BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Both letters from "Disgusted White Girl" and "Black Royalty" are racist and/or misinformed.

I acknowledge that DWG was merely "quoting" her boyfriend (ha). However just because the words may or may not have been her own does not negate the fact that the CONTENT of her letter was racist, regardless of who said it. DWG was obviously "misinformed" by her boyfriend. Thus, her letter = racist and misinformed. I believe I have already addressed the misinformation of BR's words in previous rounds. For instance, he claimed that white people were over in Europe "beating each other over the head with clubs" while black queens ruled over Egypt. That is blatantly untrue. He is misinformed. His letter provides misinformation. Plus, some of his statements were blatantly racist as well. He writes, "Nowadays, in my opinion, a lot of brothers date white women because they are docile and easy to control." That is his opinion - fine. But later he writes, "Bottom Line: If I were looking for a docile woman, someone I can walk over and control, I would give you a call." That statement is rooted in prejudice. He is assuming that DWG is docile BECAUSE she is a white woman. Hence, racism. So, in conclusion, both letters contain racism and misinformation. You have not and cannot prove otherwise.
Both letters from "Disgusted White Girl" and "Black Royalty" are racist and/or misinformed.

Black Royalty's letter was pretty racist, but that's not the point. The reason I'm assuming it is so celebreated in the black community is because a "Brother" stood up to an ignorant white chick and defended his people, most notably women. That is perceived as an honorable thing. Also, I'm assuming that the people who do support what he said don't really know anything about history or culture. So in their minds, Black Royalty is an intelligent and articulate guy who stood up for himself and them. I think it's comical, but not really a problem. Maybe if you point out certain aspects of the letter that you disagree agree with I will have something specific to respond to.
Both letters from "Disgusted White Girl" and "Black Royalty" are racist and/or misinformed.

Some of you may recall a famous letter (made popular via the internet) written to Jamie Foster-Brown, editor of Sister 2 Sister magazine, in which a white woman from VA slandered black women in society, claiming that her fiance (a black man) and other black men preferred white woman over African American women because black women were "too fat, too loud, too mean, too argumentative, too needy, too materialistic [or] carrying too much excess baggage." This woman signed her letter Disgusted White Girl. In response, a reader named Black Royalty submitted a letter to the magazine in which he attempted to refute many of DWG's claims, and made a few comments of his own. Although heavily praised (especially in the black community) and considered a great rebuttal, I personally disagree with many of Black Royalty's remarks, and in fact deem them just as racist and unnecessary as DWG's initial comments. However, many people seem to oppose my thinking; most people I know who have read his response praise BR as some kind of hero instead of another ignorant person promoting prejudice in the world today. For this debate, I am looking for an opponent who has read both letters, and *agrees* with the arguments that Black Royalty has put forward to challenge DWG. I will attempt to prove that his letter was both racist and contained misinformation, which would therefore negate it being some type of awesome rebuttal that black people everywhere should be proud of. For those of you who have not heard about this articule or read the letters, they can be found here... Disgusted White Girl's Letter: http://www.agoodblackman.com... Black Royalty's Response: http://www.agoodblackman.com... Seeing as my Round 1 posting has yet to contain any of arguments, this will be a 4 round debate. Good luck!
The planet would be a better place without religion

Thank you. When embarking on this debate I was aware from its inception that it would move inexorably to a discussion of morality. My opponent raises a good point what is moral? Well as we have yet to define it allow me to do so now. Moral: a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/moral The discussion of morality is possibly one of the oldest questions in philosophy and although it would be possible to argue about the morality of things like murder and theft if debating morality as pure concept when talking about the impact these things have on the world, I do not feel it would be contentious of me to say the world is better of without these things or that the majority of the human race would agree with that statement. However the question of what society finds acceptable in terms of sexuality, greed, aid to fellow humans, animal rights, abortion . .. The list is endless, I must concede these questions are far more open to debate, however as anyone that has spent time debating or is interested in debates cannot have failed to notice, whenever these subjects arise there is often a religious aspect to the moral argument, I have mentioned previously that without religion there is no argument about the morality of homosexuality, I would argue that without the concept of a soul the same could be said of abortion (although there is also a psychological nature to that argument so it is perhaps not the best example) In nearly all these debates, if we were debating from a purely neutral standpoint with no religious preconceptions, In a lot of cases the opponents of these issues would be left with no other defence that to simply say that they don't like homosexuality, abortion, sex, or the idea that someone somewhere might be having more fun than them, these debates would then be able to be quickly shot down by saying to these people that if these issues do not directly affect them and they therefore have no right to interfere. Whilst we can intellectually debate the subjective morality of these things till the cows come home, in the real world we have to accept that there are things we can agree are good or bad as a society, if we were all philosophers nothing could possibly get done as we would all be wondering around questioning if we were butterfly's dreaming that they were men. I can make no claim to know what is truly moral but as I have said religion can not make this claim either, but that is how it is so often used and by removing the ability for people to hide the prejudice behind scripture and justify outrageous acts by saying they have been granted a celestial free pass, I feel that any rational human being must see that the world does not need religion.
The planet would be a better place without religion

As this is my first debate on this site I may not be qualified to comment but feel his argument is facetious as there is no doubt in my mind that he understood that we were discussing our planet in the global sense, To avoid being tied down to a specific country or continent and religion in relation to its followers . However as he has chosen this route I will point out the flaws in the argument he presents. 1. Religion is a human concept this is by his definition. His own definition was: Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the content of HUMAN affairs. 2. If he insists on continuing this line of reason, as I said we were "discussing the effect of religion here on earth I am not discussing anything after death as it is Irrelevant to this debate" if my opponent feels we were discussing the planet at this point he must prove that it is alive as otherwise my rules MUST apply to living creatures. 3. If we are talking about the planet and he successfully proves the planet is alive he must also prove he had authority to speak on its behalf.
The planet would be a better place without religion

The argument is not that the planet would be better for humans if religion was non-existent. The argument is that the planet would be better as an entity occupying the space that it does within our solar system. In other words, does religion affect the earth itself. All of pro's arguments thus far have failed to address this issue. I point pro to the headline question: "The planet would be a better place without religion". There is no mention of humankind or the affect religion has on them. Secondly, I point pro to their own initial assertion: "We are talking about the impact of religion here on earth I am not discussing anything after death as it is irrelevant to this debate. " By pro's own assertion, we are talking about the state of the planet as pertaining to religion's affect on the planet itself. There is no mention of humankind other than to instruct con that it is "irrelevant". Thirdly, I point pro to the definitions that I laid out in my opening argument. As no definitions were clearly established before my own, we will be using mine. Thank you.
The planet would be a better place without religion

Definitions: Planet: A celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star. The Earth. Place: The specific portion of space normally occupied by anything. Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. http://dictionary.reference.com... I will be arguing that the "Planet" (Earth) would not be a better "place" (The space it occupies in our solar system) without religion. My contention is that if we did not have religion, there would be no noticeable improvement to the Earth. I will also argue that certain religions actually practice the betterment of the Earth and without them the Earth would be worse.
The planet would be a better place without religion

Religion causes and has caused huge damage both today and in the past. our species has been held back by its existence. The purpose of this debate is not to prove/disprove the existence of God for the record I am an atheist, I do not Believe in God or Gods and if you wish to debate their existence you are welcome to challenge me in a separate debate. We are talking about the impact of religion here on earth I am not discussing anything after death as it is irrelevant to this debate. This is not a debate about the validity of evolution or the age of the earth if you disagree with the consensus that the earth is billions of years old or evolutionary theory these are also subjects for another debate. If you make an assertion you must back it up with a source. Asides from that anything goes.
Absolute Truth exists.

In response to my opponent's first point: even though absolute truth exists, We may not see it at the time. The fact that we can't always SEE the absolute truth is not evidence that it doesn't exist. That just doesn't make any sense. In response to his second argument: If he wants to change the words of the resolution around, Then he can maybe get around the idea that it is contradictory. But here is a simple fact: he accepted the challenge. In other words, He decided that he could NEGATE the resolution. If he cannot truly negate the affirmative side of the resolution, Then this round immediately flows to the pro side! He accepted the resolution by accepting the challenge. If he cannot do his job in this debate round, Then he automatically has lost the round. You cannot accept the title and then try to change it to fit your argument. So what we have seen here is first, That his first argument falls apart because it doesn't fit simple logic. Second, We see that he tried to get around the resolution in a vain attempt to argue his side more adequately. All in all, What we have seen so far is that the only side with truth backing it up is the pro side.
Absolute Truth exists.

1) If truth was absolute we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be self evident. Meaning everything said in this discussion will be wrong because the truth is above our understanding, Unless the truth magically aligns with your beliefs. Your opinion/interpretation/conclusion of events is based off of multiple variables that are beyond your control which makes everything we do biased in nature. Bias cannot exist in a universe with absolute truth due to the fact that it allows uncertainty and elements beyond our scope. It's highly improbable that a human is capable of knowing everything behind an event and reaching a satisfactory answer. 2) The statement "there is no absolute truth" by itself does prove to be problematic, But by adding a few words we can change what that implies. For example: "There is no absolute truth because our understanding of the "truth" is subjective". I don't want to play semantics and I want to avoid circular logic, So I ask you to present an absolute truth without thinking about it. Should be easy to do with an absolute, Right? A) It would also help if you defined what "absolute", "truth" and any other key words you plan to use. My definition of subjective is simply "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind ".
The minimum wage is a necesary rigth for working Americans.

1. The minimum wage helps the economy because when workers have more money to spend, they have more money to be consumers. Consumers HELP the economy. In that sense, the minimum wage helps buissinesses big and small. 2. Yes WW2 helped create jobs, but my above point which proves an economic asset, supports my assertion from Round 2 that the minimum wage helped end the depression. 3. Another positive factor was that the multiple jobs created by World War Two paid better thanks to, the minimum wage. 4. One thing in my opponent's arguement that should be pointed out is the idea that even the most profit hungry employers pay there employees well so that other buissinesses don't out bid there employees. First of all, if that were the case, then another issue brought up by my opponent, rising costs for buissinesses, would not be an issue. However, as rosy as that sounds, it is not the case. There is a reason people go on strike, and it is inadaquet pay. 5. Another argument of my opponents, that there are less jobs thanks to the minimum wage making the costs of employment rise, which I believe is the argument stresses the most, is faulty. In that spirit, I am sure you could employ every American for a nice salary of - nothing. 6. The minimum wage helps insure many Americans that their jobs pay decently, and fairly. As costs rise, workers should be able to earn enough money to meet these costs. The minimum wage, it is fair to assert, is a necesary right for working Americans.
The minimum wage is a necesary rigth for working Americans.

Ok, I'll attack my opponent's case then more to crystallize my own. Well, he only did a rebuttal so i'll go right to defending. He responds: "The people who get harmed are the employers, even if they cut back on jobs. If the survival of a buissiness depends on the exploitation of workers, to bad. Buissinesses big or small shouldn't be paying workers unfairly, and it is the responsibility of public officials to make sure that workers are treated fairly." My Response: The minimum wage hurts both the workers and the employer. He didn't refute my above point about this. It's the value of the market. Time vs money. It's not exploitation of the worker. THE WORKER HAS A CHOICE, as i have already stated, which has gone unrefuted. Extend this point for the round. He then goes on to say: The minimum wage encourages the unemployed to find jobs with the promise of a higher wage. The unemployed include people on General Welfare. My Response: It doesn't encourage anything. In todays society the salary is totally above minimum wage. According to Business Week, the only jobs that pay a little above minimum wage is the ones that are for teenagers. And even is that case the teen has the choice of either working or not. So, going to his idea, that it helps people get motivated for jobs. This is indeed wrong on the fact hat adult jobs pay so much more then minimum. He then says about welfare. HA, people on welfare get more if they didn't work, thats why the system is messed up. He then says: "We could all learn from our past, so I will briefly go into the History of the National Minimum Wage: The first attempt at a national minimum wage was in 1933, but it failed to become law.Then in 1938 the national minimum wage was passed. It should be noted that around the time 1938-1940, the Great Depression ended." My Response: Uh, it seems my opponent needs a history lesson. We got out of the great depression because our economy was spurred by WW2. And, also interesting to note, the next recession that the US went through was partially responsible because of the minimum wage. "" In every voluntary economic exchange both parties benefit." Wrong. When an employee works hard, and is payed a wage he\she cant live decently with, then he/she doesn't benefit, his/her boss does." My Response: First the possible employee has a choice to join. If the employer needs the extra help, he would raise the wage. And the person could refuse. The cycle goes around around, till a satisfactory disposition is discovered. My opponent seems to not understand that market, which I have proven in my contention 1. Group my opponents attacks: #5, 6, 7. My Response: Link all my contentions to this, it's refuted. Extend all my points since he failed to attack them.
The minimum wage is a necesary rigth for working Americans.

1. "The only people who get harmed are the people at the bottom. " - Wrong. The people who get harmed are the employers, even if they cut back on jobs. If the survival of a buissiness depends on the exploitation of workers, to bad. Buissinesses big or small shouldn't be paying workers unfairly, and it is the responsibility of public officials to make sure that workers are treated fairly. Among the employers who try to pay their workers fairly, the minimum wage is something to set a standard of what is fair. 2. The minimum wage encourages the unemployed to find jobs with the promise of a higher wage. The unemployed include people on General Welfare. 3. We could all learn from our past, so I will briefly go into the History of the National Minimum Wage: The first attempt at a national minimum wage was in 1933, but it failed to become law. Then in 1938 the national minimum wage was passed. It should be noted that around the time 1938-1940, the Great Depression ended. 4. " In every voluntary economic exchange both parties benefit. " Wrong. When an employee works hard, and is payed a wage he\she cant live decently with, then he/she doesn't benefit, his/her boss does. 5. With minimum wage laws, a worker wouldn't want to accept an illegal wage. 6. I have been generous earlier by saying that without the minimum wage people could be living on one thousand dollars a year or less to pay there bills, because in truth without a minimum wage people could be living on One dollar a day or less. 7. As I said earlier one could only imagine how oppressive life would be wihout a minimum wage. Remember the Gilded Age?
The minimum wage is a necesary rigth for working Americans.

Without a minimum wage, workers could be paid whatever buissinesses want. Workers would be exploited, which would not only be undecent, and unfair but you can't even imagine how hard it would be for some workers to survive. Taxes,rent, heating,running water, food , drinking water, and money for gas or public transportation, all cost money. These are all neccesities for survival in the 21st century United States. The US government has a responsibility to make sure workers are paid fairly, and enough money to meet these costs. Without a minimum wage, hard working Americans could end each year with a princely sum of one thousand dollars,or less to meet these costs. As a result the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and oh yea we'd lose the middle class.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist pt.2

My opponent's arguments are predicated on a number of axioms that he uses to draw his conclusion. Unfortunately, both of his premises are invalid. His first premise is that anarchism is anti-hierarchical. However, anarchism is not anti-hierarchical so much as it is anti-government. Emma Goldman, the editor of anarchist magazine Mother Earth, defined anarchism as, "The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary. " Anarchism doesn't mean that everyone under it needs to be equal (in all capacities), nor is organization prohibited, so long as it is voluntary. [1] Even so, that is unimportant compared to his second premise. Capitalism is not always hierarchical. It is only so at the behest of a government, otherwise known as crony capitalism. Pure capitalism (i. e. market anarchism) is not hierarchical. Murray Rothbard has said, "The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation. " My opponent has not shown that capitalism is always hierarchical, nor has he explained how capitalism is contrary to the philosophy of anarchism. He seems to be mixing up different types of capitalism. [2] The problems with his two premises make his conclusion invalid. Voluntary free-market capitalism is inherently anarchistic because one, the system does not have a government, and two, capitalism is not inherently anti-anarchistic to begin with (when considering pure capitalism). Finally, I would like to address my opponent's last claim that private property cannot exist in an anarchist society. Private property is not a thing created by the state, nor is it a system that requires the existence of a state. "If every man has the right to own his own body and if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own the product that he has made. " Private property is not driven by the state. [3] Sources [1]: . http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu... [2]: . http://www.mises.org... [3]: Rothbard, Murray N. Man, Economy, and State
Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist pt.2

Opening Argument:As stated in the introduction, my premise is that:1) Anarchism is (and will be in this debate) defined as: opposition to authority and hierarchy.2) Capitalism is centered around hierarchy.3) Meaning, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.4) Thus, 'anarcho'-capitalism (or capitalism without a state, as they define it) is not anarchist.To further this argument, I would like to include the reasoning that:If one is an anarchist, they must be not only opposed to the state. They must also be opposed to all entities that create a state, such as private property (I would also like to differentiate this from personal property, or things that have only a personal use i.e. your car, house, computer, toothbrush, etc.). Since 'anarcho'-capitalists support private property, they aren't anarchist.