BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The world would be a better place if everyone was the same race

< > There would not be less. People would simply find other reasons to discriminate. Statistically, there would be no inter-racial violence, but there would still be just as much because it is the way of many to fight. < > Yes, it would continue, but you're completely ignoring the problems that would arise if we were all the same race. Man is very creative and to disregard this ability is foolish. Humans are territorial above all things and would not cease this behavior just because they shared the same skin color as their neighbor. < > That's your assumption. You obviously haven't thought this out very far. You're ignoring the need that many share for feeling and thinking they are superior to others -- by eliminating an obvious dividing trait, the efforts of such people will grow out of proportion. < > Again, you're wrong. Our diversity is one of our greatest strengths and will ultimately bring us together. Color is an easy reminder for us to be respectful of others and even be kinder individuals. To be just one race eliminates so much of our greatness. Would we be better if we all cut off our left arms because they oppose our right arms? That is what your argument suggests. It is our uniquenesses that require us to work at being a better race and canceling that out would only bring us closer to self-annihilation. < > It is... you just can't see it. < > As I've stated, we're already one race. Mixing the races wouldn't make a difference for those that are predisposed to ignorance and violence. < > How many wars are currently being fought based on color? None. You're deluding yourself if you think there would be less hatred and fighting. Also, you've only made claims and haven't backed up any of your claims with a single shred of evidence that suggests you're right. You have the burden of proof as the Pro of this debate, which you did nothing about. Your argument has merit, but it lacks strength. Thank you for the debate!
The world would be a better place if everyone was the same race

< > Yes, you are right. Perhaps there is a larger division between religions than there is between races. But I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about race. There would still be hatred if we were all the same race, but there would be less. Therefore your constant mention of religion is besides the point. And yes, there are people of the same race killing each other, therefore that would continue if we were the same race. However, killing people because of their colour would stop. My argument is not saying the world would be perfect. It is saying the world would be better. < > If everyone was male, there would be no reproduction and the human race would die out. Everyone being the same colour would not have even nearly as drastic consequences. Therefore, that argument is not at all like mine. < > You are trying to say that I want the only race to be white. You are wrong. I did not mean eliminating other races, I meant mixing them all together. < > Us all being the same race would not clean the ocean and help the environment and etc. Like I stated before, it would not make it a perfect world. It would improve it. And you ask how the world would be a better place? Well there would be fewer wars, less hatred and less fighting. If you think that doesn't make the world better, then I cannot understand the way in which you think.
The world would be a better place if everyone was the same race

You're absolutely wrong. Race is something that people can get passed; it's religion that causes the conflict. Your argument would have some clout if no persons of the same race ever harmed one another. The truth is, there are people of the same race killing each other at this very moment. The world would not be a better place if everyone was the same race and it is foolish to believe so. < > Yes, and in some countries women are refused education, based on their sex. Do you also agree that the world would be a better place if everyone was male? That is essentially the same argument that you're making. < > You're right, but race isn't the true and ultimate division between people -- it's religion. < > If we were all the same color, there would be just as many wars and fights because mankind is primitive and uncivilized. It's just that simple. < > You're right. < > This is the most backwards way of thinking that I've ever encountered. Eliminate folks based on race, but not religion because (presumably) white people should be able to believe in what they want, as they're not prone to violence. < > Religion isn't typically a choice. Most people are indoctinated into their religion beginning in infancy through baptism. Your argument is so unbelievable, I honestly don't know what to make of it. I'm flummoxed in a very new way by your posts that seem very racist. There's no way you're going to win this debate for the sheer fact that you cannot prove the world would be a better place if everyone were the same race. Would the ocean be cleaner? Would the environment and ecosystem suddenly cease? Would global warming no longer be an issue? Would men and women suddenly be equals and receive equal pay for the same fields of work? Would homophobia disappear, since all the gays and lesbians would be of the same race too? Would atheists also be accepted, as they're the same race, even though they tell every theist on the planet that they're idiots for their beliefs? Please, tell me in what ways the world would be a better place if we were all the same race, because last time I checked we were... the Human Race, and we've still found ways to divide ourselves from our own kind.
Bristol Palin is a tax evader

Thank you for your quick reply, and forgive me for my poor English( Sorry for being Korean ) Have you ever seen a single successful politician? The answer would be "No" ( If you know, please tell me ) People want not just a talented and intelligent politicians but someone who is stable and positive in life. Of course, the talent must be prior but if you vote for one person among two designates who have the same intelligent conditions but have differences in marriage and families, who are you going to vote for? In addition, she's a BIG politician aiming at vice president, or even the president. If people think she can't even control her family, her reputations would get totally destroyed. Namely, no one can know what really is happening in her family. And in a subjective standard, family relationship wouldn't be so good. And thank you for the funny fake picture haha
Bristol Palin is a tax evader

The point is that Sarah Palin styled herself as a ‘hockey mom', not a ‘hooker mom' and she was a staunch defender of family values. http://s970.photobucket.com... The Palin family with Bristol, proudly showing off her ‘Bristol City's' on the right. The fact that her teenage daughter went on the game and got pregnant makes a mockery of this and, therefore, the Palin family deserves to be mocked. Thank you.
Bristol Palin is a tax evader

How many prostitutes do you ever expect pay their taxes? I'm not saying that she didn't do anything legal. However, the reason people inquire her is to get some dirty spots of an opposing politician and affect people in this kind of emotional way. Look, in this extremely broad society with individualism breaking out, why do you suddenly try to hold a politician and an ordinary prostitute together? From the youth, you wouldn't have even listened to your parents, have you? And how can you ever say Bristol Palin is a tax evader just because his one naughty daughter did what she wanted to do?
Bristol Palin is a tax evader

Bristol Palin, the daughter of the former Republican Governor, Sarah Palin, has been evading tax on the income she receives working the streets of Wasilla, Alaska. She did not declare how many tricks she turned last year or how much she charged each punter and she certainly has not paid any income tax on the money she earned from prostitution. It is therefore safe to conclude that Bristol Palin is a tax evader. Thank you. http://s970.photobucket.com... Bristol Palin (middle) looking for business in the back streets of Wasilla. http://s970.photobucket.com... Bristol Palin negotiating with a potential client.
In Denver, lakeside is better than elitch's.

alright, think about it. Lakeside doesn't constantly get new rides because it appreciates nostalgia and memories. in order for new, cool rides to be built, they have to tear down old ones, which would get people riled up for no reason whatsoever. The bathrooms and drinking fountains are fine, painted with beautiful red color and one of the drinking fountains looks like a lion. And being able to do everything in one day is actually an advantage. elitche's is so big that you miss stuff and then have to pay again some other time. Besides, those elitche's rides are damn scary. I have never been on one and never want to be. Are you kidding about how nobody has visited lakeside in 30 years? Hell yeah they have. Lakeside gets an average of five hundred people a day, and over one hundred thousand people went there on opening day in 1908, when the population of denver wasn't too much above that. the rides are very well maintained and orderly.
In Denver, lakeside is better than elitch's.

Elitch's is definitely a better amusement park. First of all there are way more rides. Want a thrill? They've got the biggest coasters in the state! Don't like big rides? There are plenty of smaller rides for those who aren't thrill seekers. In fact, there's a whole kiddie area for small children to play at. Theres also the old school wooden coasters if you don't want all the crazy stuff. And did I mention the water park?! There's an entire section where you can just swim and hang out in without waiting in line. There's all kinds of water slides and wave pools. Not to mention the babes in the swimsuits. You could easily spend all day at the water park and not even get on any of the big rides if you choose to. And there's way better food. Lakeside is cheap. Emphasis on the cheap. The rides breakdown all the time and are shut down for maintenance. There's gum stuck to everything. I would avoid the bathrooms and drinking fountains at all costs. The biggest thrill at lakeside is listening to their ancient, paint chipped roller coasters creak when you are on them and wondering if you will ever make it off the ride. Plus it's super dirty. There's literally dirt all over the place. It's also small. You can probably ride everything in a few hours and have experienced the entire theme park. If you ask me, it would be better to save your money for an experience you know you will enjoy rather than spend it on a broken down park that hasn't had any new rides in 30 years.
In Denver, lakeside is better than elitch's.

Lakeside is a flourishing paradise in the middle of Denver. Elitch's is a scrawny hellhole. which one would you rather go to? Lakeside has fun rides. Elitch's has ones that will make you vomit and poop your pants, and maybe die. which one would you rather go to? Lakeside is cheap. Elitch's is expensive as hell. which one would you rather go to? Lakeside has been around for over 100 years. Elitch's has been around for maybe twenty. Which one would you rather go to? Please post your opening argument soon.
Should people that are sentenced to execution be tested on for medical purposes instead of animals

Thanks to Pro for debating this today!IntroductionI will be arguing against the resolution and I will give reasons why we certainly should not test on death row prisoners for medical purposes. I will also be countering Pro's arguments. First, it is important to define the word "defenceless" to help avoid semantics. Defenceless is defined as: adjective|without defence of protection(...)|[e.g.]attacks on defenceless civilians.[1]RebuttalsPro indicates that he doesn't approve of testing on animals because they are "defenceless creatures". However, people in prison are also defenceless. They cannot fight back any more than an animal could; they are outnumbered; they are out-armed, and they have no say in the matter once they have been sentenced to death. Therefore, for Pro to object to this argument; he must remove his own reason (or one of them) about why we shouldn't test on animals. However, to do this, my opponent gives little reason why we should ever switch, particularly when I come onto his other points below.Secondly, Pro states that "they are going to die anyway". This is actually incorrect, although it might seem miffy at first. Not all prisoners on death row are necessarily going to die. For example, take Ronald Jones or Laurence Adams, who were both released.[2][3] In fact, over one hundred people have been released from America's death row alone![4]Therefore, we can conclude that being on death row doesn't always mean that they're "going to die anyway" and thus my opponent's argument is refuted.Lastly, Pro states that they could get out of death row by "helping". This seems a little loaded. First, this wouldn't excuse their crimes and, if you released people that were pure psychopaths, there is a chance that they will kill again. It is very counter intuitive and makes sending people to death row in the first place rather pointless. Pro's point is self-defeating. Contention 1: UnethicalExperimenting on people without consent is unethical, and where they are or what they've done doesn't change this fact. They are still human, biologically speaking. It is hard for me to actually go further with this, as it is short and to the point. But, I will demonstrate the potential of unethical experiments on people that society forgets about, by pointing to history.[4] In the past, this sort of thing has been done, and it could be done again. It is immoral and unethical to expose human beings to this risk. Back to Pro!Source(s):[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2]http://nodeathpenalty.org...[3]http://www.nodp.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
4chan Should Be Banned

First and foremost, 4chan is not a site designed for pedophiles. While they're might be quite a few of active users that are indeed pedophiles, not one board is dedicated to pedophilia. A list of all boards is shown below. * Anime & Manga * Anime/Cute * Anime/Wallpapers * Mecha * Cosplay & EGL * Cute/Male * Flash * Transportation * Otaku Culture * International * Video Games * Comics & Cartoons * Technology * Television & Film * Weapons * Auto * Animals & Nature * Traditional Games * Sports * Science & Math * Oekaki * Papercraft & Origami * Photography * Food & Cooking * Artwork/Critique * Wallpapers/General * Music * Fashion * Toys * 3DCG * Sexy Beautiful Women * * Hentai * Ecchi * Yuri * Hentai/Alternative * Yaoi * Torrents * Rapidshares * High Resolution * Animated GIF * Travel * Health & Fitness * Paranormal * Literature * Advice * News * Random * Request * ROBOT9000 Clearly, most boards on 4chan are clean interest boards. Though some might be rather risque, there is no mention of pedophilia anywhere. Furthermore, posting of child pornography results in a permaban. Also, nearly every site on the internet has 'pedos' on it. Google has pedos. Youtube has pedos. Debate.org I'm sure has at least a few pedophiles registered. This doesn't mean that all sites that have pedophile members should be banned, if that were so, I'm sure we would be looking at a rather bland internet. Even if your insinuation of 4chan being entirely composed of pedophiles, it still should not be banned. Banning a site based on the sexuality of its members is complete bigotry. Even though the majority of people, including me, would frown on pedophiles, I still believe they have the right to use the internet, and browse any site at their leisure.
Uniforms In Schools K-12

I am proposing an argument based on the necessity for school uniforms. The debate over whether or not school uniforms should be mandatory has been a long standing issue for school administrators, students, and parents alike. The pros and cons for each side have resulted in a split decision in which some schools adamantly enforce the uniform policy while others employ lighter dress codes. However, with the implementation of a dress code, as opposed to a uniform policy, students retain the freedom to dress as they choose within their means. While there are benefits to this freedom, there are unfair burdens that accompany this kind of liberty. Public schools should enforce a mandated uniform policy because, in doing so, they have the ability to minimize inequalities among students. In this debate, all I ask is that my opponent use the bullet system (as opposed to paragraph) when stating his/her arguments. *Policy Proposition: I advocate that students in K-12 public schools should be required to wear a mandated school uniform. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defining key terms: Mandate: –verb (used with object) (1) to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law. (2) to order or require; make mandatory: to mandate sweeping changes in the election process. **Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... School Uniform- (1) A set of standardized clothes—worn primarily for an educational institution (2) Traditionally, school uniforms have tended to be subdued and professional. **Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Examples- (1) Males: "Navy straight legged pants, no larger than one size bigger at the waist and one inch off the ground. The shirts are white with a mandatory collar and have to be tucked in." (2) Females: "Navy jumpers, skirts, walking shorts, slacks with a white blouse tucked in." **Source: http://findarticles.com... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Grounds: 1. School uniforms make getting dressed easier and less time consuming for both parents (who dress their children) and students (those who dress themselves). 2. Uniforms are less expensive than current clothing trends, thus they are more economical. 3. Uniforms would eliminate students being ostracized based on what they wear. 4. Uniforms provide a level of safety in schools - they make identifying those who do not belong at the school easy, in addition gang affiliations are eliminated. *Warrant: Because school uniforms are time efficient, economically beneficial, create appearance neutrality, and maximize school safety, K-12 students should be required to wear mandated school uniforms.
Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool.

Zaradi, I would prefer that you don't accept this because I don't want to do the exact same debate all over again. Rules 1) First round is for acceptance only. 2) Forfeit = automatic loss3) Cases can not be posted in external links. All debate content must be posted in the round and within the 8000 character limit. 4) Typical Lincoln-Douglas debate format. 5) Questions/concerns may be voiced in the comments
The Bible is outdated

Everything is true? OK. Women are not allowed to hold any power whatsoever. Also, no shell fish for you. We have dozens of women in the government. and I don't know about you, but I enjoy some shrimp every once in a while. Those are just two of the hundreds of examples of ways that the bible is outdated. To quote a song I heard, "we are paraphrasing a book written 3500 years ago..."
Feminism Should not be Encouraged

I was beaten to the "Accept argument" button and I will like to debate this also. If you want to accept this challenge, I will make case in round two. I will copy your "Round 1", and paste it here:"I will be arguing against Feminism. I believe that it is a negative movement because feminism does not accept that sexism goes both ways and effects men as much as it does women. This is not the only point I will be making on the subject however it will be one of my primary arguments. My adversary will be arguing that Feminism is positive, and will give their reasoning for this view." - Mr0strich8020.Round 1 - acceptance. I accept. If you do not want to accept this, message me and I will cancel the debate. Good luck.I also ask for my opponent not to post a case in round one.
Feminism Should not be Encouraged

I would like to begin by first clarifying the definition of: "Feminism": "The advocacy of women"s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...] I am against the topic "Feminism Should not be Encouraged". Therefore, I am for the topic "Feminism Should be Encouraged". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Why I believe feminism should be encouraged: Feminism (by definition) aims for equal rights between sexes. Why should feminism be encouraged in schools? It would teach kids that gender discrimination is wrong. Why should feminism be encouraged to employers? It would make employers aware that gender should not be a factor when there is a competition for a job - that only the traits, abilities and other relevant factors would be necessary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I will continue after Pro produces his case. I will subsequently try and rebuttal. Good luck.
The Lord of the flies in "Lord of the Flies" was most likely an illusion.

Although it appears Con has made a compelling argument against me, in reality he has not. Ge has completely ignored proving his case, but instead continues to tell how Jack represents the Lord of the Flies. In his second round he failed to refute my arguments, so I extend them all. In the beginning round it clearly states that Con would have to proove that the Lord of the Flies was a physical entity. Just to point ou a few flaws in his argument: Con: "To dismiss this symbolism and state that the lord of the flies is not applied to a tangible element is missing the character development of Jack" This is may be relevant to the story but is not to the debate. Con: "The Lord of the Flies could be many things whether physical or metaphorical." You were suppose to proove that it was a physical entity not what it could be. Con: "But what I will state is that the sow's head is a direct symbol of Jack's savagery" Jack's savagery is not Jack. Prooving that Jack resembles the L.O.F.T. is not the same as prooving it a physical entity. I would also like to point out that by arguing that the L.OF.T. is s symbolic representation is actually implying that it is NOT a physical entity. Before you cast your votes I ask you to reread my first round and the begining of my second round to realise that Con failed to defend what he was suppose to. I ask that Con does not present any new information to the debate seeing as I cannot refute it. Thanks Con and good luck!