BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Police Profiling is a good thing.

First of all, I would like to clear some things up on some definitions because I believe that you have manipulated them to work for you. You give a definition of discrimination, in literal terms, but expect us to use the word in it's standard term, by that definition discrimination isn't a bad thing, for example saying that travel guides are helpful is discrimination, but is not meant to be rude or insulting, and the American Heritage's definition of prejudice "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." does not fit the category because the facts are examined which is why the profiling occurs, therefore if you really want to go by exact definitions police profiling can be racist in some cases, but fits your definition of racism in a positive way. You say that because the definition of demographics is "a portion of a population" and that the portion would "include different races", but it could just as easily be the white portion of a population, the male portion of a population, the portion living in the north have of town, etc. and these are the very things police profiling is based on. You state in your first paragraph that "...hardly deals with the more harmful crimes committed in society, such as assaults, robberies, and other violent crimes. You can't prevent them by profiling people" which is a foolish assumption, people are far less likely to rob a store if they have seen cops around the neighborhood all day, or beat someone if they know the cops will see them, the very presence of police helps to deter crime. Your last paragraph in reference to my interpretation is seriously flawed, you state that "police profiling is a racist practice" completely ignoring the fact that police profiling can be used to target other portions of a group, and that "Racism is a dehumanizing practice" although I have shown in my first paragraph that by your loose definition racism isn't always bad. I would still like for you to either A-Prove to me that some police profiling is racist in a negative way, and is bad enough to offset any good that comes of police profiling or B- Police profiling is bad regardless of racism. Below I have listed several pieces of evidence for you to prove that profiling can work. http://www.ncpc.org... Clearly states that knowing whom is committing a crime can help with prevention, exactly what police profiling does. http://www.ncjrs.gov... states numerous times that we must look at specific areas and specialize techniques, again, something police profiling does.
Police Profiling is a good thing.

I'm going to keep this short since it's midnight and it is due soon, sorry I didn't post sooner, I have been very busy. Since you are so fond of scenarios I'll use one for an example. Imagine that you are the chief of police and you have just been informed that crime rates are out of control, you know from research that white males commit more crimes than black males, would you really just sit around saying, "I have an idea, lets split our forces evenly, and hope that the criminals decide to come to us"? This is what you have proposed, by saying that police profiling is bad. I would like to remind you that police profiling and how police treat suspects are two different things. A case of harassment, or abuse by a police officer based on race is racism, and has nothing to do with police profiling, which is simply a way of more efficiently deciding who may or may not be a criminal, so all arguments stating that this is an issue are pointless, considering they haven't been linked to the resolution. I would also like to make note of the fact that the resolution is "Police Profiling is a Good Thing", so unless you believe that all police profiling is bad because black criminals get pulled over more than white criminals I have no further arguments.
Police Profiling is a good thing.

I believe that police profiling is not a bad thing, and back my belief with numerous reasons. For this debate we will go by this definition of police profiling - The use of demographics and statistics by law enforcement to deter, prevent, and apprehend criminals. Police profiling is effective; Police profiling is a very effective way of catching criminals and preventing crime, and allows the police to focus on areas where crime is high, and needs to be prevented. Racial Profiling isn't racist; Whether black, white, or hispanic, a criminal is a criminal, and if more black people than hispanics commit crime, the police should focus do their duty which is to protect citizens, and make attempts to stop crime, so if the black people commit the crime, stop the black people, if the white people are the majority of criminals, stop the white people. To say that racial profiling is bad is like saying that high crime areas should be treated the same as crime free areas, and puts the lives of citizens at risk. -I am sorry if this seems at all racist, it is simply meant to justify what our law enforcement officers do to protect us
the uncontrolled drug addict

Thank you! I agree that it can be frustrating to see someone turn back to bad and unhealthy habits even after seeking help. They don't apply what they learned and the downwards spiral only keeps going lower and lower. Some may hit the bottom; it's been known to happen. It's an unfortunate fate that some suffer through but if they get the help they needed and don't use it that was completely their choice. The addict made an effort to get out, however didn't have enough willpower to see to it that drugs are not in their system again. That's what addictive substances can do to you. No matter how much one may try to get away from it, the thought creeps back into their mind from the dark recesses of the brain and begins to consume their thoughts again. The person can choose to use what they learned and fight it, or start feeding their addiction again and land back onto square one. Thank you for debating this topic! It was really interesting. Sorry if this argument sounds weird. I just came from a poem battle and now my brain is coming up with words to rhyme. Oh well.
the uncontrolled drug addict

So wow, I completely understand and have acknowledged the physical 'hook' a drug has in the drug user. I know very well that the only thing they care about it the next hit. You have read my words as though I am offended. I am observing the fact that, once the addict has the tools to stop using permanently - and they don't use those tools, and keep using those tools to stay clean - then I personally draw a line. This is definitely not about me, or the drug addict. This is an opinion page and I certainly have the right to share this opinion. As much as you have the right to critique that opinion. Maybe a productive suggestion would be to improve the teachings on how to help the addict learn and stay learned and active in their recovery rather than cutting treatment short to help them stay weak in their addiction
the uncontrolled drug addict

You don't seem to understand this concept fully. The drug addicts aren't doing it for you, they're doing it for themselves; they don't care that you're pissed off. Now that we've got that covered, let's get down to the science of drugs. As you said, drugs are made to be addictive so that the makers can get money. But you're angry at the person for their lack of willpower even though it's not completely their fault. That's all that they can focus on because of the way they get the "high" from the drug. It feels so amazing that they want it over and over again, the thought consuming their mind and controlling their every action. The drug calls out to the user, a silent force capable of devastating effects to the user and their relationships. As the dopamine decreases each use, the need to get the same reaction as the first time makes the person lose any control they had once had over themselves. Who cares what happens to their loved ones, future, and/or possessions? All they want is to be on Cloud Nine once again and soar through the bliss that is never truly there. People lose themselves over these drugs. Rather than insulting him and simply stating that they should get help, encourage them to end their addiction and seek aid to do so in a kind and understanding nature. The first step is to confess of having a problem, and the rest after that relies on how the person plans to fix it (if they plan to do so at all). Some people's willpower isn't that strong, but some others can grow a resistance to temptation as strong as titanium. They don't do this because they care about you, your respect, or your opinions; they do this because they are broken and chose the wrong way to try and cure their depression. You are not the center of the universe; not everyone cares about what you think.
the uncontrolled drug addict

I'm very much totally outraged by the lack of control an addict has of their own activity At first, when the new user gets a taste of this drug of choice, they don't think that this will consume their very lives for any time beyond the use. They don't stop to even consider that. They are searching for a high. period. There are drugs designed now to wrap your mind around them and keep them on there. The drug is produced with that in mind. One of the most heinous acts of humankind toward its own. So the user is hooked. The user can't get enough and stops at nothing to get more. Each time they head toward the pickup, they are hating themselves for being slaves to the harness, but are salivating at the prospect of the taste of the bit. The mind spins in circles of how this time would be the last time and how good they will be again and right back around once they come down again, to when they could get another hit and how to go about that. It's like watching a predator search for it's prey. The people they rip off and cheat and lie to are inconsequential in the fore mind where the craving lives. The yearning is allowed to take over all reasoning in the mind. The high quiets the shattering of the heart. Once the user is aware of this cycle and utters their first words of acknowledgement of the power the drug has over them, but still goes and picks up? I lose my sh&^! Once the user learns the skills on how to shut the yearning up and still goes and picks up? I lose all respect for them After that, I pity them and how close they have just move their date of death to them. I pity the family that watch them die, use by use. I pity the world around them witnessing their state of high and drug paraphanlia out in the world IF YOU KNOW HOW TO STOP. THEN STOP. ONLY YOU CAN STOP THAT. NONE OF US WANT TO BE PART OF THAT PITIFUL WORLD.
Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist.

My opponent now not only accuses me more of being off-topic, but actually makes some hypocritical statements in this concluding round. In this round I will refute my opponent's final accusations and strengthen my own case. My last response 1. My opponent accuses me of illogically inferring my opponent's resolution. Instead, what he is really doing is illogically inferring and accusing my argument and his own resolution, when clearly the resolution for us to debate and whether nothing logically exists or not. Of course my opponent has defeated themselves in the first place. If the resolution contained the word "Philosophically" I would not have debated him on this topic. Therefore, I am not debating off-topic but rather my opponent is debating off-topic from the first round because he literally changed the resolution after it was made. Rather, he is willfully off-topic. 2. My opponent has again illogically inferred my argument. The first thing I took literally was the resolution. Then I read the altered resolution in the first round. If I take it literally, then literally my opponent is trying to change the debate. Therefore Pro is willfully off-topic. 3. My opponent tries to defend his conduct points by stating that he was not trying to insult me. This is an obvious fallacy. Firstly, saying that my argument is juvenile and childish is an insult on its own. Secondly, if that argument was made by myself (which it was), he is consequently calling me juvenile and childish. My opponent cannot disprove this. Contentions I will, for a moment, take time to focus on my own contentions. The resolution says "Logically speaking, nothing cannot exist". Logically, nothing can exists, because as I have said before, it is in front of us right now so many times, and we mention it all the time elsewhere. It follows the rules of logic. What's more, basically my opponent is trying to disprove this as he literally points to what I am talking about. Literally, this point cannot be disproved without changing the resolution and is therefore, under the circumstances, correct. Conclusion I will not conclude this debate right away. This conclusion is rather a response to Pro's last paragraph. My opponent reviews an entire case that reviews my arguments. Unfortunately, he leaves out a few details. He only vaguely describes the resolution instead of actually telling me what the resolution was. Was it simply "God exists"? Or was it "Philosophically speaking, it is a certainty that God exists"? Without these details he has proved nothing. Pro has failed to prove my arguments wrong and has even tried to make some insults and hypocritical statements. The most glaring one is that he is stating that I am debating off-topic, when he obviously was from the start. Here is why: 1. He has tried to change the resolution. 2. He insists on debating on the altered topic instead of what is actually the resolution. 3. Even after reading my arguments on his faulty resolution, he insists on debating on the different topic. As you can see, even though Pro seems to understand what I am saying, instead he is woefully misguided. Thank you.
Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist.

My opponent accuses me of going off topic on my argument. I honestly cannot see why, as according to the resolution, I am to debate about if nothing can exist or not. That is what I did, and I understand my opponent's arguments clearly, and I am being completely serious. I will refute some of my opponent's accusations here. The premise In the resolution, the word nothing is not capitalized. It just has a capital letter at the front. Round 1 My opponent states that he made a clarification on the premise. This is true. However he could have made that the resolution itself, which would basically sound like "Philosophically speaking, there is a something rather than nothing". Only that time can we put this debate in the Philosophy section. My opponent should have thought more carefully about the resolution and which category it really falls under, instead of just making assumptions that the contender will blindly accept. My opponent also states that he has "spent 3 months thinking about nothing." That does not clarify anything at all. It is possible that he was just thinking about nothing but never deepened his thoughts. Again he is making assumptions. Finally, my opponent says that the word pure would completely clarify everything that he wants to debate. Yet once more he assumes that it really does, but it really doesn't. After all, we are to debate whatever the resolution says. In debates we must take everything literally. Evidence in comments 1. I absolutely did use round one to define logic. However that does not do anything to the debate topic. I am merely stating what logic means, and under the circumstances it actually helped me slightly. 2. The comments section does not do anything to the resolution. My opponent is relying on many places to base the resolution, which shouldn't happen in a debate. Arguments A1. I don't understand why my opponent is so greatly upset at my summary of his case. I only said what I said because that was the only thing to summarize. Plus, what I was trying to imply was that my opponent could only argue about one thing and that he could have argued more about others. A2. Pro loses conduct points for referring to me as "juvenile" and "childish". Just because I made that argument does not mean that I am juvenile, nor does it have to make my argument so. Plus, I argued that because of the faulty resolution. Pro is basically creating a faulty resolution and blaming the whole thing on me. Again, I'd like to say on DDO we take debates literally. What the resolution says is that logically speaking, nothing cannot exist. Logically, it can exist because we are repeating it countless times not only visually, but when speaking and hearing as well, not to mention mentally. Conclusion In conclusion, pro has made a faulty conclusion and not only does he blame it on me, but he actually makes an offensive statement in his argument as well. With all due respect, I would like my opponent to realize he has made a faulty resolution, and that as I am writing this I am realizing he dropped this rebuttal. And once again, to pro.
Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist.

I will jump right into this, with my rebuttals and contentions pretty much mixed in with each other. Pro's resolution When pro states that nothing cannot exist, I am assuming he is trying to say three things: 1. The state of nothing is impossible as there must be something in any given area, especially space. 2. Nothing Is impossible even in all forms. So therefore, if I can state one form of nothing, even a form that wouldn't even relate to what my adversary is talking about (which is physics), my opponent ultimately loses the whole debate. I will state this very unusual form, which is the only one, after I go over my opponent's arguments extremely quickly. . My opponent argues with detail about how space is something and how it cannot be removed. This seems to be the only thing he argues about and has not thought about other possible forms of "nothing". And it seems once I state my "form" of nothing, there is absolutely no way my adversary can win this debate, unless he has his saving grace up his sleeve which I doubt he does. And now, I will state the one form of nothing which is. .. Nothing. Right there. The form of nothing is itself the word nothing. And, yes, at first all you readers out there may be confused as to how this corresponds to the debate, but I would like you to take another look at the resolution. It starts off with "logically speaking". Logically, the word nothing itself is a form of nothing, as it is right in front of our eyes countless times and it exists. It is agreeing with the principles of logic. Had my adversary rephrased that to scientifically speaking or something else that would allow his case to be stronger, I would agree with him entirely. Conclusion My adversary has failed to show why nothing cannot exist, and I have proved that there is a logical form of "nothing", which is the word nothing itself. I hand the floor back to pro.
Logically speaking, Nothing cannot exist.

Why is there something rather than nothiing? Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Rebuttals/Arguments Round 4. No new points, further support for arguments, rebuttals and conclusion Defintions Nothing: No things, No things that could be indentified, Burden of Locical conclusion is shared, proof isn't avaliable This is primarily a thought experiment type of debate. I've spent three months thinking about nothing. I've come to the conclusion that there is something rather than nothing, because a pure nothing is most likely impossible. I have no idea how this debate will go. Many of these "thought concepts" become hard to follow or even turn back on themselves. It is a fun thing to think about, nothing. If you accept, please be willing to argue for your position. Arguing isn't unsupported assertions, reason must be used. Good Luck Lets have a little fun
HAVING ONE TESTICLE IS BETTER THAN HAVING THREE TESTICLES!!!!! (Oh yes I did)

1) Better to have too many than too fewSurgery Wise you have a point in that one can be easily removed, but what if you only have one large one and two smaller ones? Now you have to choose between being slightly heavier on one side than another or go small just to keep them even, which would put the person in charge in a difficult position. You claim that the only way for people with one ball to fix the problem surgically is too wait for a testicular transplant, not true at all! " if having an empty scrotum on one side bothers you, you can ask the urologist about having an artificial implant to give the appearance and feel of a normal testicle. These are either silicone, or a silicone bag filled with saline (similar to a breast implant)."http://www.embarrassingproblems.com...Close your eyes and skip to the very bottom on that source to avoid laughing at the images.....Point is that if you have one ball, it can be fixed rather easily and cheaply compared to having three balls which has many other problems and the surgery is a lot more expensive. The Con said that having three testicles is better than having one since you can just get one removed. That is true but you must also take into account the fact that having three testicles means you are at a higher risk for testicular cancer than just having 1....http://www.steadyhealth.com...2) Sperm count - 1 - Higher chance of sexThe Con says that women and men from all around the world will fly to your front door to have sex with you since you have three testicles. The Con has not taken into effect how high gas prices are ($4 and climbing) which clearly shows how women and men will not fly around the world to meet you - 2 - Higher chance of pregnancyI extend my argument about how having three balls is worse than having one since having three means you are more at risk for catching the STD called "children". After all it is well known that unprotected sx can lead to both the male and the female becoming infected with "children" - 3 - Higher chance of wet dreamsBecause everybody likes waking up in the morning with a pool of semen in their underwear......I await the Con's refutations of my arguments.