes it DOES exist in a culture that has a strong ethnic basis. The broad category of "White" Americans is often the target of this assumption. (Other notable examples would be Native Americans, Asians, and African-Africans. Indians "always" lived in teepees, hunted buffalo, and wore feather head dresses. Asians are "only" either identical with Japanese or Chinese. So little is known about Africa, the "only" culture in Sub-Saharan Africa is pretty much identical to Swahili.) The idea of a "white America" and a "black America" is what I am primarily targeting here. The black culture seems to be the biggest culprit in the United States because they seem to be the most homogenized. (Not ALL homogenized.) There is an assumption there is this oppressive monster of white people acting of one accord against them. Talking with black family members, people on the street, listening to black radio programs, black preachers, and black politicians leads me to conclude confidently there is an assumption that they (blacks) are all on the same team in the US, and white people, for the most part, are on the opposing team. Their own familiar culture is homogenized, others must be the same way, seems to be the logic. Pro's position is that the "white" population is so diverse and ununified that this perception of a unified "white" culture or "white" community is undeserved. It is a label imposed on a group to reconcile it with a mindset that must classify people into broad groups to understand them or drive forward an agenda that it is "us vs. them."
The world was created in six twenty four hour periods.

I left a comment questioning the rules of this debate, but I see that your only requirement is that I refer to the Hebrew Bible and no other Bible. So I accept these rules. BUT, I would like to make it clear that I am not here to prove that the Bible doesn't say the Earth was not created in six days. It does state this quite clearly in Genesis and it would be pointless to argue otherwise. My goal here is to prove that the creation in Genesis is logically inconsistent. To prove that a statement is logically inconsistent, at the very least, proves that the statement is false in its current form, and at its extreme can completely disprove the claim of that statement.Does my opponent agree to these rules and guidelines?
The world was created in six twenty four hour periods.

Thank you for correcting my mistake on the sequence of events, although it doesn't change my argument.That's very convenient to say, "From Day 1 to Day 3, God produced the light for the vegetation. On day 4, he created the Sun/Moon" This is not written in Genesis; you're simply crafting a story to back your claim.You have not satisfied your burden of proof. The resolution is that the world was created in six 24 hour periods. The etymology of the word yom, the meat of your argument, is not a reasonable explanation for the creation of Earth.That someone long ago wrote that God created Earth in 6 days is also not reasonable evidence. The wheelbarrow was a mechanical marvel in that time; it's understandable he forgot daylight comes from the Sun
The world was created in six twenty four hour periods.

First off, on your timeline you were incorrect.On day one, God created light and darkness and called the light, day and the darkness, night.Day two: He created the seas.Day three: He created dry land and created vegetation.Day four: He created Sun and moon.From Day 1 to Day 3, God produced the light for the vegetation. On day 4, he created the Sun and the Moon to give light to the world. The vegetation then fed off sunlight.The sun and the moon gives us a sense of time it is not time its self. God made the sun to first heat us, and secondly to let us be able to track when the day begins and lets us track when the Sabbath day begins.
The world was created in six twenty four hour periods.

Sure, as far as I know, everything you're saying is true. The point I'll make rests on a problem of chronological order. First days of Genesis:Day 1: God creates Heavens and EarthDay 2: God creates light and seperates this from darkness, and calls the light day and the darkness nightDay 3: God creeates dry land seasDay 4: God creates the Sun and the MoonSeveral problems here. The entire concept of the word day - the word yom- depends solely on Earth's position in relation to the Sun. The Sun is what creates the lightness of day, and the absense of sunlight creates darkness. The statement that God created light and day before the Sun, is logically inconsistent - rendering the entire foundations of Genesis false in this form.
The world was created in six twenty four hour periods.

I agree with your guidelines and like to begin. First off, The Hebrew word for the day, yom, as in English, is used both for a literal, twenty-four-hour day and also for an indefinite period of time, such as in the expression “For the day of the Lord is at hand” (Joel 1:15). However, the word, yom, always means a twenty-four-hour literal day when it is used with a numeral—day one, day two, first day, second day, etc. There are no exceptions to this rule. In the Genesis Creation account, yom is used with a numeral, indicating that it intends the reader to understand that these are literal days of twenty-four hours.Thank you for reading you may now rebute my argument.
Dissolution of the Federal Reserve

My opponent attacked one of my four main arguments. He/she then went on to bring up two benefits of the Federal reserve, and made no other attacks. The single attack on my case is a denial of the decreased value of the US dollar. My opponent cannot deny that the value of the dollar has declined radically since its creation [1,2], as this evidence empirically proves. I also think that it should be noted that my opponent has not cited any sources for this argument, while I have provided several (the third is in my previous argument). As to addressing my opponent's provided benefits: My opponent stated that the Fed provides protection against theft. While this is a definite benefit of the Fed, the fact that the Fed has ultimately failed to fulfill its express purpose: prevention of economic recessions or depressions. In fact, these benefits could be provided with our own government, effectively excluding the involvement of a private industry. Because of this, these benefits are negligible, as they support both sides of the debate. My opponent stated another benefit: that the Federal reserve keeps gold which maintains morale. Ignoring the fact that my opponent again provided no actual evidence, my opponent also completely glossed over the fact that this gold does absolutely nothing. American currency is legal tender, and as such it cannot be redeemed for gold [3]. I am not arguing that there should never be a central bank. The main objective of my argument is to prove that the Federal reserve should be dissolved. I prove this because of the fact that the Federal reserve has ultimately failed at exactly what it was designed to do: protect the US from economic recessions and depressions. If a person has a tool that no longer functions, then he discards it and replaces it with a better one, or he goes without it. I am promoting the fact that our own government has the authority to do all of the things that the Fed does, without the private intervention. In fact, if the government took on this responsibility than that very system would be easier to repair because it would lie within the government's jurisdiction, and as such the US would inevitably determine a method to preventing the economic recessions (or at least have a better alternative). As I have proved that the Federal reserve should be abolished through my superior examples and evidence, and I have effectively negated the entirety of my opponent's case I urge votes in favor of the Pro. Thank you. [1]-http://www.dollartimes.com... [2]-http://www.usinflationcalculator.com... [3]-http://www.federalreserve.gov...
Dissolution of the Federal Reserve

Terrific arguments :) and thank you for the debate.My refutals are these...the value of the US Dollar going down 25%...I beg to differ...the value of the US dollar has gone up in some countries, it is worth more in Dubai than it is here.The Federal Reserve also insures citizen's money against theft, and it helps when we need to borrow money for hopefully paying off some of our debt.It also helps keep our good standing as a nation-for instance Fort Knox, the gold there in the federal reserve helps keep some of our moral high.I rest my case for Round II, good arguments and thank you for the debate :)
Dissolution of the Federal Reserve

Thank you for accepting my challenge. Although it may seem strange, the Federal Reserve is not in fact a government owned bank. It is actually a private corporation with private interests[1]. This fact is particularly alarming because the Federal Reserve controls interest rates, and because of this they effectively control the money flow in America. Even more peculiar is the fact that our own government can coin and print its own currency. US congress is given the authority to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Why are we entrusting our economy to a bunch of unelected private bankers at all? Amazingly, the greatest period of economic growth in the US occurred when there was no established "Federal Reserve". This was between the civil war and 1913 [1]. Why should we have a corporation running our economy, when there is no inherent value in its application, as supplied by this evidence? Since the creation of the Federal reserve, there was a drastic increase in inflation. Before the Fed was implemented inflation occurred at a rate of about .5% [2]. After its implementation the percentage of implementation was raised to 3% [2]. Since the Federal reserve was created the value of the US dollar went down 25% [2]. This organization was created with the idea in mind that it would reduce or completely rid the US of recessions and depressions. The Fed has completely failed at this directive. 20 years after the Federal reserve was set up the Great Depression occurred [2]. Since then, there have been ten different recessions [2]. This reason alone is justification for the dissolution of the Federal Reserve. If it ultimately fails in its express mandate, then it is clear that we need a new, and better system. These reasons emperically show that the Federal Reserve should be completely abolished. A better solution would be to simply abolish a central bank. An even better solution would be to implement a system that actually prevents large economic problems, and was not rife with corruption. Either way, the Federal Reserve is clearly not an institution worth maintaining as the central banking system of America. For these reason I urge a vote in favor of the affirmation. [1]-http://www.infowars.com... [2]-http://freedomoutpost.com...
muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation

first lets define:muslim = a believer of islamcontribution = the part played by a person in bringing about a resultprogress = development or growthcivilisation = the social process whereby societies achieve an advanced stage of development and organization.source :http://www.thefreedictionary.com...muslims have not contributed anything towards the progress of human civilisation because:1] sharia expressedly forbed the practice of science/ philosophy and things which ignites doubt.no progress can be made without science or philosophy.2] sharia expressedly forbed the practice of all sorts of arts. without arts there is no beauty.now one thing i wanna make clear:argument like not all muslim follow koran and sharia literally, will not be entertained because a believer in islam is supposed to follow koran and sharia literally, so people who did not follow koran and sharia literally, are not muslim within the meaning of the defination.
muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation

My opponent has merely re-iterated that sharia forbades science. Back in round3 I said: Kindly post in a format like this: Double concentric siphon- <insert violated principle here> - <insert relevant text from Koran> -<insert source here> My opponent has failed to provide relevant text from the Koran(or other relevant source) to back up his claim. It is therefore impossible for us to evaluate the merit of his claim("sharia forbade science").My opponent had stated various forms of unlawful knowledge in round 3, the double concentric siphon(or the other examples provided)does not fall into any of the types of unlawful knowledge provided by my opponent, the reader is encouraged to verify the same.In conclusion:1.I showed the contribution of muslims.2.I showed that the banu musa(islamic scholars) worked under the 3rd Islamic Caliphate who is known as the one of the "rightly guided successor" .3.My opponent failed to provide a violation of Islamic law in the given examples.
muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation

violation of principle of sharia: sharia forbades science. your example shows appreciation of science. thus your example violated sharia. and one thing more.. people called somebody muslim does not make them muslim. since these people violated sharia, they cannot be called muslim. our debate is if muslims have contributed anything ..... sharia-abiding true muslims can never contribute anything to the world because sharia forbade means of contribution i.e. science. thayts all..
muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation

It seems my opponent has resorted to rhetoric.I showed that Sharia has two sources, the Quran and the Sunnah and fiqh. I preferred to restrict this debate only to the primary sources because the secondary sources have resulted in different versions.My opponent has said he means the "original" sharia, this is a vague statement. My opponent has failed to demonstrate the violation of principles in examples stated by me.I suggested an easy to understand format to ensure accuracy in the previous round, my opponent has failed to answer in the suggested format(or any other for that matter).I have never claimed that having a muslim namae makes a muslim person. I am saying they are islamic because they have been called "Islamic" scholars. My opponent has failed to prove violation of islamic principles.It is reasonable to assume that an islamic caliphate would try to follow islamic principles. More importantly, it was an observatory established by the third islamic caliphate, what is the significance of being the third caliphate? The precise meaning of Khalifa is "representative". The first four Caliphs: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali ibn Abi Talib are commonly known by Sunnis, mainly, as the Khulafā’ur-Rāshideen ("rightly guided successors") Caliphs. Each Caliph was a close companion of Muhammad during his prophethood. Caliph is translated from the Arabic word khalifa (خليفة ḫalīfah/khalīfah) meaning "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant". It is used in the Qur'an to establish Adam's role as representative of Allah on earth. Kalifa is also used to describe the belief that man's role, in his real nature, is as khalifa or viceroy to Allah.[2] The word is also most commonly used for the Islamic leader of the Ummah; starting with Muhammad and his line of successors. http://en.wikipedia.org...
muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation

when i say sharia i do mean the original sharia, unmodified unedited sharia.i do not mean different version of sharia, commentary on sharia, diffent opinions on sharia etc. my opponent here shows different version of sharia, commentary and opinion on sharia to prove his point. all of example given by my opponent are on the progress of astronomy, mechanics, medical science etc. these astronomy, mechanics, medical science etc.are science and therefore according to sharia is forbidden knowledge. secondly,if any person violates sharia, then he is not muslim according to koran.if this person is a caliphet, then the caliphet will not be considered a muslim according to sharia. i told before and i am telling now again that anybody violating koran and sharia is not muslim.those who follow koran and sharia is muslim.this is the defination of muslim set at the begining of debate. therefore merely having muslim name(banu musa,Abū al‐Qāsim Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir,Al-Ḥasan ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir), merely having an administrative position in the muslim world (caliphet etc.) will not make a person muslim. the personsn in all your examples, sir, violates koran and sharia by allowing practice of all sorts of science and therefore they are not muslim.they merely have a muslim name or position.much like in america, people having christian name are not christian( pagan, atheist etc.). please sir, next time please understand my defination of muslim which i set at the begining of the debate and try to understand my argument.
muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation

it seemed to me that my opponent did not understand my defination. i said people who follow sharia and koran literally is called muslim, all other things become irrelevant. merely having a muslim name such as Banū Mūsā or Abū al‐Qāsim Aḥmad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir or anything else does not make a person muslim. sharia clearly forbades science and philosophy. it is written in sharia: sharia, book A: sacred knowledge a7.0 SUBJECTS THAT ARE NOT SACRED KNOWLEDGE a7.1 (Nawawi:) Having mentioned the categories of Sacred Knowledge the subjects it excludes are those that are unlawful offensive, or impermissible. a7.2 Unlawful knowledge includes: (1) learning sorcery (dis: p3), since according to the most reliable position, it is unlawful, as the vast majority of scholars have decisively stated: (2) philosophy (dis:w10); (3) magic (Sha`badha, meaning sleight of hand, etc.); (4) astrology (dis:p41); (5) the sciences of the materialists (dis:w11). (6) and anything that is a means to create doubts (n: in eternal truths), Such things vary in their degree of unlawfulness. a7.3 Offensive knowledge includes such things as post-classical poetry which contains romance and uselessness. a7.4 Permissible knowledge includes post-classical poetry which does not contain stupidity or anything that is offensive, incites to evil, hinders from good; not yet that which urges one to do good or helps one to do it (n: as the later would be recommended) (ibid., 1.27). source:reliance of the traveller by AHMAD IBN NAQIB AL-MISRI (Died 1368 AD) you can download the free ebook from here: http://www.4shared.com... now come back to the point. you clearly see how sharia forbade science. those who practice science does not follow sharia literraly. then they are not muslim within the meaning of my defination of muslim no matter if they had a muslim name. one thing more. those website that promotes muslim faith often lies about islam. thats why they should not be admitted as evidence in any debate. thank you very much.
muslims have no contribution towards the progress of human civilisation

my dear friendyour argument:"I will attempt to show that muslims have made a contribution toward the progress of human civilization.This does not mean that I am going to prove that Islam has made a contribution toward the progress of human civilisation."it shows that muslim and islam are two separate things. but in reality these 2 things are not separable. islam is a belief system of which muslims are followers.its like you and your identity. you are not separate from your identity viz. name, shape etc. just like the same way, muslim are no separate from islam. without islam there is no muslim and vice versa.your second argument:" The size of the contribution is immaterial. The contribution may also be only toward a particular country. The contribution need not have benefitted the entire world."i agree with you here.