BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All policemen should use tazers as a last resort.

First of all, google images is not a reliable source at all, i need the link of the official website of the city, which i do not see on google images. Therefore my opponent is incompetent and wrong. Also, in the video, they used tazing as a first resort. They tazed him for what he said, if my opponent had their audio on. Therefore, my opponent is doubly incompetent. Tazing is not that life threatening and my definitions: Last Resort: is the debut single from the rock band Papa Roach's debut major-label album (and second album overall), Infest.
All policemen should use tazers as a last resort.

I will begin by refuting my opponents case. First of all my opponent says that Llandudno, North Wales is not a real place. On the contrary, it is very beautiful, and in fact, real. http://images.google.com... He then goes on to say that, "last resort is also the name of a song". This statement is irrelevant because I have provided a definition of last resort, to which he does not argue and therefor concedes to. "First resort: When the option is the first thing that comes to mind" is another one of my opponent's arguments bent on supporting his case. However, this statement itself does not provide anything to advocate for the negation of the resolution. If, the video he posted was indeed evidence to support how first resort tazering was used, he is clearly mistaken. As was shown, the police officers took the man in their arms to escort them away from the scene. The man resisted to the point to where two police officers could not take the man into custody, thus having to taze him. Nevertheless, I have shown that the man was not tazered as a first resort. My opponent's video then has no meaning behind it because none of my opponent's case provides any detail on it. Finally my opponent states that, "So, I conclude this round by saying tasers are always needed." However that does not apply directly to the resolution. I, too, believe that tazers are always needed, but only to be used as a last resort. My opponent has not sufficiently refuted my points whereas I have countered all of his. For these reasons and more I plead an affirmative vote. I stand ready for round 3.
All policemen should use tazers as a last resort.

Okay, first of all there is no place named this: Llandudno, North Wales. Second of all last resort is also the name of a song. This is why tasers should be used as a first resort: http://www.youtube.com... A definition: First resort: When the option is the first thing that comes to mind Also, tasers are needed for protection: http://www.ppao.gov.on.ca... So, I conclude this round by saying tasers are always needed.
There some is racism against whites

For my final argument I will address the points that Pro made in his final argument. "If the crime was black on hispanic, black on white, or black on black it would've never made the news. It wouldn't have been an issue and wouldn't have gotten any attention. "While I feel that you are correct in saying if it had between African Americans or Hispanics it wouldn't have made the news, it did make the news because George Zimmerman used racial profiling to call Trayvon Martin a "suspicious" person and run him down and kill the teenager. That's why it made the news. It would have made the news even if an African American ran down and killed a Caucasian kid. "Anti-white racism pervades his administration. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters at a polling booth in Philadelphia. Mr. Holder has ordered the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division not to investigate crimes perpetrated by blacks against white victims. If this is not a racial double standard, then I don't know what is. "I will admit this is wrong and something needs to be done about this, but these are extremists. They do not represent the general populace. That's like calling all Muslims terrorists after 911. "UT has used every trick it could think of to get more blacks and Hispanics into its flagship campus at Austin. At first, it didn"t even need tricks. It openly gave non-whites extra consideration, which meant they got in with much worse grades and test scores than whites. UT immediately started paying attention to other things. It invented something called a "Personal Achievement Index" (PAI) that gave applicants extra credit for being poor, growing up without a father, and speaking a language other than English at home"but no points for race. It was a transparent effort to get race in through the back door, but it didn"t work very well. An annoying number of white students got high PAI scores. While laws were passed to stop the discrimination UT still wanted it, another law was created so prevent this from happening again. "This is literally copy pasted from my opponents first source. "Fleming said high-scoring white applicants are added to lists of qualified candidates who must compete for a nomination from a member of Congress. But almost every nonwhite applicant is deemed "qualified," even with lower grades or test scores " and not added to a list to compete for a nomination. "This is copy pasted from his next source. I thought this was an interesting and fun topic to debate.
There some is racism against whites

You made some valid points, but I was also going to bring up the Trayvon Martin case. If the crime was black on hispanic, black on white, or black on black it would've never made the news. It wouldn't have been an issue and wouldn't have gotten any attention. Anti-white racism pervades his administration. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for intimidating white voters at a polling booth in Philadelphia. Mr. Holder has ordered the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division not to investigate crimes perpetrated by blacks against white victims. If this is not a racial double standard, then I don't know what is. Because in our society today, you can't be prejudice towards a white person, you say whatever you want about it and it's always a joke. And it's not the same the other say around. Now there are scholarships based solely on race, favoring hispanics or blacks. UT has used every trick it could think of to get more blacks and Hispanics into its flagship campus at Austin. At first, it didn"t even need tricks. It openly gave non-whites extra consideration, which meant they got in with much worse grades and test scores than whites. UT immediately started paying attention to other things. It invented something called a "Personal Achievement Index" (PAI) that gave applicants extra credit for being poor, growing up without a father, and speaking a language other than English at home"but no points for race. It was a transparent effort to get race in through the back door, but it didn"t work very well. An annoying number of white students got high PAI scores. While laws were passed to stop the discrimination UT still wanted it, another law was created so prevent this from happening again. http://www.amren.com... Fleming said high-scoring white applicants are added to lists of qualified candidates who must compete for a nomination from a member of Congress. But almost every nonwhite applicant is deemed "qualified," even with lower grades or test scores " and not added to a list to compete for a nomination. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
There some is racism against whites

I would like to start my argument by defining racism. Racism is defined as defined as a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others [1]. Let's break this down. Racism is when two or more cultures (Caucasians and African Americans) come together and one believes they are superior to the other. African Americans suffered through this for a LONG time. Nearly two centuries of slavery in and out of America and decades of being discriminated against. Caucasians have nothing on what African Americans suffered. In the opening argument Pro stated that racism against minorities had nearly disappeared. I disagree however. For nearly forty years, Wilcox County High-School in Georgia has allowed parents to host separate "Black and White" proms [2]. Thats FORTY years after all schools in America desegregated! Racism is still more than present in America, especially the Southern states. Racial profiling is still more than around as well. Trayvon Martin ring a bell? I await my opponents response. (For the record I am Caucasian) [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.cnn.com...
There some is racism against whites

While there is still some racism to minorities today, racism against whites is rising. I'm not a white supremacists or a skin head. But here's the thing, I say I'm proud to be white, I'm called racist. A black man says he's proud to be back, he's fine. A white person says the "n" word, he's racist. A black man says the "n" word, it's totally normal. When in reality nobody should be saying that word. You can pretty much get away with any racial comment if you're a black and maybe hispanic. But if you're white even the slightest comment will get people screaming at you that you're a bigot minority hater. The stereotype of whites as racist has real and negative consequences for its targets. This has been shown in a recent study by psychologist Phil Goff and colleagues. The researchers conducted a study in which they had white participants arrange three chairs so that they could have a conversation with two black partners about a racially sensitive topic-- here, racial profiling. The findings showed that the more that participants were worried about confirming the white racist stereotype, the greater distance they put between themselves and their partners when arranging the chairs. Thus their anxiety about seeming prejudiced caused them to distance themselves from a person of a different race. Other research suggests that concerns about appearing prejudiced take up so much mental energy among whites that their social skills become impaired during intergroup interactions. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Should europe take in non euorpean refugees

"I fail to see any facts in your post" I gave logical critiques of your argument. They are factual by virtue of tautology and pragmatism. I don't rely on appeals to authority like you do to have somebody give me their opinion that "immigrants raise the crime rate" Your "facts" are just the opinion of an authority. So how is your authorities' opinion any more valid than mine. Your authority gave no logical arguments. Maybe you should stop neigh saying and actually justify your position. You can't just boldly claim that immigrants are causing problems and then show now entailment. "Nationalism is good. " No it's not and believing this makes you prejudice. That's not a personal attack, It's a fact. "6% of rapes were conducted by people not from sweden, In another study it was proven that 42 of 43 cases were foreigners who had raped someone. "" You have provided no source to prove that these numbers are accurate. Where's the study? If there's no study, Then you're just speculating. Period. It's pretty well known that rapes are one of the most underreported crimes. There's probably locals raping people too and they're just getting away with it because the people are married or dating. Most rapes and people being violently assaulted on the street. Most rapes are girlfriends or hook ups who get coerced into seemingly consensual sex. When you say rape, You're talking about someone going out on the street and forcing themselves on someone. Those types of rapes don't really happen that much. "What if a bank robber started criyng in court. . . Would he be let free? " This sentence shows your prejudice. Immigrants are not criminals, Comparing them to bank robbers is false. "I was going to ask you a question but i don't think you would answer with facts anyway so it does not matter. " Are you here to debate or not? Ask the question. Don't assume I'm obtuse. This is slightly childish of you. Your floor. I'm out of characters.
Should europe take in non euorpean refugees

I fail to see any facts in your post, It is allot of I feel and I Think. I find your post also quite rude saying that I hate some people, Nationalism is good. It is what makes you, Me, They, We and I into us. In the comments there is also someone who says that there is no link betwen increase in crime and immigration but 95, 6% of rapes were conducted by people not from sweden, In another study it was proven that 42 of 43 cases were foreigners who had raped someone. In Finland were a nationalist party came in to the parliament there are ALMOST no rapes. This is not because Finland have less men, They have less refugees. In the Swedish election there was a woman who candidated for parliament saying Allah is great, The somalies are great. In sweden they recently made a law where people who have no reason to stay in the country can stay anyway. Terrorists and murderers and rapists have used this law to walk out free from jail and of course. . . . . . All immigrants. there are people who are meant to be deported who get to stay because they cried on the plane. What if a bank robber started criyng in court. . . Would he be let free? Billions are spent on deporting people who never actully get deported and the media glorifies this. I am using sweden as an exampel because it might be the most liberal country in europe. Some I know compare sweden with North korea but at least they keep track of their borders. I am not saying everybody should be deported, Only the illegal and criminal immigrants. Most immigrants come to sweden and then don't work and why should swedes pay for it. In muslim schools boys and grls are seperated which is illegal. So the primeminister says all religous schools should be banned because he does not dare to say what we all know, It is only in muslim schools that this happens. I would like to thank this website for not censuring wiews like mine which sites like facebook and youtube does so people like you can live in your little bouble that Everything is fine. I was going to ask you a question but i don't think you would answer with facts anyway so it does not matter.
Should europe take in non euorpean refugees

Refugees from mostly syria, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan are not all really refugees since the laws of the EU (for eu countries) say that asylum refugees have to apply citizenship in the country they are in, But most of them go through 5-6 countries to get to northern europe which makes them economic refugees and not asylum refugees. The people that come in to our countries are our guests and if they repay our kindness and hospitality with crime and extreme islamisation they can leave the country AND GO BACK. In sweden where i am from rape has rissen with OVER 300% and it is not because we have increased in population, Something has happened. 2010 politicians said that retired people would still get their benefits in sweden and immigration was good but today. . . You see old people collect cans on the street to turn in for Money while refugees get dental care for 50 sek retired people have to borrow from friends and family over 3000 sek. Our schools are slowly adapting to islam as i saw when i worked that ALL Children i kindergarten eat Halal meat. In V"sxj" ( a small Town in sweden) a pray woke up thousands of people, It was at 110 decibels which is at consert level. People were outraged over that the politicians had not let the townspeople vote on it, Not even let them know. Our cultural heritage is being set on fire. I will end with a quote "You can't sing we shall overcome when the Capitals of europe is on fire.
Should europe take in non euorpean refugees

"Yes i do own my country" This tells me everything I need to know. You're a bigot. All of your talk about crime rates and such are just a red herring to distract from the point that you just don't like foreigners. By the way. Since you think you own the country, Why don't you just go order the EU to follow your policy. We both know why you haven't. You don't own your country. The mathematical example you gave was dismal. You simply assigned variables to people without any justification for them and you excluded factors in the economy that are necessary to make these kinds of calculations. We have historical examples to show that stopping immigration is much more expensive than allowing it. So if your argument is money, Then you should be for immigration. "First you decided to call me names and say I spread fear" There is nothing wrong with me pointing out that your position is bigoted. Attacking ideas is fair game in a debate. I didn't insult you personally, Only your ideas. If you want people to not call you a bigot and fear monger, Then you should stop acting the part. "but you have not given a single argument to why we should keep europe open" Sure I did. You just didn't accept the arguments. There's a difference. My points don't evaporate simply because you neigh say. You haven't proven that my critiques of your position are invalid. Furthermore. I'm arguing for the societal norm, So the burden of proof is on you to change the mind of society. I'm already on the winning team. "ethnicity excists. In germany the germans are priority and in italy the italians are the priority, " This is just bigotry. Not an impressive argument. This is the problem. Your entire argument hinges on extreme nationalism/racism depend on how you present it. That makes it immoral. With your bigotry, Your argument falls apart because you're just arguing for causing harm to people.
Should europe take in non euorpean refugees

You said "Seriously the dude posts his sources in the description" Did you read the sources? If so, Then why wouldn't you give me the data of the sources instead of citing a random authority. I'm already hearing your opinions. Why would I want to hear your opinions about other people's opinions who aren't even involved in this debate? You said "A final stand for europe to defend european values" This seems to be one of the two main points of your argument. This is just extreme nationalism. Nationalism is just another form of prejudice. You're arguing for bigotry if you make this one of your points. You said "If someone came in your house by the backdoor, Hiding and then trashing the Place would you let them stay just because they are homeless? The house is europe and of course you would not let them stay. " This is not a proper analogy. You own your house, You do not own your country. They're not coming into your country and stealing your "possessions", They're coming in and getting jobs and supporting themselves the same as you. I reject this entire line of thinking. You said "You can help less people in europe or more in the arab countries. " This is what's known as a false dichotomy. You're saying it has to be one or the other, But, In fact, You could do both. This is because you've taken two things that are not direct opposites and pose them as being direct opposites. A true dichotomy would look like this: 1) You can help less people in Europe or you can not help less people in Europe. 2) You can help more arabs or you can help less arabs. Once we make this a proper dichotomy, It becomes very clear that your argument here holds no weight. This is why I tell you that making appeals to authorities doesn't help your case. Your authority is just another person's opinion, Which can be wrong, And I've proven as much right here. I'll address the rest in my closing, I'm out of characters to type.
Should europe take in non euorpean refugees

Seriusly the dude posts his sources in the disription, Did you even look at it. Yes it is a youtuber becuase the high nobility are not the people who are affected but the most poor people like those who have retired or people like him who are lower class are the affected. The resistance against migration can be compared to the french revolution, A nobility politician class has appeared and the or the spartans holding of europe against the persians. A final stand for europe to defend european values. If someone came in your house by the backdoor, Hiding and then trashing the Place would you let them stay just because they are homeless? The house is europe and of course you would not let them stay. I also Think that european countries should focus on where the most refugees are, Still in the arab countries. The camps there are crowded and needs much more fundings then they are getting. It actully takes less Money to help someone in the Close areas to conflict. The Worlds best econmomist said that Jimmie "kesson was right, Jimmie "kesson is party leader of SD which is a nationalistic party in sweden and EU parliament. That the best Economist and political scientist says less migration and more help in the area around the conflict where it helps the most. You can help less people in europe or more in the arab countries. I would like to say that your method of handling the migration crisis is immoral since at the moment the medeteranian sea is used as a buffer zone, The people who get to europe get to stay and the ones who do not dies. A couple of years ago, I don't know if you remember this, There was a photo of a 3 year old boy dead on a beach in the medeteranian sea only made at least the people that i know want fewer people to go over the medeteranien. That is my stance on this issue. You say that everybody should be allowed to risk their lives on those boats, With more help in the Closer area to the conflict people will not have to riks their lives, They can stay in countries similar to theirs and we get our for ourselfs, But no the leftists want people to risk their lives because then their countries will be so much better with other Cultures. https://secure. I. Telegraph. Co. Uk/multimedia/archive/03426/refugee_01_3426825b. Jpg Yes I might only be 17, But I know how to use a gun. I whent on a military summercamp so do not doubt that I will defend my country. And it is law that everybody above 16 need to contribute with something in a war. But if I would flee I would only go to countries nearby and not upgrade myself and then force other people on my Culture and religion, I would never commit a crime in the country that showed me their hospitality, I would show my gratitude instead. These people are our guests and they need to adapt to us not we adapt to them, They should work and adapt or get out of our continent.