BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stereotyping

Scenario #1: Your child has been kidnapped by a white male thug. The suspect is known to be within your city limits. The police with your case see's a car with 2 guys in it that look to him like a white male thug, based on his haircut, clothing and posture. Since racial profiling is illegal he has to pass up this opportunity. If he was allowed to use racial profiling, he could stereotype and assume the driver and passenger "IS" a white male thug based on his haircut, clothing and posture and of course race. He pulls the car over, searches and finds your child in the trunk. Would you be glad that this police officer used racial profiling to find the suspects. Scenario #2: A police officer knows of an area infested with drug trafficking and relations. He has arrested 10 people from this area involved in drugs. Lets say 9 out of 10 people he has arrested were black males, driving 1970's model cars, with long white t shirts and braided hair. I feel he has the right to search the person's car if he fits the description, since there is a 90% guilty chance based on this similar stereotype of past arrests. If a person has nothing to hide or has not committed a crime, then there should be no reason to be scared during a search. It will keep the streets clean.
Stereotyping

If the pro is arguing that stereotyping should be used to keep us safe ten really what is being argued us police profiling.... Police profiling is wrong for a couple Reasons, the primary reason is that if someone is interrogated or searched based on the color of their skin or their speaking style under police profiling, then that is the ONLY reason they are suspects in the first place. The 14th amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, and a search authorized almost exclusively on the color of ones skin can certainly be seen as unreasonable... The second reason is that it does not always yield desirable results. The underwater bomber for example wasn't Arab, he was black with ties to Nigeria who almost succeeded in blowing up a plane on Christmas day, if we were to rely on racial profiling innocent Arabs may be searched while others, like the underwater bomber who is up to no good, would be able to bypass security... Another example came in the killings in Norway that initially were believed to be a terrorist attack was actually the work of a Christian extremist callin for a crusade against Islam. If the killings could have been prevented then through profiling the wrong man would be examined whereas the true culprit would still be able to accomplish his goal.. On another note, people only have 5 senses, and when it comes down to profiling you only use one of them when suspecting someone. That would be our eyes since you are suspecting a person based entirely on their appearance, and nothing else. Police profiling should not be legal because it results in illegal searches and seizures and may lead the police to investigate the wrong guy or wrong type of people while the true culprit gets away
Stereotyping

I believe stereotyping is an important factor for our safety. Stereotyping is defined as using context clues or one's 6 senses to view an individual or situation and assume a broad summary. This can help when safety is of concern. Being able to stereotype someone can lower your risk almost instantly of potential threats into your comfort zone. In every situation there are pros and cons. I feel the pros considerably out way any con in this situation. I would certainly rather be safe then sorry when it comes to my well being.
Your words will not stop me from molesting children

Your words will not stop me from molesting children They tell me how I am a failure They tell me how I am a loser They tell me how I am useless They tell me how I am selfish They tell me how I will never have friends They tell me how I will be forever alone They tell me that what I do is wrong They tell me to be more productive They tell me to get a job They tell me how I am nothing And will never be something They seem to know a lot about me But there is one thing they don't know Their words will not stop me from molesting children I will never stop molesting children I don't know why I molest children I don't need to know why I just know that it is something that I do It is something that I have done It is something that I will do At first, Their words used to hurt me But I didn't change, I didn't stop Now, Their words no longer hurt They no longer have the desired effect And I am still a pedophile And I am still molesting children
Should Kids be Able to Drink

Opening Argument:The current global population is simply unsustainable. Each year, humanity consumes the Earth's resources at a greater pace than the Earth can replenish them. According to Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University in California, the ideal world population is approximately 1.5 to 2 billion inhabitants. [1] This is well below the SEVEN BILLION who currently live in on this planet. In order to reduce the potential risk of civilizational ending conflict or disease, it would be in the best interest of humanity as a whole to drastically reduce the global population.To this end, it would not make sense to target the old as a means of reducing the global population, as their time on this planet is much more limited than the young. As such, an effective means of reducing global population would be to disallow children from drinking water, and other substances neccessary for their continued living. From a global perspective, it would be a just and moral course of action.Thank you for taking the time to consider my argument.Source:[1] https://www.theguardian.com...
Should Kids be Able to Drink

I agree with a lot of what my opponent has stated in this round of debate. Kids should have the right to get piss drunk on the daily, but only once we"ve drastically reduced the global population. Until such a time though, children should not be allowed to drink any kind of substance that would serve to prolong their existence. As for the wall, it would be a good idea to wall off the impoverished parts of the world and certain domestic areas while we wait for this necessary policy to run its course and work its magic. Make Earth Great Again (MEGA)! If we don"t take these preventive steps, the West will be reduced to a collection of sh*thole nations. Thank you
Flat Earth Theory vs Ball Earth Theory

I should've made the response times longer. 1. Cameras that have fish eyed lenses will produce curved horizons. CGI will produce curved horizons. Regular cameras will give you a straight line 2. I guess I can't go through every single photograph that has been made of the earth to prove that, but the vast majority, especially the ones on NASA's websites are cgi, not real. 3.4. What certain altitudes are you talking about? The ant walking on an orange is hardly an example of the sun moving across the sky or a boat traveling into the horizon. A. This is great evidence for a sphere earth B. Constellations would still change as you moved across the plane. Staring at the sky from two different angles would produce two different results. If you were observing the same space from two different angles, the stars would appear to line up differently. C. Universal acceleration is the other option besides gravity. Universal Acceleration pretty much says that the disk-shaped Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g
Flat Earth Theory vs Ball Earth Theory

Righty, let's do this. First I'll debate your arguments, then state mine. 1. The horizon line is straight, not curved. The horizon lines if the Earth were flat or round would look essentially identical. If you were a 5'6' person, and the Earth was flat, then the horizon would be 0.04 degrees higher. About the 100,000 feet thing, multiple photos show a straight line, and multiple photos also show a curved horizon. We can't use these photos as definitive proof one way or another. 2. The images we have of the Earth are all faked photographs. Umm... burden of proof is on you there, I believe. You can't just say something and not back it up, that's not how a debate works. 3. The way boats disappear on the horizon suggests that the Earth is not curved. You're right- we cannot see the curvature of the earth at sea level. However, just apply the "flat road" example from the below argument to the sea. But we can see the curvature at certain altitudes. Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the photos of the earth are faked. 4. Also, the way the sun disappears suggests a lack of curvature also. Imagine an ant, walking on an orange. It moves into your field of view. You will be able to see the ant's body "rise up" from the orange. This is because of the curvature of the orange. Now, replace the orange with a flat road- you would see the ant slowly materialize, because the the road is not round. Apply the concept to the sun. Now, my own arguments. A. LUNAR ECLIPSES The shadow on the moon's surface is round- an oval. This proves that the earth is spherical- see the Foucault Pendulum here for proof. https://en.wikipedia.org... B. VARYING CONSTELLATIONS If you move towards the equator, the constellations are replaced by other ones. This phenomena can only be explained with a round Earth. If the world was flat- well, then, the constellations could not be replaced as you could only see one set of patterns in the sky. C. THE CENTER OF GRAVITY Mass has a little property called gravity that attracts things to it. With a sphere, you always have the exact same amount of sphere under you. Therefore, gravity pulls us towards the center, downwards. This is why we don't fly off the surface of the planet. Now, consider a flat plane. The center of gravity is towards the center- the gravity would essentially pull you sideways, towards the center of the plane. Good luck in Round 3, Con.
Global warming exists and it is man made.

Well, he forfieted. So you can extend all my previous arguments 1. The evidence used for anthroprogenic warming is fundamentally flawed. Moreover, this theory doesnt explain the long trend of th past 150 years. Prefer my evidence is encompasses a larger view than my opponents analysis 2. Alternative Causality - Mars proves Mars is warming at almost the same rate as the earth, so tis implies that the large portion of global earming is via solar activity 3. Co2 Correlation Evidence point out that the areas of the atmosphere with the most Co2 has the least amount og warming accumulaion. Also, Co2 lags in temperature. Temperature spiked after he warming had started.
Global warming exists and it is man made.

I will take the pro position that global warming does in fact occur as a man made phenomenin and that there is sufficient evidence to back this claim up. Definitions: Global warming: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution http://www.merriam-webster.com... Con will thus take the position that there is either no evidence for global warming or that it does not occur altogether.
We've had plenty of worse things than the holocaust and the civil war since we've gotten the interne

Pro attacks alex and claims he wins. Fail. Alex is an upstanding man. " Then changed his mind? Where does it even say that?" It says it in Matt 27:25. God didn't change his mind he just sometimes makes exceptions. " t the holocaust is good because it resulted in the creation of Israel. So it seems you support Israel but think the holocaust was good. Is that right?" Yes. Jews deserved it. Christians need the holy land of Israel. God uses slime like jews for good. you cherry pick the bible. You can hate what god hates. But you have to love the enemy if god doesnt say anything about them.
We've had plenty of worse things than the holocaust and the civil war since we've gotten the interne

The sources were manipulated by jews as alex jones showed.[1] God only punished the forth generation only in the old testament. The Holocost was good. Holocost excited tree m the creation of Israel. So it w as good. Hitler was a godly man "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." -Hitler. Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity. -Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 28 July 1922 My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited. -Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922 Amen. The jews had to be punished [1] Alex Jones Radio Show December 9 2012
We've had plenty of worse things than the holocaust and the civil war since we've gotten the interne

K. I hope this guy is a troll. My opponent dropped most of my arguments, & has provided no evidence of his own. VOTE CON. Not one of those sources were Jewish. Pro gives no evidence that the church is manipulated by Jews. It's a fact Christians died in the holocaust. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) states: "The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews and millions of others by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II."[1](1) The Nazi occupation of Poland was one of the most brutal episodes of the war, resulting in more than two million deaths, not including some three million Polish Jews.[8] The five million Poles killed, Jewish, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, accounted for 14% of the country's population.[8](1) God only punishes up to the 4th generation: Exodus 20:5 I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Exodus 34:7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9 I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
We've had plenty of worse things than the holocaust and the civil war since we've gotten the interne

ALL your sources are Jewish bias. The church is manipulated by the Jews. There were no Christians as victims as that was put out by the jews. " Even If It Were True: There is no reason to lay blame at anybody's feet, because if Jesus had not died he could not be resurrected and his prophesy could not be fulfilled. The death and resurrection were all part of God's plan. If you believe all that.[2] Who killed Jesus is irrelevant. If you're a devout Christian, Jesus would tell you not to blame but to forgive. If Jesus hadn't died on the cross, you'd have no route to salvation. So in a way you should be thanking those who executed him, not blaming them" You pour ignorant liberal sob. "Then answered all the people and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children!" -Matt 27:25
You Change Your Age To Fit Your Arguments

Ahhhhhh, looks like you're trying to catch me again... Mr. Wheldon, My age is always constant. I did not age 3 years in 2 hours. I do not go back in time. Your claims are outlandish, nobody can age that fast. You are falsely accusing me for something I have not done. When I was 14 I made an honors program at McGill University. Currently i am 17 and living in the Bouclier region. I legitimately believe that i am superior to you. However, I will not doubt that you are intelligent. I believe my claims are entirely justified. I don't have to prove that I am smarter or more qualified than you.
Inline 4 cylinder engines are better than a V-6

My opponent has forfeited this round, and I sincerely hope that everything is alright with him. Nonetheless, the debate must go on, and the judges can extend my entire argument across the flow. I will explain why the judges should vote for me. Not only have I stayed here for the entirety of the debate, but I have proven to you that the V6 is just as good as an L4 and then some. Not only that, but my opponent essentially conceded almost all of my points, thus allowing me to prove that the V6 is indeed the better engine.
Inline 4 cylinder engines are better than a V-6

At this point judges, you can extend my entire case across the flow because my opponent has agreed with every single one of my points. His only rebuttal against my argument is just an extension of everything that he's said previously in his original arguement, and his rebuttal isn't really a rebuttal at all at this point. The only argumentative point that he makes against my case is that he states that my evidence isn't really credible enough in order to be considered valid for this debate (and the only evidence that he really talks about is the short bit of information from Wikipedia). The main point of a debate is to get my point across over my opponent, and when my opponent is saying that my sources aren't valid but agrees that the information that came from it is correct and explicitly says that in his case, it doesn't matter where it came from because he acknowledges it's correct (especially since he's someone who works with cars) and acknowledges the advantages that a V6 engine has over the L4. So therefore, my case is already better than his. The main points that this knocks down in his case are his arguments about power and stability because he agrees that the V6 is better at those fields than the L4, so the judges can wholeheartedly extend those points across the flow. As for the fuel economy, as I have shown in my evidence, V6 engines are becoming pretty much as fuel efficient as L4 engines, and if there really is any kind of disparity between L4 engines and V6 engines in the matter of their fuel economy, it's because V6 engines are designed to accomodate larger cars as well (another advantage of the V6 engine). The L4 isn't suited for larger cars, as my opponent has himself stated in his rebuttal, but a V6 can certainly be placed into smaller models. Not to mention that V6 engines are coming closer and closer to being just as fuel efficient as the L4, to the point where fuel economy differences are almost insignificant, and my opponent brings up this example about V6 engines from 20 years ago or something, but his resolutions, it states that L4 engines ARE better than V6 engines, meaning that the resolution is in the present tense. Therefore, while we're looking at V6 engines in general, we have to acknowledge what the general image for V6 and L4 engines are now, and what it is now is that they are becoming more and more efficient every single day. Thus, my argument still stands about the fuel economy. I guess that would leave my opponent's point about the maintenance of the V6 engine, but the main point of the resolution is to prove that the V6 is just as good or better than the L4. The V6 can be just as fuel efficient as the L4. It is more stable and powerful. The V6 can accomodate more cars than just the small ones. What you can clearly see is that the V6 has many more advantages than the L4 engine, and it thus fits the definition of "better" in the resolution because it is more advantageous and effective.
Inline 4 cylinder engines are better than a V-6

Firstly, Power 1. ) Yes, V-6 engines have considerable amounts of horsepower more than an inline four cylinder, because of the overall bigger displacement. However, there are some V-6 engines that displace 3.0 liters and only have 190 hp. There are some 4 cylinder engines that displace 2.0 liters and have 250 hp. so yes, it mostly depends on the engine and manufacturer of engines. 2. ) Stability I wholeheartedly agree that a V-6 is more stable than that of a L4, however i believe that the maintenance of the L4, and the ease of working on it competes with the stability of a V-6. L4 engines are very stable, Unless you increase the engine size over the reccomended 2.7 L displacement. a L4 engine has four chambers lined up straight, and they are both paired to be stable. the set up is as follows: 1-2-3-4 And the pairing pattern is as follows: 1-2-2-1 This 1-2-2-1 means that the outside two cylinders are paired, and move together, while the inside two cylinders are paired and their pistons move together. 3. )Fuel economy- I do agree that V-6 Engines are becoming more fuel efficient, but i also believe that that has something to do with the computer setup, tuning, and the type of fuel (Flex Fuel). If a v-6 engine from 20 years ago was tested against a L4 engine from 20 years ago, the L4 would have better fuel economy. Since l4 engines are only put into small cars, and small trucks, the engine does not have to pull a heavy load- allowing for better fuel economy. Bottom line, the small capacity and design of an L4 engine allows for there to be considerably better gas mileage. 4. )Lifetime On average, an L4 engine that is taken care of will last a great deal longer than a V-6 engine that is well taken care of. the simple design of the L4 allows for easy maintenance, and regular upkeep; it is harder to do so on a V-6. Lastly, i would like to state that my Opponent's Sources are not very credible. I, Myself, do not consider Wikipedia as a credible source because of the simple biased nature of men when they prefer 1 car company over the other. I will not list any sources, because i obtain my information from working on cars. I have rebuilt my L4 engine from the bottom up, and i Also replaced a 4.3L big block V-6. From troubleshooting the different cars, the L4 is much easier to work on, contains only one head, and is a much simpler machine. Thank you!