BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should be abolished in its current form.

I want to debate saying that the NPT must be abolished because it is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no reason why some countries should have Nuclear Weapons and be allowed to trade Nuclear energy whereas the other countries are not allowed to have Nuclear weapons. My main reasons why NPT should be abolished are: 1) It creates an imbalance of power between countries that have them and those that don't. 2) Saying that only states which created nuclear weapons before 1965 should be allowed to keep them is completely arbitrary. It could just as well have been 1975 or 1990. 3) It could possibly be argued that only stable governments should possess nuclear weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists but who are we to decide whether a government deserves to have nuclear weapons? I propose that the NPT be abolished and one of two options be considered: 1) Either a new treaty is made which prohibits nuclear weapons entirely and asks all states to disarm themselves without exceptions. 2) Any state can create Nuclear weapons with equal or no restriction for all states.
The United States was founded on white nationalist principles

Thank you for the debate. I'll start off with a brief argument, because you haven't started off with an argument and I'm not sure what your grounds for your argument are. The founding fathers were highly divided, and it's hard to pinpoint some principles that they held. But we do know that there would have been pro and con arguments. We know, from Liberia, that some Americans later believed that whites and blacks couldn't coexist. But Liberia was never that popular. Clearly we still have a lot of African Americans, so many disagreed with this. As for the founding fathers, we know that those who were pro-slavery would have disagreed (there was a huge spat during the writing of the constitution over slavery, and the Southern states/plantation states were clearly for allowing more blacks into the country, something a white nationalist would presumably disagree with. There were also Quakers, in states like Pennsylvania, who were wholeheartedly opposed to slavery but also strongly for diversity (middle states like Pennsylvania, New York, and also Rhode Island (a New England state) were very diverse, and considered themselves such (Rhode Island was derisively called "Rogue Island"). That leaves New England states, and I am not aware of any clear opinions from them that it was imperative for a country to be majority-white. They often had disagreements with the natives (though not always), but the same could be said between the English and the Irish, so there's no evidence that it was a "white thing". Would some have agreed with your statement? Very possibly. But not the majority. I leave you to defend your argument.
The United States was founded on white nationalist principles

I will argue that the United States was founded on white nationalism and not "diversity." The latter is a lie that has been spread by Communists after the Immigration Act of 1965 went into effect. First off let's define what white nationalism is, since many of you leftists have a hard time comprehending its actual meaning. White nationalism is simply the notion that whites should be the vast majority in the countries founded by them. Now, you can argue that the US was stolen by Whites, but that's for another debate. I will consider the US as the nation existing after the colonists gained their independence from the British.
The United States was founded on white nationalist principles

The article that you posted talked about diverse reasons for Liberia, some of which involved a belief in the separation of raves, but others that involved a belief in freedom from slavery, which Liberia helped insure. You say that diverse culture wasn't part of America until 1965, yet admit that many European cultures were mixed into America's. You also talk about segregation, yet that didn't occur until after the abolition of slavery, almost a century after America's founding. You also talk about European identity, yet showed no proof of one. And Europeans are not synonymous with whites. Irish and Italians, and a lot of Eastern Europeans, were frowned upon. Germany, England, and France were much less discriminated against. Jews, also largely white, were also persecuted. No sense of white superiority yet existed, only a sense of black inferiority to groups such as English, French, and German. You've proved that Americans were racist toward blacks, yet haven't managed to distinguish how that behavior was different than how they treated the Irish. You've also talked about segregation, yet early slave owners were perfectly content to live on plantations full of black slaves. No evidence was given involving the use of the vote to keep immigration down. The vote was also denied to landless men and women, and restrictions on the importation of slaves weren't passed until the early 19th century. As for South Africa, you've really pushed your definition to its limit. Segregation isn't the same as "being the vast majority in countries founded by them". Whites were most certainly not the vast majority-- they were the vast minority-- and you seem to be denying your own definition by acknowledging them as potential white nationalists. I'm not saying there weren't racists among the founding fathers. There were plenty of them. But they didn't adhere to your defined brand of "white nationalism". They weren't opposed to black immigration-- they brought in slaves and increased the minority population-- and a white identity wasn't distinct until soon before the civil war, long after the founding of the country. Diverse European population, including many that were racially discriminated against, going against your concept of a European identity, varied the culture and go against your denial of a multicultural America. By your own definition of white nationalism, made distinct from simple racism by you at the start of the debate, is not met by your arguments.
The United States was founded on white nationalist principles

If our founders and early Americans held racist beliefs against the inclusion of non-white individuals, then that automatically implies that they supported the idea of racial homogenity. When slaves were given their rights after slavery was abolished, it was clear that these slaveholders did not want to include free blacks as part of white American society, thus they distrusted the idea of diversity. Americans were mainly united under European identity, which is essentially the same as white identity. The early colonists, as I showed earlier, believed in a nation that was to mainly include Whites. A society of diverse races and cultures was never a part of the US, until the 1965 Immigration and Reform Act was passed. Segregation in the US had an impact on demographics and population. Its main purpose was to separate free blacks from whites, and thus it upholded the idea of having areas where the vast majority would be composed of Europeans, not other races. Even though many of those who believed in voting rights for blacks were WN's themselves (like Lincoln), it couldn't have been clearer than those who opposed them also did it for a purpose related to white nationalist ideology. They did not want minorities to have a say in how government works- and thus- allowing them to push for legislation that would change the ethnic population of the US. It could be said that South Africa was a supporter of White Nationalist ideals, since its leaders distrusted the idea of diversity. They believd that whites should not be mixed with blacks, and thus backed the idea of having regions where whites would be the vast majority, despite being an ethnic minority. We clearly do not know what their main intentions were though. They might have thought about ridding the nation of its black population, but that would've been considered a criminal act, and then all nations would have turned against them as a result. They might have supported the main WN purpose, but it is unclear. The US was clearly founded on a white nationalist purpose, and did, however, believe that the nation should mainly include Europeans in its societies. I will show further prove that the founders, and even individuals 50 years after the colonial era, backed white nationalism... Remember when I said that blacks were imported only for the purpose of slavery, and nothing else? Many founders and early American leaders wanted to send free blacks back to Africa, specifically Liberia, to preserve the homogenity of the US. The organization that pushed for this cause was known as the "American Colonization Society." Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and James Madison were all part of it. If they really rejected white nationalism, then such a movement would have never been thought of in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States was founded on white nationalist principles

"White nationalism is simply the notion that whites should be the vast majority in the countries founded by them." Again, that's the definition you gave of white nationalism at the beginning of the debate. I'm not going to let you change the goalpost after I defended my point. No, slaveowners back then wanted huge populations of slaves, and didn't much care for outnumbering blacks. Look at the Caribbean. Look at Haiti. It wasn't until the Haitian revolution that slave owners realized it was stupid to be outnumbered by your slaves. Slave owners pushed for greater imports of slaves for a few decades after the constitution until it was banned. I don't care if they were racist. That isn't what this debate is about. You defined white nationalism as being about population, and wanting to import a huge number of black slaves goes against that. As for later acts, this argument is about the founding of America, which i took to mean the late colonial and early national part of our history. And like I said, Americans weren't even united under a white identity. That seems to be important to "white nationalism" to me... But then again you didn't define it that way. You defined it for "leftists" like me (btw I'm a libertarian republican/small government conservative) as about wanting whites to be the large majority in the country they lived in. I showed you that slave owners didn't want this, and thus by your own definition of white nationalism you're wrong, and they weren't white nationalists. Yes, they were segregationists. Yes, they wanted the vote to be in the hands of white property owners (not all white people -- again, no sense of white idenitity). But those don't impact population. Would a white nationalist be okay with illegal immigration if there was segregation and they couldn't vote? Was apartheid south Africa a white nationalist paradise, with a majority black population? I don't expect most white nationalists would consider it such.
more guns less crime

NOTE: I conceded due to the fact of no clarification. Please read my Round 2 explanation: (after the resolution).Though he wins, I urge you to give Con: Spelling & Grammar. Rest of the points: 16kadams. Also, I'm going snowboarding tomorrow so I won't be on.Rubric: Just a scoreAgree: ?Agree: ?Conduct: Pro (I conceded)Spelling and Grammar: ConArguments: ProSources: Pro or Con, you choose.In any way, Pro wins this debate.
abortion

1. SentienceMy opponent seems to think that requiring sentience for bodily sovereignty somehow makes it the more relevant factor. Interesting that he does not even reference any of my previous examples, detailing how this is not so. In any case, I will re-iterate. Bodily sovereignty supersedes sentience in that sentience in of itself cannot justify allowing pregnancy. If sentience were the relevant criteria, it should be able to be argued that in being sentient, the fetus should be allowed to be born. But that position cannot be soundly argued, because of the issue of bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty overrides sentience's power when it comes to the issue. Just like, again, the other examples I provided. Sentience does not permit one to violate bodily sovereignty; this proves bodily sovereignty holds power over sentience, not the other way around. Making bodily sovereignty more important, and therefore, more relevant, than sentience. My opponent has failed to give any form of argument for how sentience overrides one's right to bodily sovereignty, thereby conceding it is inferior to it.2. Free Will It matters not if the child was created without it's own consent or not. According to the ideas behind bodily sovereignty, the mother's body belongs to no one but herself. No one can claim a right to or ownership of her body other than herself. No one. To claim anything less is to not support the idea of bodily sovereignty. Therefore, the fetus, whether it was put their by it's own choice or not, has no right, and can never have a right, to the mother's body. Sentient or not. Chosen or not. It is incapable of having a right to her body. So yes, even without free will, it still must observe the idea of bodily sovereignty, because the idea is not concerning it, but the mother. So let us review. My opponent has stated that sentience is key to determining the morality of abortion, and is the most important factor. I claim that it is not sentience, but bodily sovereignty. My opponent claims that bodily sovereignty cannot exist without sentience, and while I agree, I show how bodily sovereignty overrides one's sentience when determining morality. My opponent never argues this point. They never attempt to show a situation wherein one's sentience allows one to violate another's bodily sovereignty. I take this as a concession to the fact that bodily sovereignty will always override sentience. Thereby making bodily sovereignty the more relevant criteria by which to determine the morality of abortion. Therefore, my opponent has failed to affirm the resolution, by never arguing that sentience overrides bodily sovereignty.
abortion

Bodily sovereignty: You said "in being sentient, ... it has no inherent right to the mother's body, because of her bodily sovereignty. If the fetus is not sentient life, it is not held to such regulations...". This would suggest that a being only is subject to bodily sovereignty if it is sentient, only reinforcing my point that it is sentience that is the determining fctor in the morality of abortion. You also said "If the fetus is not sentient life, it is not held to such regulations, but at the same time, there should be no qualms about killing it". This would again suggest that a being is only subject to bodily sovereignty if it is sentient. Also, you said so yourself, if it is not sentient, that there is nothing wrong with killing it, therefore determining the morality of it. free will: Say that you ignore my previous point, and still assume that a fetus must observe bodily sovereignity regardless of it's intelligence. There is one key dfference between your dying man scenario and pregnancy. The fetus did not choose to be born out of it's own free will, so you can't argue that the fetus, as a sentient creature, must observe bodily sovereignty of it's mother, as it has no choice but to be in it's mothers womb. A more accurate example would be if the man willingly gave his kidney to the dying man, and then one day changed his mind and killed the previously dying man to get his kidney back. After gifting someone with something as valuable as life, the healthy man is moraly obligated to allow the other man to keep the kidney. It just seems unreasonable to say that , if it is sentient, a baby has no inherent right to be inside it's mothers womb. It was created without it's own consent.
abortion

I agree with your claims that sentience is important to understanding bodily sovereignty, but you are flawed in saying it is above such sovereignty. Allow me to explain why.In your example with non-sentient life, I would agree that such life is okay to utilize. The problem with your proposition is that, much like how being born into a country means you are to be subjected to it's laws, being sentient requires you to follow certain rules. And just like how being a citizen in a country does not put you above the law, being sentient does not put you above certain regulations and moralities. You state that, if the fetus were sentient, the mother would have no right to abort it, for the fetus would have ever right to life the mother has. This is not so though. Even if the fetus were sentient, the mother would still have every right to abort the fetus. Because in being sentient, the fetus is subject to the rules and regulations regarding human interaction. One of those being that it has no inherent right to the mother's body, because of her bodily sovereignty. If the fetus were indeed sentient life, it would have no such right to the mother's body. Just like how the dying man had no right to the living man's body. Sentience does not guarantee you a right to live at the expense of other's bodily sovereignty. Which renders it inferior then to bodily sovereignty, as bodily sovereignty overrides it.If the fetus is not sentient life, it is not held to such regulations, but at the same time, there should be no qualms about killing it.If the fetus is sentient life, it is required to be held to such regulations, therefore, permitting abortion despite it's sentience and right to life, for it has no inherent right to the mother's body; it would violate her bodily sovereignty.Therefore, while sentience is required to bodily sovereignty to become a relevant factor, it does not trump bodily sovereignty; it is constrained by it. Making bodily sovereignty the more relevant criteria when deciding the morality of abortion.
abortion

I feel that your hypothetical situation fails to demonstrate how bodily sovereignty is above sentience. The man who is dying can't take the other man's heart because the other man is sentient as well, and has an equal right to life, a right that I agree the dying man can't violate. But say that the dying man could take a heart from a monkey of some sort. Would you suggest that the dying man can't take the heart without the animals permission? I feel the man has the right to do so, because the monkey is not intelligent in the same way as the man. And this can be applied to abortion as well. If a fetus is not self aware in the same way as a living human, then why does it have the right to destroy the life of an intelligent living human? If the fetus was sentient, then the mother could not abort it because, as a self aware, sentient being, it has the same right to life. But only a sentient being has bodily sovereignty, or at least to the extent of a human. Just look a the meat industry.
abortion

Let me begin by stating that nobody wishes to suffer. Not a single soul. Even those who take pleasure in their own suffering, only desire a certain kind of suffering; not what we would call "true" suffering. Given this, all moral decisions should occur under the over encompassing shadow of this moral guideline: Since nobody wishes to suffer, we should focus on maximizing freedoms, while limiting harms, so as to bring about the best possible reality for everyone.Now, my opponent raises several good points as to why sentience is more important than species existence. However, there is a greater power at play when it comes to abortion; the issue of bodily sovereignty. Compared to this, sentience is entirely irrelevant. Allow me to explain.Let us presume that there is a man, dying, due to a failing heart. In order to live, he must obtain the heart of another. Let us now presume another man, who has just such a heart. The dying man can ask, beg, plead, and bribe the living man for his heart. But at no point does he have a right to forcibly take the living man's heart against his will. Why? Because this would violate the living man's bodily sovereignty. Forcing someone into a physical state against their will, when they have done no wrong, is a violation of liberty, and a great harm. It fails both premises of the greatest form of morality.But there is something else, upon closer observation, one will notice. In such a situation, though the dying man is dying, he is still, in that moment, a living, fully functional, mentally strong individual. In other words, the dying man is sentient. Yet this sentience does not give the man justification to violate the bodily sovereignty of the other. Therefore, we can see that sentience does not supersede bodily sovereignty; just the opposite.In the same way, when it comes to abortion, sentience is irrelevant. In fact, whether the fetus is human or not is irrelevant. Because both these things are superseded by the issue of bodily sovereignty. Bodily sovereignty is more important. Therefore, sentience is not the best means by which to determine the morality of abortion, because it does not take into account the same level of freedom and harm prevention as the issue of bodily sovereignty does.
abortion

Lots of people say that abortion is murder, because it is directly causing the death of a human. I would like to note that anyone who tries to refute that fetuses are human are idiots. I point this out because I want to clarify that this debate is about the morality of abortion, not the definition of it. So, Even though the fetus is a human, that does not mean it is a person in the same sense as you or me. Unless, of course, you are a fetus. I believe that what makes a person the most terrible sort of living thing to kill is not that it is inherently wrong to kill a human because humans are sacred, or because the are of the same species as you, but because people are self aware, because they are intelligent. If weren't for this, killing a person would be no worse then killing an animal. Really, it would be killing an animal. A fetus has had no opportunity to learn, or develop a personality. Regardless of how anatomically similar it is to a person, a fetus could be have more in common mentally with an animal then a mature adult. And it is the mental state of the living thing that determines the morality of killing, not the anatomy. If spiders where sentient and intelligent, it would of course be considered immoral to kill them, just like if a human was as intelligent as a spider it would not be considered particularly terrible to kill a person. So in conclusion, it is the mental development of a fetus that determines the morality of killing it, not the species.
abortion

This isn't your typical abortion debate. Because I've never had the 'opportunity' of being a pregnant lady, nor do I have the privilege of remembering my fetus days, I don't consider myself fit to actually judge as to whether abortion is OK or not. This is a debate as to how the morality of abortion should be judged. In other words, I will be debating that the morality of abortion should be determined by whether or not a fetus is sentient, while con will do something along the lines that the morality of abortion should be determined by deciding whether a fetus is a person or not. Go ahead and except. Unless your rationalmadman.
the american election was hilarious

While I concede that the matters discussed were and are serious, I maintain that the lead up to the election and the aftermath too, have been some of the most humorous (and therefore engaging) political events in recent history, the meme war that we have all seen going on online has had me in stitches for the last 6-8 months. the outrageous hypocrisy of Hillary and the unapologetic lack of couth of Trump have both contributed to one of the funniest elections in modern history