BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Overall, It is better to be Hispanic then to be Black

Alrighty then, lets get it on. Reasons why its better to be hispanic then black:1) More likely to be bilingualBeing Hispanic means you are very likely to be bilingual and speak both English and Spanish.... Blacks usually only speak one language, English, and even then I dont thank that 'Dem hoes bein b*tches and keep jackin up my game dawg' real English....2) Their native land is much closer to home. Hispanics usually come from south of the border and can return to their homeland or origins of their ancestors with ease, blacks though usually come from Africa and last I checked, that place is really far away and pretty f*cked up right about now3) Hispanics have the PopeThe new Pope is some dude from South America which technically makes him Hispanic, blacks currently dont have a pope ----------- (Warning, super racist comment approaching ---------- unless you count the KFC guy as the pope of black people4) Hispanics are close to controlling the Southern USThey are arriving en masse and repopulating like crazy to the point that they may start to take over the Southern United States.... Black people dont really have many states that they can take over in terms of population. 5) Hispanics outnumber Blacks in the SenateMeaning they have more say in national affairsOne Black Senator: http://www.infoplease.com...Three Hispanic Senators: in the House: http://www.infoplease.com...6) Millions and millions of hispanics are immigrating to the country whereas blacks are notThis means that Hispanics are growing in number and fast while blacks are becoming a smaller and smaller minority. 7) Blacks go to jail waaaaaaay more frequently then hispanics dohttp://www.prisonpolicy.org...^ Pretty f*cked up, but still a good reason to be hispanic instead of black. 8) 200 years ago, Blacks were slaves while Hispanics were not. Blacks have it worse then Hispanics do both today and in the past, which only further shows that it is better to be hispanic then it is to be black....9) Barack Obama is blackA solid argument for why its better to be Hispanic then to be Black
Pro has the burden of proof in a debate

Thank you for this debate. For simplicity's sake, I will do what I ussually do not, which is debate California-Style. (Without a constructive) My opponent's sole contention is that it is unfair for the Affirmative to be the only one with the "burden of proof" in a debate round. In this round so far, my opponent has already lost. By making no real warrant (because he doesn't have to) you assume that what he says is true (I'll explain this more later) until I prove that he is wrong, which I am about to do. Basically speaking, by taking the negative position in this debate, you are conceding the debate. Affirming or proving anything true for that matter requires a point of evidence (aka proof) from the person making a claim. For example, I can say that the sky is red. I don't have any proof to enforce my point, so the person opposing me (the Negative) simply needs to say: "No, it's not" since it is a statement of fact. Everything is "negative" by default because whenever something is to be proven, it needs proof (ergo the word "proof" being the root word of "prove") to show that it is true. Therefore, you must affirm this resolution since definitionally and logically, any statement is "negative until proven affirmative" (turning my opponent's own wording against him) not vice versa.
Pro has the burden of proof in a debate

Looking through various debates on this website, it has become prevalent that many debaters open their arguments by saying that Pro must start the debate because Pro has the burden of proof. This assumption is both erroneous and fallacious. I shall negate the resolution, "Pro has the burden of proof in a debate." Pro- a proponent of an issue; a person who upholds the affirmative in a debate. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) burden of proof- the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) debate- a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) My job is to prove why Pro does not have the burden of proof in a debate. I will now let Pro present his argument, for Pro has the burden of proof...... NOT!!!!!! I see this on so many opening rounds. "Pro has the burden of proof." This is a ridiculous statement. In a debate, both PRO and CON must present evidence for their side. Con cannot just wait for Pro to make an argument and then rebuttal. A debate is where the two sides both have to try and convince each other/the moderator that their view is "correct." Why single it out so only Pro has the burden of proof? There are two sides to a debate, not one. Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? This may regard the legal system, but it can directly apply to debate. Every resolution is accepted until there is evidence that contradicts it or proves it false. That is Con's responsibility, so the burden of proof would actually fall on Con, not Pro. I shall further my argument in the proceeding rounds.
Hitler after all was a good guy

But what happened after Hitler raised to power? Did Hitler made Germany the worst country to be born in? No he didn't. Before Hitler was the leader of Germany, the "Weimar Republic" or Germany was on a terrible state, its money was worthless, children would build pyramids out of money and all that money used to build it was not even worth a loaf of Bread,. After Hitler came in, all began to change, the currency's value rose, less and less people became undemployed and Germany grew in millitary strenght and national pride. Why Hitler hated Jews? Because it was the Jews who made Germany to be in a such horrible state. Nazi Germany was by far the strongest nation that time, the first to have a idea to go to space aand to build nukes. "If Nazi Germany was the strongest nation in the world, how did they lost the war?" I would like to see you winning a war against most of the world's superpowers. Plus, how did hey conquered France and Europe so easily?
Hitler after all was a good guy

Was Hitler a good guy? I am disgusted that any human being can say that; even with confidence. Regardless of what you believe, there was nothing great about Hitler. Hitler was never a quote "A Good Guy" Good guys do not kills millions of people, commit suicide, and trick people into Nazism. A. In his book Meir Kampf, Hitler will obviously not talk about wanting the kill Jewish people. If he referred to genocide of Jewish people, Hitler would have never rose to power. Hitler tricked people into condoning Nazism. The book was the first part. After the book, Hitler eventually rose to power. After WWI, Germany was in despair. While Germany was in despair, Hitler convinced people that he should be the leader of Germany. People did not know that he would be in on an genocide. Maybe the only good thing about Hitler is that he was an opportunist. Tricking people into genocide does not in any way make him a good person. Even if he was friends with Gandhi, it does make him a good person. Hitler used Gandhi as a shield to make people believe that he was a good person. It was ALL a plan. Can you not see the plan that Hitler put into place? Hitler did not believe in religion so it is impossible to believe that Hitler actually idolized Gandhi. The numbers, people who died, the destruction he put on the world, I cannot put that in words. I will let the numbers and pictures do the talking in respect for the seven million plus people who died. SOURCES http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.jewishgen.org... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
Hitler after all was a good guy

Once again, your round three argument is irrelevant? Do you realize how many people Hitler killed and took advantage of? Even when Hitler rose to power and made the economy better, how long did that last? Not very long. As soon Hitler lost WWII, Hitler was no where to been seen again. Hitler turned on every person who believed in him. Hitler was not a good guy; Hitler was a coward. In your round three argument paragraph 3, you basically say that you hate Jewish people. "Why Hitler hated Jews? Because it was the Jews who made Germany to be in a such horrible state." -Pro Hitler used Jewish people as a scapegoat. Obviously, it was not Jewish people fault for their economic depression. "If Nazi Germany was the strongest nation in the world, how did they lost the war?" "I would like to see you winning a war against most of the world's superpowers. Plus, how did hey conquered France and Europe so easily?"-Pro If you had any knowledge of WWII, you would know that Hitler LOST WWII. Because Hitler turned on Stalin, Nazi Germany lost WWII. I am not disagreeing that Germany was a strong nation under Hitler. It is how Hitler rose to power is what I am questioning. Throughout this debate, you continue to ignore the fact that Hitler was the reason for the genocide of Jewish people. Otherwise known as the Holocaust. In addition to you ignoring the Holocaust, you have no evidence to some of your points. Particularly arguments 2,3, and 5. Counter 2: If Hitler really cared about the well being of Jewish people, why would he put them in death camps? According to some historians, Nazis leaders would have the people of the camp do useless work just to torture them to death. My "theory" of your number two from round two) is that you are an discriminator of the Jewish people. The arguments that you posted in black and white prove that your a racist and support the Nazi regime. Counter 3: I do not care if Hitler was best friends with the pope. What Hitler did to people that lived in his OWN country is heinous crime. If Hitler really cared about his people, why is he responsible for the lives of seven million plus people? The mass destruction of the environment around him and the deaths of innocent people completely make number 3 irrelevant. Do you know how long it took to fix the devastation caused by WWII? Decades, Time, and Money Counter 4: Hitler did NOTHING to stop the war. Hitler is the reason why the war started and ended. Hitler was never a good guy. There is NO way you can condone the lives lost and the destruction caused to millions of families and property destroyed. Holocaust happened whether you believe it or not. SOURCES http://www.ushmm.org... http://history1900s.about.com...
If nervegear existed would people use it to evil end like in SAO (Sword Art Online)

I'm going to specify that the kill feature would be removed from the Nervegear itself rather then from separate games. We aren't talking about other devices that are like the Nervegear, we are just talking about Nervegear itself. Patches would involve having to kick players from the games they are playing, giving them the ability to log out and therefore they wouldn't be able to be trapped inside a game that is using the Nervegear because the Nervegear is powered down. Since there are already generic databases for other games and consoles, it would not be to difficult to have one that has every Nervegear registered. If the patch happened once a week say on a Wednesday, then all users of the Nervegear would be kicked from it, which even if they were trapped they'd be freed by the patch.
If nervegear existed would people use it to evil end like in SAO (Sword Art Online)

Even if you remove the kill feature it would only be for that specific game so if someone developed another game and gave it out it could still happen. Unless you mean removing the feature from actual Nervegear device but even if you do that there will be rival companies developing the same Nervegear device but just one of those companies have to be corrupt and this whole situation will happen. Even if you have patches the person who own the device would have to accept those patches and being trapped in the world is based of each game because the nervegear connects to the game and the database made for that game, the only way to stop this from happening would be to have one company develop the device and make sure that no other company could develop the Nervegear and have a generic database that every nervegear is connected to and that would have to be constantly upgraded and maintained which is why they had different databases for each game so they would not have to constantly upgrade and have it maintained 24 hours a day.
If nervegear existed would people use it to evil end like in SAO (Sword Art Online)

Boundaries that are placed would be done in such a way that loops holes don't exist, we'd remove the feature that death of the living person happens on the death of the virtual character, therefore preventing the possibility of someone even dying. People are going to notice how you kidnap someone, why not just save time and take the person directly. If you left someone trapped inside the game world with the chance of them dying, wouldn't that be a tad dangerous. Nervegear would only ever bring good to the world, as no one would be able to change the system programming if the right measures were put into place. Say weekly patches, frequency of use databases, and other kinds of defences would be used to prevent someone being trapped in the world. If someone were evil they wouldn't waste time sticking someone in a virtual reality, they would have to place the person under severe surveillance and that would mean getting others to go along with the plan, meaning that it would be that much less subtle then just simply kidnapping the person directly.
If nervegear existed would people use it to evil end like in SAO (Sword Art Online)

Even if boundaries were put in place someone is always going to find a loophole or just break the rule entirely and do it just by saying it is a bad thing to do is not going to stop someone from doing it. Why would you kidnap the target when someone could see it when you can kill some by simply hacking into their nervegear device or if you know the person you can just remove the device form the person while they are using it and they are dead just like that. The nervegear device no matter how much good it would bring to the world of gaming it would ultimately be used in ways that people probably wouldn't have though of like making a game like the one in SAO where the user cannot log out. This would be used to keep them their until you get what you want and if they don't tell you well they can stay trapped in the game forever. Having someone stuck in a game like that knowing that with one step out of a safe zone or city you could die and not see you family or friends again would be traumatising to youth and adults.
If nervegear existed would people use it to evil end like in SAO (Sword Art Online)

As my opponent has stated, if someone were to use Nervegear correctly it would be brilliant as the technology allows humans to interface with a virtual reality. I agree with that statement, as it goes to show that if boundaries were placed in the correct areas it would be possible to stop things like this occurring. People wouldn't use Nervegear to achieve evil ends, as there are more easily accessible ways to harm people, such as by simply kidnapping the target from the beginning rather then waiting on the off chance that the target buys the Nervegear device. Truly, all users of the Nervegear would use it in such a way that wouldn't be evil.
If nervegear existed would people use it to evil end like in SAO (Sword Art Online)

I wish good luck to Kastorian in this debate and all debates to come. For those that do not know what nervegear is search up Sword Art Online Anime. Now on to the debate. I believe that if someone created Nervegear (the same one from SAO) people would do the same thing in SAO to the one in real life because there is always going to be evil people in the world and it would be inevitable that this would happen. I believe that if this was used correctly it would be brilliant but someone out their will use this for evil ends. In the books and the anime Aincrad was the name of a giant floating castle in a game and if you died in the game you die in real life.
Christianity is not the enemy of the LGBT community

Still, I would like some meaning behind all of these quotes from the bible. You just keep throwing them around randomly. For example, what's up with the eunuchs? Like, they have nothing to do with the LGBT community. But this is odd. Like, there will always be the extremists and the more casual groups of a community. I don't think we can judge an entire community based like that. Then we can not ever get to an answer on arguments like this. Instead we need to look at the facts and the "laws" of the religion, to be able to determine whether or not, Christianity is pro or against LGBT. And the religion itself is absolutely against LGBT, but that does not say anything about the members of the religion. That's up to them. So if I was to answer your topic "Christianity is not the enemy of the LGBT community". I would say the religion is, but some parts of the community is not. And about homosexuality being a sin. Yes. I SO AGREE with you on this matter. A lot of things in the bible does not make any sense in a modern day society. We can not go around and stone women for being unfaithful, or chopping of hands off, of thieves if they stole something. That is so important! But again. We are discussing the religion, not the community. And the religion itself is not pro-LGBT.
Christianity is not the enemy of the LGBT community

I'm not sure what the point is of all of the quotes from the bible. But I think it is a flaw to say that Christianity is the enemy of the LGBT community. It depends on the level of extremism. The "extremely" religious people would definitely be considered "enemies" or people who oppose the LGBT community. We have seen the extreme people fighting against LGBT rights. Against gay people getting married in the church, or transgender people getting to change their gender. But there are also the more "relaxed" group of individuals in Christianity. They might not support the lifestyle of a gay person, but they will not stand in the way of someone living their life as they desire. I think we are dealing with a group, that has multiple opinions on the matter. If we take a look at what the religion says, and not how any opinions included. I think the quote is something like this "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind it is abomination". That seems pretty anti-gay to me. But we need to see how the religious people react to this, and practice it. We have in the past seen a big group opposing against gay-marriage. And the transgendered. What about them? In Genesis 1:26, the Bible says, "And God created man in His image, in His likeness; male and female He created them . . . . and it was very good." In addition, 1 Corinthians 14:33 says that "God is not a God of confusion but of peace," so deliberately creating someone with self-contradiction appears to go against the very nature of God. I think that opposes the whole deal about transgendered people, and labels them "mentally ill" or whatever they want to call it. But this very passage, does not call it normal, or in anyway accepted by God. But I know a few christian people, who accepts transgender people. So I think you need to clarify, are we talking about the religion itself, or the community?
Christianity is not the enemy of the LGBT community

John Stemberger, an attorney who was also instrumental in founding an alternative to the Boy Scouts of America (Trail Life USA) after it decided to admit openly gay men as scouting leaders, said in a press release,""the people killed by ISIS-loyalist Omar Mateen Sunday morning were "precious souls." www.christianexaminer.com/article/christian-leaders-orlando-victims-were-precious-souls-loved-by-god/50791.htm * -Members of the city"s LGBTQ community were invited up to one church"s altar to be prayed over. Many accepted, rose from their seats and stood tall in front of the congregation. The proud gesture at the First Baptist Church of Orlando said much about how the reaction to the massacre at the gay nightclub Pulse on Sunday has measured a positive in social attitudes. https://www.theguardian.com... * The Westboro Baptists, a notorious "Christian" cult known for "non-Christian-like" behaviors outraged the true Christian community. -In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Westboro Baptist Church has come under fire yet again. As expected, many Americans have taken to social media to criticize the cult-like church, but now another group has voiced concerns about the beliefs of Westboro members. According to Charisma News, Christians are making it clear that absolutely nothing about Westboro Baptist Church"s stance is "Christian-like." Pastor Rick Joyner took to Facebook to put things into perspective and gave his opinion of Westboro Baptist Church members" views. He even described Westboro"s message as an example of anti-Christ. " http://www.inquisitr.com...
Christianity is not the enemy of the LGBT community

Con: "Still, I would like some meaning behind all of these quotes from the bible. You just keep throwing them around randomly. For example, what's up with the eunuchs? Like, they have nothing to do with the LGBT community." They do in this debate. Eunichs consist of the LGBT community of which Christ, our infallable leader, and God, our infallable leader, understood as natural and normal according to the Bible itself. The Bible/Christ is what Christians go by for infallable direction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * "And about homosexuality being a sin. Yes. I SO AGREE with you on this matter. A lot of things in the bible does not make any sense in a modern day society." The Old Testament and Jesus Christ are 2 different things. He stood against the Judaistic ideas such as stoning adulterers, not eating a plethera of foods, etc etc. * Con: "And the religion itself is absolutely against LGBT." Not actually. We will need a citation for this. I have one. (Matthew 7:1) "Judge not lest you be judged, for by the measure you judge, you shall be judged." * Con: "And about homosexuality being a sin." 1)According to Christ? He never mentioned homsexuality once in the Bible. 2)So is looking upon a woman with lust in your heart. Looks like we are all screwed. That's why we know a term called "grace". -In Christian theology, grace has been defined, not as a created substance of any kind, but as "the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not because of anything we have done to earn it." https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.dictionary.com... * Con: "We can not go around and stone women for being unfaithful, or chopping of hands off, of thieves if they stole something. That is so important! But again. We are discussing the religion, not the community. And the religion itself is not pro-LGBT." We don't believe the same things as Judaism or Islam because of Jesus. He is what both of those religions lack and do not possess. Jesus preached: 1)Love your enemy. 2)Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 3)Love your neighbor as yourself. 4)Do not judge. 5)Be merciful. 6)Be patient. 7)Be kind. 8)Forgive.