BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ROUND TWO:lf Jesus Was White! He wouldn't Have Been Crucified

Although l agree with you, you still put words in my mouth on several of your statements accusing me of been a hater! l stand for the oppressed,you might call the past the past but the world has't healed yet from white mans oppression!Like it or not say what you want but the fact still stands.The people you oppressed are still bleeding from the suffering they endured during white mans hands.This has continued to affect generations and generations of new generations,and you sit there boasting that the past is the past. White man should give back what they took in countries they oppressed during the past.Then at that time we can say let the past be the past. l say this because the white race have never shown remorse for their actions as slave and colonial masters. Do you think God is happy with the white man?Certainly l don't think so! Look at your brothers in Asia and Africa.What are you doing about them.They live under a dollar a day,and white man has continued to be as ignorant as Jimmy the Greek!They spend trillions of dollars on totally unnecessary wars every year totally forgetting that there's a child dying of hunger somewhere in the world everyday! Instead of spending trillions of dollars healing Africa,or spending trillions feeding the poor in Asia.They waste money on totally useless things to feed their ego's at the expense of human life. They is still a long way to go before we see a black pug and a white pug been viewed as pugs.The reality in this world is.A black pug is unpreferable to a white pug! How does the world view the white man l wonder!Too much privileges l guess compared to any other race,these privileges did not come as a result of a blessings from god,but is of what is stolen from Africa and Asia during white mans colonial and trans Atlantic slave times. White man can't just handle the truth,they like to brush everything aside, twist your words, intentionally take things out of context, and vilify you in an effort to hold onto their delusions of superiority!
ROUND TWO:lf Jesus Was White! He wouldn't Have Been Crucified

l do not agree with you in your first passage about the Haddith!. Actually it was a fairy tell story l believe told in those days that a white man gives birth to a black child.Are you trying to point out to me that black came from white,is this where your point is? That can never happen only under controlled circumstances can a white person or white tan person give birth to a black child! Look Arabs and Whites personally l believe they should be classified as whites.Because both Arabs and Whites went through a similar evolution, if ever there was one, to have that smooth skin compared to their parent the black people.Look here a person with tan color has straight silky hair and gives birth to a person like in your example,a person with like wool hair. l'd like you to explain more into this phenomenon. And going back to the point of this debate,Jesus our lord in whom we all loved.Was crucified because he was a black man they were unhappy because a black man came claiming to be Christ ,the savior of all human beings!And they nailed him for this! lf Jesus was was white he wouldn't have been crucified why,because they would say "he is one of us,he is cool.' Because in those days been black wasn't cool!,And so today black people don't like been black,look at the booming cream lightening creams market,The peoples idols Rihanna and Beyonce those girls are very black in color but look what they have done to their skin.Because in these days people appreciate a person of lighter color than the darker ones.But what you don't know for a fact is that it is the black man that built the Pyramids.lt is still a scientific mystery how the egyption pyramids were built,going further into theories that they were built by an alien societiy!.t just shows how blacks where technically advanced society in those days. Research on the origins of a whiteman to understand the power and knowledge black people had. They civilized the world,When white people took over and anything black to be associated with badness. lt was like that in those days of Jesus.So Jesus been Black and claiming to be God was unacceptable to the white community! That is how it led to his crucifixion. l wish to connect with some one,so we could produce this movie about the real Jesus! l watched the movie Passion of the Christ.Good movie, but the real Jesus is black! l know most people here would say this dude is completely nuts SO WHAT if Jesus was black grey blue in color,what difference does color make! My friend if you didn't know this,and know that for a certain these things will happen. Do you know the past will decide our future.That is why history is very very important! If we have a fake history like we have,the entire humanity is headed for a doom,extinction!
Early Childhood Education

If my opponent wanted to argue that preschool is a better option than daycare, my opponent should have made that clear from the beginning. Being that they kept the topic general, and didn't introduce the daycare aspect of the argument until the third round, preschool vs daycare wasn't the main point we were arguing. The argument was centered on preschools usefulness (with head start being the prime example). Therefore, according to the general guidelines set from the beginning, I conclude that since kindergarten is already in place to do what preschool programs are designed to do (preparing kids for school and assuming this isnt already happening at home), why force kids to learn earlier what they are already required to learn in the following year by saying it will be useful when they'll have to go through the same stuff again in kindergarten? In essence, you're saying "let's teach kids things they will have to repeat next year", which is redundant, impractical, unnecessary for the child and in cases like Head Start, a waste of government funding.
Early Childhood Education

In conclusion, I feel that when faced with the choice of having to place your child into care for a number of hours, the smarter choice would be a early childhood institution. Exposing a child to a structured, educational environment provides them with social skills and early intervention if problems are detected. While my opponent may not recognize the benefits of such programs like a Head Start, the point is that if a child is introduced early to education they are better prepared for kindergarten. The effects of a head start do wear out eventually, as my opponent has pointed out - but in reality all they teach children is the alphabet, basic numbers, how to socialize with other children, and basic information (days of the week, months). During preschool they are learning basic information, one doesn't expect the children to walk out of the program learning concepts to apply to chemistry, that's not the point of the program. The program simply provides early education to a child based off of what interests them. Head Start provides preparation, specifically in a finding (http://www.srcd.org...) points out the pre-reading readiness established by Head Start. http://www.nhsa.org... http://www.srcd.org...
Early Childhood Education

"While you may think the problem isn't with children needing to enter school earlier, it most certainly is. Children entering school earlier allow for their minds to absorb information and be exposed to a setting besides their home." -If the need for earlier education is the problem, as you say, why then, does attending Head Start have no real lasting effect? "According to the Head Start Impact Study, which was quite comprehensive, the positive effects of the program were minimal and vanished by the end of first grade. Head Start graduates performed about the same as students of similar income and social status who were not part of the program. These results were so shocking that the HHS team sat on them for several years, according to Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution"(Joe Klein, http://www.time.com...). The U.C. Berkley Stanford team that conducted a study that studied the effects of preschool on kids nationwide and concluded: "...But the UC Berkeley-Stanford team says it is bad news that universal access would not likely close early learning gaps. "The magnitude of benefits for poor children is simply insufficient to catch up," the report says. "Instead, extending free preschool to all children - certainly a well-intentioned goal - threatens to simply reinforce disparities in early learning until resources are more carefully targeted on low-income communities."" Kindergarten was implemented to help children with the transition from home to school. Obviously, its not quantity (longer and earlier times for children go to school), but quality, the issue. If we go by my opponents rationale, we will soon need a program to prepare kids for Pre-K. And yes, you are right. Children also learn some conformity at home. But to say that it is at the the same extent as in a public education system (such as preschool), where the child to teacher ratio is 12 to 1 for 4 year olds & 10:1 for 3 year olds (http://www.childcareinc.org...) compared to the average american family size of 2 kids per household (http://www.census.gov...), seems a bit exaggerated. Children can get more focused attention at home (since there are usually less kids to compete with) as well as more time to explore on their own and figure stuff out. "Your argument that the quality of education is at stake makes a great point, but this isn't the focus of the debate, the point is that early education exposure to children is beneficial and is a better alternative to child care (daycare)." -As far as this goes, my opponent was not as clear earlier when it was asked that they be more specific, therefore, leaving it safe to assume the many aspects involved, which matter, could be addressed.
Early Childhood Education

To respond to your argument. I didn't say that the participation of early childhood education negatively impacts the family bond. My words were "putting children into school too early can also take away from the time a parent has to bond with their child, thus potentially negatively affecting family attachment." The key point there is that the time the child has to spend with his/her family is being lessened and therefore it could produce negative affects (since the time for bonding is being reduced). Bonding time with the family is important, especially within the first few years of development. Kindergarten was put into effect in order to prepare children for school. And now there are preparation programs for the preparation program put into place by our government. The problem isn't with children needing to enter school earlier. The problem is with the quality of education being given to children. Even if a child enters a quality preschool program, that doesn't necessarily mean the effects will last, as some research is showing. The children who benefit from the programs are more than likely end up in high poverty schools afterwards, and after a few years, there is no real difference between them and their peers. There is also the fact that they are being exposed even earlier to the mannerisms of other kids, like cursing, & other forms of aggressive behaviors, which parents who aren't teaching this to their kids, find undesirable. While pre-schools can be a place to for a child to learn to socialize (for those who havent already done so), there is also the matter that they are learning to comply. Individuality is put to the side and the needs of collective group is put first. Given, this is a necessary skill. But why deprive a child of of a little more time to develop their own character, so that they can learn a skill that they will eventually pick up once they begin their formal education anyway (assuming they aren't already being taught this at home)? On top of all this, there is also the growing concern of parents that children are being over diagnosed (ie. ADHD, ODD, etc.) and over-prescribed at younger ages now. Considering all of these factors, is it really in the best interest of a child to place him or her in pre-kindergarten or head start when the effects seem to fade out after a couple of years and the benefits may not always outweigh the costs? Instead of providing approximately 8.1 billion dollars of public funding for preparation programs such as Head Start (whose benefits are questionable), would't it be wiser to use the public funding to improve upon the system which is already in place? http://berkeley.edu...... & http://sitemaker.umich.edu...... http://www.newamerica.net...... http://tulsainitiative.wordpress.com...... http://www.newsnet5.com......
Written Language vs. Internet

I take the point of con in that I think the whole idea of comparing the two in such a manner is ludicrous. You're right that the internet can't exist without written language, because written language is how almost all communication is performed on the internet. Why, then, do they need to be compared? Why do you need to say that written language is better than the internet? Since no one could rationally or logically take the stance that the internet is more important than written language, I will instead take the stance that this debate topic is fallacious and ludicrous.
Abortions should be banned

Lets make this a short one because I am sick of 5 round long debates... Let the games begin and may the odds be ever in your favour... I believe that abortions should become illegal. The are so many human breaches of human rights in this issue. The declaration of human right states that every human has the right to life and abortions go against this right as they destroy life before it really has a chance to begin. A real life creature is being killed before it has the right to life. People believe that women should have the option to have an abortion because they may not want the baby. But if they did not want to have the baby in the first place them they should not have gotten themselves pregnant. Not having abortions would force teenagers to be more responsible in what they let themselves do. There woukd be no easy way out and paying the consequences for their actions would teach them not to do those sorts of things.
This is a war of words. Don't be a coward, bring it, no matter what your teacher told you.

Why Be PC? **1st point** Pro's little discussion about my hireability at the UN aside, Pro doesn't actually point out how being offensive could add to a discussion. Consider that it was possible for me to make my entire case without insulting anyone, and that this is true in effectively all cases. **2nd point** Pro underestimates the harm negative stereotypes, which PC attempts to prevent from being aired, have. Consider the stereotypes of blacks as criminals and/or poor. First, this emotionally hurts people. When one is called a criminal or thought to be poor without grounds, it hurts, and it may make one angry. Even little things, like how many Asians are assumed to be able to speak an Asian languahe or know Asian culture, can hurt and/or anger. None of this helps anything, and just hurts people. Second, these stereotypes become self-perpetuating. For example, out of two equivalent job applications, one with a "black" name and one with a "white" name, the "white" application gets accepted for interview more often than the "black" one, leading to increased economic hardship for blacks and subsequent stereotyping (see Freakonomics on this). **3rd point** While it is good to teach children that words cannot hurt them, it's probably not good to teach them that insulting your peers with negative stereotyes is acceptable, because, as pointed out earlier, those stereotyes hurt people and add nothing. **Pro's beliefs** Again, Pro's beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. Even if some of Pro's beliefs interact with PC, we are debating the objective merits or problems of PC, *not* Pro's take on PC. If Pro wants to have another debate, Pro may do so. **Summary** Conduct: Clear Con vote. Pro called all persons supporting PC "b!tches". Grammar: Clear Con vote. Pro often failed to capitalize, and then capitalized too much. Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro raised no anti-PC arguments, and all Con arguments stand. Sources: Clear Con vote. Pro has no sources, Con has one source.
This is a war of words. Don't be a coward, bring it, no matter what your teacher told you.

Pro has asked me to defend my PC mentality. I have done so. Pro not raised any arguments against being PC, and instead has stated that the qualities of Pro's life are un-PC. Unfortunately, Pro's life is irrelevant to the goodness or badness of PC. As such, extend my arguments. --- Just for lolz, let's evaluate the qualities of Pro's life one by one and tell if they are un-PC. "FISCALLY conservative" There's nothing un-PC with opposing government spending, unless you want to insult someone (say, the poor or elderly or soldiers or NASA), in which case it is un-PC. "morally LIBERAL" There's nothing un-PC with supporting/allowing other persons autonomy in and not judging them on their actions, unless you want to insult someone, in which case it is un-PC. "anti RACIST" This, in fact, appears to be Pro-PC, unless you want to insult someone. "doubter of the IVORY TOWER" Maybe this is un-PC. I really don't who/what "the ivory tower" is in your mindset. "MIDDLE CLASS birth" Uh... This could be un-PC if you were insulting the poor, rich, or persons who worked/fell their way up/down into the middle class, but you aren't. "descendant of LEGAL immigrants" Unless you're insulting illegal immigrants, this isn't un-PC. --- Summary: Con's arguments still stand.
This is a war of words. Don't be a coward, bring it, no matter what your teacher told you.

Thanks for that enlightening, grammatically correct, and inoffensive opening, Con. --- What is Political Correctness? Political Correcness, or PC, is "the avoidance ... of expression or action ... percieved to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." (1). PC sometimes also extends to not swearing (such as calling your opponent a b!tch), though this is generally seen as politeness rather than PC. --- Why Be PC? First, it detracts from the discussion. Consider calling black people "n!ggers", Jewish people "k!kes", Central American immigrants "w3tbacks", or gay people "f@ggots". Or consider even stupid names like "lieberals" or "c*ntservatives". All this does is make people angry without making the discussion any better. In order to talk about race or sexuality or *anything*, it very rarely helps anyone to start insulting people. In fact, insulting people makes them less likely to accept your viewpoint. Second, it's offensive. Why don't we go around calling people names? In addition to not solving anything, it makes people angry. This is the equivalent of honking your car horn when angry - it does nothing and makes other people angry. Making people angry is bad - it reduces their ability to think rationally, increases their liklihood of error, and slightly shortens their life. Don't do it. Third, it avoids overexposing underexposed persons to violent language. Why do parents avoid cussing in front of children? It adds cuss words to their vocabulary, allowing them to use them and making them think that they are acceptable. This will only lead to people using offensive words, other people getting offended, and nothing getting done. --- References: (1) google.com/search?q=define+political+correctness
RESOLVED: Gay marriage

Under Rule 2, as specified by Con in R1 ("No forfeits"), Con"s concession of the last round is a concession of the debate. Given that Con plagiarised her case wholesale in the first debating round, it"s obvious she had no interest in a serious debate in any case, as well as conducting herself poorly. I"d like to apologise to the voters on Con"s behalf and ask she quickly concede the last round, rather than waiting out the 3 day deadline.
RESOLVED: Gay marriage

Given that this is merely an introductory round, I'll be very brief. I would like to thank Con for issuing the challenge. Given that definitions are contentious (in the case of marriage) and abundantly clear ("gay" = homosexual), I'll leave it for now, in the hope we can avoid a semantics dispute. Hopefully, we can have a good exchange of ideas on what is a very important issue. I invite Con to make their case. Cheers, UnitedAndy
Women registering for Selective Service

You seem to intent on making sure we know the draft and Selective Service are different. That's true. But in the same way a chicken and egg are different. One doesn't exist without the other. No chicken no egg. No egg no chicken. Selective Service registration exists for the purposes of a draft. The draft when it was in use depended on and relied on Selective Service. If it is not for the draft then what purpose does Selective Service have? A symbolic ritual for 18 year old children for which half of them aren't allowed to take part. Let girls register as well as boys but why have it at all? For the more substantive and real part it is about military service. I concur with your assertion the armed services will rely on volunteers for as long as possible but when they have to go to a draft it will be to fill position which the average female lacks the physical strength to handle.
Women registering for Selective Service

The propose of having 18 year old boys register for Selective Service is in case of the contingency where the draft would need to be reinstated. The argument the registration requirement should be extended to young women as well. As a practical matter if both men and women were required to register and did if the contingency were to happen the armed forces one could reasonably assume would end up being roughly divided 50-50 between men and women. Problem with it is it contradicts two things about the gender make up of the current military-- one of which is changeable albeit not necessarily wisely, the other isn't and is also the reason why it isn't wise to change the first. The first-- currently only 14% of the armed forces consists of women. The second and more important is there are strength requirements which women are much less able to meet than men. The fact is men have a substantial advantage when it comes to upper body strength over women; and for tasks which require upper body strength women are going to be left out. Thus registering women becomes symbolic but little else. The third reason is propaganda. The draft has always been unpopular even and especially in time of war. It may have been less so in WW II due to the nature of the enemy but it certainly was in the Civil War, WW I and in the Korean and Viet Nam Wars Rape has always been a part of war. Now lets add those two things together the unpopularity of the draft and rape. Now we have an image of an 18 year old girl-- still a child really being sexually abused by the enemy. Now what is the reaction of the public going to be? One will be to demand more women and children and old men living in enemy territory be mindless and irrationally slaughtered thus handing the enemy a big propaganda victory. The other would be to demand withdrawal from the war also potentially handing the enemy a victory.
Women registering for Selective Service

Anyway let's get started. I support requiring women to register for Selective Service for many reasons. Previously I was a conservative until the Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat jobs to women without exceptions. I now support women registering for Selective Service to further promote the equality as it seems inevitable. The draft is unlikely to ever come back and it's practically impossible economic wise nowadays. We have the world's strongest military along with being an all volunteer force. If a situation actually arises that would require a draft we will have a larger pool of recruits to draw from. If need be we can choose from the highest quality of recruits from both genders instead of only men. Anyway in my eyes requiring women to register for Selective Service is simply another symbol of equality in the United States of America.