BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ecological crisis should be more focused on than the economic crisis.

While going through his response, it seemed that some of his views were based on misapprehensions, which I would like to correct. First of all, Con suggests I disagree with his first argument because of him not elaborating enough on suggestions for solutions. I would like to repeat my last sentence from my first argument in Round #3: 'The uncertainty is key for the economic crisis in contrary to the ecological crisis. ' By this, I meant that one can not be certain of effects of certain measures Con mentioned on the current economic crisis. That's the difference with applying measures for solving the ecological crisis: their outcome is certain in this current situation. Secondly, Con states that my argument of his argument being invalid because of uncertainty does not work out. In my second argument of Round #3, I believe I stressed enough that Cons second argument was based on the uncertain scenario of the economic crisis being solved, meaning his second argument is based on a presumption. I believe that the content of arguments should not be meant to be applied in a future moment, but in the present. The future is insecure, the present is not. Lastly, on his response to my first arguments. I'm of the opinion that Con responded insufficiently, taking my three arguments as a whole, and not responding directly to either of them. Con states that the cological crisis is not yet upon us; I think I proved the opposite with, for example, the graphs and citations taken from Note 1, 2 and 4 in my arguments from Round #2. Furthermore, Con stated that my approach was to ignore the economic crisis. I think that I made clear in for example my last sentence, that I meant not to exclude the attention for one crisis from the other, but to prioritise the attention. I hope that Con can agree with me on the above. From my point of view, Con had not, in Round #3, adequately disproved my arguments from Round #2. For that reason, I suppose the outcome of the debate is for now, evident. As proposed, the ecological crisis should be prioritised above the economic crisis. I would like to thank my opponent for his debate so far. I await his entry for Round #4, and look forward to the Voting Period.
The ecological crisis should be more focused on than the economic crisis.

Though, while reading his first argument, I couldn't agree with it. Con's statement that a economic crisis can be solved quicker than an ecological crisis is ofcourse valid. However, his solution for the economic crisis is unclear. I acknowledge that this debates isn't about the details of solving any of these two crises, but my point is this: as Con stated, many measures can be applied to possibly solve the economic crisis. While every economic crisis has different causes and effects, one can not rely on proposed solutions, hence the massive debates about the solutions for the economic crisis. And this is exactly the problem: for the economic crisis, one is not sure about the solutions; for the ecological crisis, solutions are reayd to be put in use. The point is that the governments need to adopt them. That being a side issue, if the governments put the economic crisis in front of the ecological crisis because it is possibly quicker to solve, this will only worsen the ecological crisis. The uncertainty is key for the economic crisis in contrary to the ecological crisis. Furthermore, on the topic of Con's second argument. I would like to notice Con on the fact that his second argument depends on his first argument: íf we fix the economic crisis, the measures mentioned in his second argument can used. This is, again, based on uncertainty. Directing to this article:. http://www.investopedia.com...The article states that the most useful thing one can do in times of uncertainty, is to be informed. That being said, the main area of the uncertainty in the economic crisis is the one of the customer. I believe that the economic crisis shouldn't be approached from a governments point of view, but from a customers. From this, one can conclude that the customers in fact are in the end the one to recreate or solve the economic crisis, whether or not supported by the government. To conclude, the uncertainty this argument is based on makes the argument almost invalid. For solving the uncertainty, this should not be by government spending or saving, but, as mentioned, but by stimulating the people/customers. Lastly, I would like to note that currently, enough ecologically safe options are available that are economically viable. Hydrogen engines in use for example do match their costs. The same goes for solar panels, as mentioned in the following article:. http://www.wholesalesolar.com...The point is that as the technology improves, the viability to implement this in the current economic situation grows. This implies that solving the ecological crisis while being in a period of low economic activity is not only possible, but also economically interesting. Concluding, I believe that the arguments I put show that the ecological crisis is in fact the wiser option to choose when talking about priority. It is not only more urging to solve the ecological crisis in comparison with the economic crisis, but again, also economically doable. I hope Con agrees, and if not, I'm eager to see why in round #4.
Death Penalty

The death penalty is sick. If you are trying to teach the world not to kill there own. If you want to get that message across then you have to practice what you preach! How are you going to say don't kill and then do that mortal sin right in front of your country! Many reasons that the death penalty is still legal in countries is because there isn't enough money to keep these notorious criminals alive so why not kill them right? WRONG! 130 people have been released from death row with proof of there innocence. what about the people who were inoccent but not so lucky? Are they jut forgotten about? Think about them too.
NURSES WEARING WHITE NURSES CAPS WITH UNIFORM VERSES NURSES NOT WEARING CAPS WITH THEIR UNIFORM

My opponents sole reason that nurses ought not wear caps is the fact that they are uncomfortable. 1. Caps are needed for sanitary purposes. 2. Uncomfortable can not be defined. For example, I may find something uncomfortable but another person may not. Thus my opponents only argument is flawed. 3. By opponent is against WHITE caps. Color has nothing to do with comfort. 4. The link does not work.
Europe's darkest secret! Jesus was black!

Without further a-do My opponent claims now that the Jews were blacks who chose to Turn white, after the world wide accepted historical fact that All Jews left Egypt to come to the promised land. Regardless Jesus would then be white, not black, and not even his true form of the Pleasing mocca skin. If my opponent wishes to use the Bible as his primary reference, he should at least not void large portio-... You know what. I won. Thank you for this time.
Europe's darkest secret! Jesus was black!

Alright, this is going to sound rude, because your argument contained no evidence indicating what you said was true and you did not prove anything I said to be wrong.(The People who lived where Jesus lived when Jesus was alive, where not black. And the Arabs who are not white support this claim. SO don't blame white people. Because even the Egyptians back us up on this.) : Black people were sold to European slave traders by Black people. We did not steal and enslave them. they were sold by blacks to whites. Because slavery was illegal in Europe. So lose the cocky black-supremacy, and don't accuse me of being White-power-foo. touch one. touch two. Black people are eating blood straight from the next of the cow today. God said it is a sin to eat blood. Jews are black? real jews are black? No. It is a sin to drink blood because it causes health defects like sickle-cell, British teeth from blood-sausage, menopause from testosterone, penile-dysfunction from over testosterone doses or female hormones from cows. And black people do this today. Supreme? No far from. Culturally and physically. Third. Jews, in fact come from India where the world originated. Not Africa where no development has ever occurred. Third! And so on. The Jews were not black when Jesus was born, so their original descendance, (India) is irrelevant. You must get your information on religion from atheists or the back of your head. Which is likely too dark to read, because you seem to think Black is so powerful, you c an't look past your racists statements to use functional reasoning. And so. Jesus [YHVH], who is the Light of the world, who is the Wisdom of God, and is his first born son, our Creator, Is not black, because he is far more of a well-pleasing-to-all colour of Mocca.
Europe's darkest secret! Jesus was black!

@WWNightmare you seem confused. First off, off Jesus came thousands of years after the Descendants of Abraham left Egypt, and they migrated there from Hindu India following THAT monotheist religion.{ when the Israelites where clearly not black.] and finally, Egyptian Africans are not black.. first off. Second off Jesus came thousands of years after this, when the Israelites where clearly not black. However I do agree to the Phone number premise. When trying to contact God, if you contact him in doubt, or lack of faith, or for the wrong reason, your prayers do not even go out to him, do not beseech his better nature, and are not pleasing to him so that he should respond to you. In this way, if you do not contact God in Wisdom, through the Light he has provided, then you are not praying to God. If you do not love what God loves and Hate what God hates, then you are not praying to God. In this way all must pray through Jesus who is the Word of God, his Wisdom. However, God lives in us as Jesus, who is the the Light of the World, and the light is not darkness. Black is the absence of all color.{ God embodies all things, not the absence of things. However even though is possible, this would not make God black, say he is universally whole. And in that. God is not Black, I am eager to shun arrogance, blot out ignorance, put a light where there was darkness, and cure this impotency to seek God in his truest of forms.
Europe's darkest secret! Jesus was black!

Call your Jesus and l call my Jesus so we could have a showdown! Its is useless to say the bible was written by Jews without identifying who the real Jews are! And it is useless to pray without identifying the real God you are praying to.The Bible clearly states that we will be deceived in the last days if you know what l mean.So as we have been deceived right now into praying to the wrong God!When we pray,,, our frequencies have been changed to channel our frequencies to darker forces of satan,hence you get bad results! What am I saying here?(For example)A telephone number! l give you John's phone number and you have faith indeed that it is John phone number !You call John asking for a job, he tells you jobs are unavailable.Why? Because l deceived you into believing that it is Johns number who hires people!When in fact its not the actual John you have been calling .The John you 've been calling is phony.He's Fake! You need to take care my dear friends when praying! Who's number are you dialing?Are you dialing Jesus's correct number or you dialing a number you thought or have been told is Christ's phone number! l am getting closer to my point here!First lets find out who you have been praying too,is it the real Jesus Christ or you are one of those praying to the Jesus which even the atheists know he doesn't exist!(food for thought),.What is a Jew...A Jew is a decedent of Abraham and Jacob and is a Hebrew right!And where are they decedent from?l know most would say middle east or nation of Arabs. That is where you all get it wrong .Abraham Jacob David and Jesus are all Africans! The true children of Israel!Gods chosen people Why do l say this because its in the bible!Which Jesus are you channeling your prayers to?ls it the white Jesus set up by western nations or the real black Jesus written in the bible who's real face has been hidden by the minorities to promote a white Jesus for white supremacy!
Just governments ought to provide legal protections for pedophiles

*This debate is closed, please register your interest in the comments*OverviewI am still working on this resolution, so details are liable to change. This debate is going to regard self-identifying/aware pedophiles, and that governemnts ought to provide protections for these people on grounds of:Employment protection - A pedophile cannot be discriminated against in recruitment/firing on grounds of his pedophilic orientation, except on grounds where the pedophile will pose a significant increased risk (such as employment involving work with children).Social Protection - A government ought to provide accommodations so that pedophiles may publicly self-identify as such without due harrassment or stigmatisation - such as allowing societies for pedophiles to exist (akin to homosexual societies and support groups, or mental illness support groups/communities).Medical Accomodations - A government ought to provide optional medical care and treatment to self-identifying pedophiles for managment in a similar manner to other mental illnesses, such as anxiety or depression.If there are other protections that I should add here, then please suggest them.DefinitionsPedophile - Someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children Format3 Rounds, 72h
NRA is a terrorist group

First of all you don't even realize how harmful the NRA is. That's why march for our lives take place which up to 1.2 million people protesting for gun control. NRA is a terrorist organisation because promoting guns= legalized murder. Here are some facts : -America own nearly half (48%) of the estimate 650m civilian owned guns worldwide. -America own more guns per capita than residents of other countries -The US make up less than %5 of the world population but holds 31 % of mass shootings -Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher than in the US than other high income countries -Worldwide the countries with highest gun homicide are central and south america You ask me why i support death penalty for NRA leaders ? Simply like drug dealers. Why drug dealers or war lords should be executed for killing so many people. The same goes on with those gun manufactures. While guns and drugs are extremely lucrative and immoral business anyone who make profit from such business should receive death sentence. What I do ? I wrote an email to March for our lives urging them to execute all NRA membership What do i support to prevent gun violence ? I do support guns to be banned and confiscated from citizen which require no licence or background check to buy it. i support a total ban of gun private ownership i support government disarming all citizen just like what the Nazis do. That's the right thing we should do.
NRA is a terrorist group

Look, your argument is completely false. You said that the NRA are one of the biggest terrorist groups ever. That is extremely false. You provided no evidence whatsoever that the NRA committed acts of terrorism on US soil. The only evidence you gave, was that there were to big shootings recently. You also seemed very emotionally biased against this topic, screaming (in all caps) that the NRA politicians should be put on death penalty. You do realize, anything could become a weapon right? I could use this computer to assault someone next door, and people like you would sue apple for it. Do you not realize that the people pull the trigger? The NRA is a business. Business help the economy. The economy needs help, and we all have a right to guns, so the NRA supplies them. They haven't done anything wrong. Guns are tools, used for culture, sport, etc. Would you blame a hatchet for cutting down a tree? No that would be ridiculous.
There Should be a Birth Tax

The reason why I say the birth tax will have less crime is that if a baby is born depending on there state of character,and parents. These factors contribute to the child committing crime. Over 72% of black kids are raised in a single parent household. Now how is this information relevant? The reason why is that more kids commit crime living in a single mother with no father than a kid living with two married parents. A 1987 survey on youths in custody shows that 70% did not grew up in a two parent household. Another survey in 1994 on Wisconsin Juvenile found that 89% of kids ages 4 to 16 have engaged in rape, lust, or drinking (in case you are wondering, I have never done any of those 3) No people living in poor households have the basic necessities of life. 99% of those households have refrigerators,television,stove or a oven. 91% has a Microwave. 85% have air conditioning. 77% have a second T.V. 74% have a clothes washer. And 68% have multiple video game systems. The average household has 6 TV's and 4 video game systems. Now if there living in poverty why would they commit crime if they have basic necessities? I believe they are morally inferior. IAnd I must ask my opponent would you? Any person of any income level who robs,rapes,and murders are morally inferior. This tax will reduce the crime and morally strengthen these kids to not do crime. I must say water is limited. So I must say how is more humans gonna help us save water and reduce carbon emission? I explained that the average human needs 720 liters of water. Now if we had less of a human population we will have more resources available to us and we use less resources. With less resources we have more time to generate ideas than we do with more humans using more energy to make resources that will cause carbon emission and thus increasing global warming. With more humans going to jail and more useful morally superior humans to make ideas we can help reduce or stop global warming. Furthermore, with less people on the earth, we will reduce a chance of another Hitler terrorizing the earth.
There Should be a Birth Tax

Your argument is so ridiculous that there's no way that you're not trolling. Literally nothing you are saying makes sense, and your argument is so bad that I showed this to my friends and they started laughing. Even if you are just a troll, I have quite a few things to say because I don't want to lose this debate. "The Malthusian theory is not a lie. Human population increases exponentially, while food production only increases arithmetically." So far, all the evidence that experts have found show that our food production has been able to match our population increase. Even if the Malthusian trap was true, there still isn't enough evidence of it to justify taxing families such a ridiculously high amount of money (possibly more than their yearly salary) for creating babies (which, as I stated in my last argument, will cause economic problems because we won't have enough workers). In fact, Ester Boserup argues that population growth creates technological innovations, which then, in return, create more food. "Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world." Just because there are some bad black people in the world does not mean that every single one of them is going to end up in prison. Also, despite what you say, this is very clearly a racist statement because it generalizes a whole group of people for something only a few of them do. "If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people." I find it quite ironic that you are speaking against segregation, yet you don't want black people to have children. "Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people." There have been many incidents where black people attack black people, where white people attack black people, and where white people attack white people. Crime is crime regardless of what race you are. Why is it that you only care about crimes where blacks attack whites? "the best solution is to throw them in prison" This is such a horrible statement to make. The fourth amendment states that we must have probable cause before we punish someone, and if we punish people before they are even born, then that's horrible and is downright fascism. "throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded" You still have yet to explain why a rising population is necessarily bad. I would argue that having a rising population is better for the country because it adds more workers and more skills to the economy. While a birth tax may make the world become less crowded, by the time that it becomes crowded enough that it causes major problems, Elon Musk would have figured out how to get humans to Mars anyways and we would start a new civilization in Mars, so who cares? Nothing you say justifies your argument.
There Should be a Birth Tax

Black people should not have children because of the following reasons: Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, but it's not. Just read on The Malthusian theory is not a lie. Human population increases exponentially, while food production only increases arithmetically. Thus, a birth tax will weed out blacks and poor people. Black people eat more food because they are black, and poor people eat more food because they are poor.