BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tradesmen and Laborers Are Subhuman

Seeing as Pro forfeited this round, I'll make this short.Tradesmen and Laborers exist, as humans, because they are a very fundamental part of everyone's lives.I could make reference to a popular web show that deals with the issue of treating the "working" class as beings lesser than humans (1), even if it doesn't do it all that well. There are a lot more people who are laborers and tradesmen then there are other jobs. If you treated these people as lesser beings, they will, because they are human, fight back for themselves (Martin Luther King being a prime example of this phenomenon). I'm not a psychologist, but I think one only needs to look at the world and the state it is in to realise that humans are fundamentally violent and selfish beings. If after the peaceful protests, America didn't buckle, I would place a lot of money on the African Americans becoming very violent in their efforts. 80% of the world's population holds just 20% of the power, but being the massive 80% that it is, it's also the group most likely to cause change to the world. Being sentient beings - no matter how often they try to prove they aren't - the workforce will fight back at the bad treatment. In the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 (2), the peasants of the feudal system, those that would be called laborers in this day and age, rose up against their superiors in order to make change. In the end, that revolt was suppressed, but if you look at a list of all the recorded revolts (3), you can see that there are many revolts that have occurred throughout history, and while you can see that most of the time the "peasants" have been suppressed or otherwise defeated, they have also caused large changes some of the time. and in the last 80 or so years, most of the revolts have been successful. (1) https://roosterteeth.com...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Tradesmen and Laborers Are Subhuman

It turns out I was wrong. Tradesmen and laborers are not the only ones who are subhuman. You are, too. I was laughing to myself when I read in the comments that you wanted to debate me. Normally I don't go to the effort to destroying someone with an IQ south of 80. But for you sir, I will make an exception. Your debate is worthless straight off the bat. "Tradesmen and laborers are clearly normal humans." "Clearly normal." That's your argument? You silly little man. How would you possibly know what is "clear"? Subhuman is defined as "of a lower order of being than humans", thus, all tradesmen and laborers need to be is of a lower order. And evidently they fit that bill. I don't care about your pathetic attempt to involve the United Nations. They're just a weak and deluded pack of fools anyhow, and they don't apply job criteria when categorizing humans and non-humans. Your point about those at the top of the food chain simply adds to my argument, you brainless baboon. I thought this was supposed to be a debate. You are absolutely correct about wealth and power. It's the same as if the fish died in the sea we would not have our wealth. If the bacteria disappear from the planet we would all perish. The disturbed and diseased tradesmen and laborers are on the same level as these things. Just because we need the tradesmen, doesn't mean they're not disgusting, inhuman, moronic fools. Just like you are. Surrender now, before your micro penis crawls back inside your body to hide. But what could I expect from such a coward. The end. I win.
Tradesmen and Laborers Are Subhuman

Tradesmen and Laborers are clearly normal humans. They eat the same food as everyone else. They enjoy the same television as everyone else. Many of the best things made in the world are handmade - by tradesmen. If there weren't people like the tradesmen and laborers, those who live at the "top of the food chain" wouldn't have all their wealth and power. They are all recognised by the United Nations, as well as all the western Nations of the world to be Homo Sapiens. Human Beings, fully fledged, and not at all a sub-race to the rest of us. They are the building blocks, the wide base, that allows the small population at the top to be there. Everyone has their worth.
Tradesmen and Laborers Are Subhuman

Tradesmen and laborers are all filthy morons whose meager occupations are the only thing keeping them from a swift end. Just as the horses used to pull us in carts down the street, now they are the ones who pave the roads beneath our feet. They're animals. Soon enough their jobs will be obsolete anyway. In a decade or so we will have no need for the idiotic mongrels. They have no concern for personal hygiene or even an inkling of intelligence. They are not even in the same species as human beings. They are their own species. Not Homo Sapiens. They are Homo Tradiens. They are subhuman, and worthless in this world. If Con forfeits any round, I win. If Con uses ad hominems, I win. Happy debating!
Tradesmen and Laborers Are Subhuman

Well, this has been an experience. I would like to thank Pro for said experience, I've never debated against someone so hell bent on insulting everyone else in the world. Tradesmen and laborers are as human as everybody. They have the same feelings, similar experiences, the same types of friends, a spouse, or at least a lover. They probably have similar highs in their lives, as well as the same lows. The only difference between "us" and "them" is how we go about earning our money, and what we spend it on. This world may be full of violence and destruction, but everyone has someplace, somewhere, that they go to, and just get away from everything. Money doesn't equal happiness. I know people who've been to places like Cambodia, or Thailand, and they all said when they came home, that even though they didn't have much, they were some of the happiest people they've ever met. Tradesmen and laborers don't have piles of money, but they don't need it. Studies (1) show that all you need to be happy is $75,000 a year. Above that, and you won't feel an happier.(1) http://content.time.com...
Living as an Anarchist in America makes you unamerican.

My opponent states that it's only possible to be an American while living in the United States. This is incorrect as it is possible to be an American while living in another country. As long as you're born in America or an official immigrant a person is still considered an American. However, criminals or other people acting against American laws are often not given the same rights as any other american citizen(or not allowed to enter the United States if from another country). As followers of a violent ideology, Anarchists may be more inclined to commit crimes against the state. This in itself is an unamerican act and all criminals aren't full citizens. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttel.
Living as an Anarchist in America makes you unamerican.

I look forward to making my argument. Formalities aside we shall now begin. I would first like to bring back the definition of "Un-American" Pronunciation - [uhn-uh-mer-i-kuhn] 1. not American; not characteristic of or proper to the U. S. ; foreign. In this definition we see that to be un american you need to be foreign or not proper to the US. Regardless of mental status even someone with anarchist views who inhabits the United States is still american. I will argue further next round as I am typing this with little time before I have to leave. I look forward to your next argument
Living as an Anarchist in America makes you unamerican.

Despite my opponent's claim, Anarchism does often include the use of violence. A major part of Anarchist ideology includes Propaganda of the deed, the use of physical violence against political opponents as a way to inspire revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org... This violates a person's right to safety as outlined in the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (http://www.un.org...) I have provided definitions of each: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... Breaking any one of these in any way is automatically going against human rights which is also going against much of what America continues to fight for, thus anarchism is indeed unamerican. I'll continue next round. I'm looking forward to my opponent's rebukes.
Living as an Anarchist in America makes you unamerican.

Thanks for this debate I think it will be a fun one. I will now state my points. Regardless of the mental aspect of anarchy in the united states the citizen is still a citizen of the united states nonetheless. By being a citizen they are by definition an "American" =-Definition-= American - http://dictionary.reference.com... Pronunciation - [uh-mer-i-kuhn] 1.a citizen of the United States of America. 2.a native or inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere. 3.an Indian of North or South America. Un-American - http://dictionary.reference.com... Pronunciation - [uhn-uh-mer-i-kuhn] 1. not American; not characteristic of or proper to the U.S.; foreign. I will now rebuke my opponents statement Anarchy is not only the act of physical violence. It can also be a state of mind. Even if violent acts were used it would not make the individual any less physically American. I will continue my argument next round.
Living as an Anarchist in America makes you unamerican.

Yes it does. anarchism  /ˈï¿½nərˌkɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-er-kiz-uhm] –noun 1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty. 2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government. First off, the use of violence to fullfill one's goal would be destructive towards one's right to safety. Abolishing the government by force could also be classified as treason. Treason is a crime which carries a maximum penalty. Also, without authority there would be no order in society. This will be fun... :P
Catholics are not Christians

The first half of your argument was simply you reiterating what I previously said, Our definitions obviously were not the literal translation of a belief in existence but a belief in the truth of his words. The next half was well, ridiculous. It was filled with false statements that you have no evidence to back up. "I believe him. You do not" Really? All you know about me, is that I'm a Roman Catholic. According to your argument, this means that I do not truly follow Jesus. This is your theory 1. Person is a Roman Catholic hence 2. Person does not believe Christ Let me give you a few names. Saint Pope John Paul II Mother Teresa All other Popes St. Francis of Assisi Hundreds of other saints So none of the people listed above follow Jesus. None of the people above are Christians. Using your theory stated above you believe yourself to be above all those holy Roman Catholics. "Catholic belief is not Christian though it claims to be. Catholicism rejects Jesus' Word so it is not Christian. Catholics are not Christians." Pretty Bold statements, with absolutely no evidence behind them. You can't make an absurd claim, give no evidence and hope people will believe you. "You have to be saved from eternal death to have eternal life." Using this theory, Mary, Mother of God did not go to heaven. Mary was born without original sin and never sinned. Therefore, she was never under threat of possible eternal death. using your incorrect theory, this means that she is incapable of making it to heaven. "Your religion forbids you... from knowing now that your sins are forgiven" Ever hear of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? It's a belief among Catholics that sins are forgiven. I am almost out of characters so I will have to end this shorter than I wanted In the end, I don't care whether or not you think I'm a Christian. I know am. "If you are humble, nothing will touch you, neither praise nor disgrace, because you know what you are" -Mother Teresa (Source in comments)
Catholics are not Christians

The Devil believes in Jesus. You believe in Jesus. I believe "on" Jesus. There is a difference. The difference is this. When I realized that I deserve to die and burn in Hell, and saw my need for God's mercy and believed "on" Jesus, I fell down before God and asked Him in Jesus name to save me. I trusted "on" him completely to save me. He saved me. I know He took my sin on Himself when He died in my place and now He is my life. I have eternal life now, Jesus Christ lives in me and I live in Him. You do not get eternal life by believing in Jesus the way you believe. You have to be saved from eternal death to have eternal life. It takes more than for you to believe in Jesus the way you are saying you believe in Him.In John chapter 11, at the tomb of Lazarus before Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, Jesus said to Lazarus' sister, Martha, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and beliieveth in me shall never die. Here, Jesus uses the word "in" rather than on, but He is clearly using it in a way you do not believe in, since the belief Jesus is talking about results in having eternal life now, never dying. I know I have eternal life now, I know I'm going to heaven with my sins forgiven because Jesus took my death and I am never going to die. Jesus said I would never die. I have eternal life. I believe Him. You do not.l who believe on Him. I believe on Him and I know I have eternal life. I am a Christian. You believe in Him but you ignore and do not believe His Word when He promises eternal life to all who believe on Him. Your belief is not Christian. Your belief is Catholic. Your religion forbids you from believing you have eternal life now and you are forbidden from knowing now that your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven. Catholic belief is not Christian though it claims to be. Catholicism rejects Jesus' Word so it is not Christian. Catholics are not Christians.
Catholics are not Christians

You claimed that a Christian was, according to Jesus: "He that believes on him" with him being Jesus So, your definition is basically, "He that believes in Jesus" is a Christian. My definition of "one who professes belief in Jesus" can also be simplified. "One who" can become "he that" "Professes Belief" can become "believes" Basically, we have the same definition of "He that believes in Jesus" This would mean that according to your own arguments, using your own definition, Satan is a Christian. But, what I think what we both truly mean is someone who believes Jesus Christ's message is the truth and uses this truth to live their lives in the way that they see as moral. I'd also like to argue, that what denomination you are a part of doesn't decide whether or not you go to heaven. Whether or not I am a Christian does not depend on if this Sunday I worship in a Baptist, Episcopal, Catholic, or any other denomination, possibly excluding radicals. Whether or not I am a true Christian depends on my actions. It depends on how much I love God and work to make the world a better place. Such things can only be known by God and will not be deciphered by humans. Therefore, because the Burden of Proof has been placed upon you unless you see yourself as worthy to judge the quality of a human soul, you have lost.
Catholics are not Christians

While the meriam-webster definition of "Christian" may be the commonly understood meaning, it is not necessarily what a true Christian is. There are many religions that clain to be Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be Christian though they consider Jesus to be created and not the Creator. The devil believes in God, and the teachings of Jesus. The devil knows that Jesus's teachings are true. According to the meriam-webster definition, I guess the devil can sey he is a christian. So we have a christian devil and christian catholics.....and christian Jehovah's Witnesses sinse they claim to believe the teachings of Jesus.It seems the more reliable definition of what a Christian is would be given by Jesus Christ Himself. A real Christian is forgiven and has eternal life now. A real Christian is saved and knows they have eternal life now as promised by Jesus Christ.Jesus said in John 3:18, "He that believes on him (the son of God, Jesus) is not condemned." Then in Chapter 4 and verse 14, he said "....whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." If my opponent is truly believing and following Jesus, then eternal life is gauranteed to Him because Jesus said He is not condemned and that He gives water that continues into eternal life....never ending now or ever. Further in the book of John, chapter 5, verse 24, Jesus said "..........He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,..........Jesus gaurantees eternal life to those who are saved by Him, and nowhere in the Bible does it say we cannot believe on Him and trust Him.The Meriam-Webster definition of what a Christian is implies that you can be a Christian but not have eternal life. This is contrary to the words of Jesus Christ who promises eternal life now. My opponent is forbidden from knowing he has eternal life, so He cannot be a true christian.
gay marriage is not bad

Did you get the wrong source? It makes no mention of your statement earlier that only 25% of gay men have anal sex. I'm just going to assume you pulled that one out of your a** then. You also haven't explained to me why my argument doesn't make sense, other than simply stating it doesn't. You have to back up your points with a reasonable explanation. The notion that HIV will simply be contained within the gay community is ludicrous. The source that you provided just now show that bisexual men are more likely to carry or be infected with HIV/AIDS. As that disease spreads around gay males, they also spread it to bisexual men too. This would undoubtedly spread to bisexual women too once they come in sexual contact with bisexual men, and eventually affect people like me who date women. So there's a real risk of infection for even straight people. See where I'm going? HIV isn't going to be magically quarantined within gay males only; it can easily spread to other people of different sexual orientations. Not to mention that HIV/AIDS treatment comes at a cost to healthcare facilities and taxpayers like you and me.
gay marriage is not bad

http://healthland.time.com... "And finally, again you miss my point on the population distribution issue. We don't necessarily have a shortage of people on Earth, but we do in developed nations in the West, which also happens to hold a far larger portion of the world's openly gay people." trust me dude that argument doesn't make sense. Gay people don't effect you i don't understand why people are so against it and you seem to be pretty freaked out by the whole HIV thing well dont have sex with gay men then.
gay marriage is not bad

First off, I'd like you to cite your sources please. Only 25% of gay men have anal sex? Seriously? That is the most ludicrous thing ever read. What sort of sex is left for sexually active homosexual couples to have if they don't have penetrative sex? Even disregarding the lack of citation I can tell that "fact" is absolute bull. Yes I know heterosexuals have anal sex too, that isn't the point. It's the fact that homosexuals exclusively have anal sex, whilst heterosexual couples have it much, much less frequently. According to your survey, which is still lacking proper citation, around ~35% of men and women "engage in heterosexual anal sex". But it isn't clear if that simply means they've tried anal sex before, or if they have anal sex regularly. Most likely, it seems that it counts couples who've done it once or twice. On the other hand, gay men have anal sex far more often. You don't even need a study to prove that, it's like trying to survey the % of straight marriages that have consummated their relationship. My point was never that being homosexual guaranteed STIs. But you cannot argue against the statistics, which show that HIV/AIDS spreads within male homosexuals at a magnitude far greater than heterosexuals. That is the point I am making. And finally, again you miss my point on the population distribution issue. We don't necessarily have a shortage of people on Earth, but we do in developed nations in the West, which also happens to hold a far larger portion of the world's openly gay people.
gay marriage is not bad

ok first of all you don't just get aids because you are gay it comes from anal sex which heterosexual people do to in fact, a survey, released last year, showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex. second people miss the point gay people are not in love for sex they really do love each other in fact studies show that 25% of gay men have anal sex so looks like heterosexual people do it more. And another thing you say that they cant reproduce and you act like its a problem, trust me dude we don't have a shortage on people on this planet.
gay marriage is not bad

Gay and Bisexual men who engage in regular sexual activity with other men (referred to as MSM) account for nearly half of the people living with HIV or AIDS in the US, which is some 580,000 of the 1.2 million with HIV in 2009. Furthermore, they accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in that year as well. They account for only 4% of the US population, yet have such a disproportionately high rate of carrying these STIs. They are even more likely to be infected with HIV than drug users who share needles. http://www.cdc.gov... (I used to have a full link to the entire CDC report but they seem to have moved it, so you might have to dig around a little to find all the relevant statistics. If they've removed from the CDC website try Google, or simply disregard what I said as unproven.) To add to that, a relatively new but rising "subculture" within the gay club scene actually encourages STI infection, colloquially known as "bug chasing". Although there's barely enough data to indicate whether "bug chasers" make up more than simply a minority of all gay males, it is still an alarming trend that has only been found in LGBT communities. http://en.wikipedia.org... The above is probably the most compelling and rational argument against homosexuality, though not necessarily a counter to gay marriage specifically. Other arguments you might also use but are less easily backed by evidence could be: * It creates disunity within society. A sexually homogeneous society would seem ideal in order to prevent conflicts, which we see often enough in Western society when it comes to dealing with homosexuality. * Homosexual couples are a genetic dead end. They cannot reproduce, and the ones that decide to use surrogate mothers/ sperm donors are only a minority within the currently active gay marriages in countries such as Canada. And before you say it, no, the planet is not suffering under an overpopulation crisis; it is more of a population distribution crisis. Most highly developed, highly educated nations are actually suffering an underpopulation crisis due to low natural birth rates, which explains why they have to turn to mass immigration to fill up gaps in their labour force. Unfortunately, mass immigration brings its own problems, ranging from a depression of wages, to cultural clashes, to imbalances in sectors of the labour force, etc. That's all I can think of in the back of my head.