BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
White pride is a joke

You misinterpret me. I have no disagreement with anyone, unless they act like enough of an idiot for me to say "enough". The white pride people have actually been really well-behaved as of late, so I'll tolerate them, just like I tolerate anyone willing to not be a toxic blight on a decent society (results may vary). In any case, yeah, I'm going to have a nice pastrami sandwich and take a nap. *EDIT* Okay, yeah, it doesn't matter how much melanin you have in your system in the eyes of God, but here on Earth, it can feel like everything. Allow me to demonstrate the underlying concepts of white pride. The Magna Carta The Constitution of the United States Leviathan The Prince The Roman Empire The British Empire The Danish Empire The French Empire The German Empire Kosovo je srbija Western civilization (made by white folks for white folks) offers much to be proud of, and due to the general state of the world outside Europe for most of recorded history, it looks pretty good compared to its competition. Thank you for taking the time to debate with me, man.
White pride is a joke

Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a FALLACY; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. Please explain where the HYPERBOLE is with reason and logic. By the way, this is about "white pride" which is exactly what Hitler stood for, so I don't really understand it's wrong for me to associate it with him; didn't he try to take over the world by claiming a "Master Race" is superior? I'm pretty sure Godwin's Law actually applies to arguments like saying, "You took over this generic company like Hitler tried to take over Europe." In my opinion, you saying that I am being hyperbolic associating Hitler with "White Pride" is like saying that it's hyperbolic to associate Osama Bin Laden to "Muslim Pride". Both guys, in my opinion, were incorrect on both accounts. In addition, my argument against you is in the 2nd paragraph, not because Hitler already tried to take over the world with "white pride". No offense this time man, but that has to be most stupid argument resulting in trying to win something that you should not win at all. Let me ask you this. You claim to be a civic nationalist; what is your disagreement with "white pride" then? If you can argue "white pride" better than I just did, I will concede this whole argument to you then(I really don't care about winning for the sake of winning). I hypothesize you are full of crap, in which I think that you truly have accepted that "white pride" logic. If you didn't, then why are arguing something that is literally causing so much uproar in this country? Expressing your logic of "white pride" without saying why it's wrong only incites violence because, in my opinion, most minorities are never going to accept "white pride" as being superior. That implies that you are using your power of free speech to only cause unrest, not to bring the much-needed peace in the world. Following One God can. If I am correct in all of this, then you would simply try to do another poor deflection or not say anything at all. I did use the word "BETTER" on purpose. I'm not conceding my argument is worse than any statistics you use against "white pride". IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE IOTA HOW MUCH MELANIN YOU HAVE YOUR SYSTEM. I concede this though, DEBATE = OVER.
White pride is a joke

http://www.youtube.com... Here, have some fitting music. Your first line has "entitlement", which is when I turn around and ask the audience "Is this guy serious?" When your second sentence consists of Godwin's Law, I begin to start laughing. Your main body of the argument is a confused mess of forgotten metaphors and apparently people getting good via the white man's constructs. I legitimately cannot make sense of it, because there is nothing to make sense of. Your little religion thing seems to be completely missing my point of how "We set up this system for ourselves, and we let those folks like Einstein in." I'm just going to dismiss that whole line as a red herring and ignore it. To recap, at no point did this guy talk about any of my points, instead going off on some tangent about religion with an epic moving of the goalposts implied if I even look in that direction. Nobody has time for that, man. But, seeing as I gotta do something here to not fail, allow me to come up with a suitable response that doesn't consist of laughing. *ahem* Apparently beaten in the secular realm, Pro has fled to the realm of flinging epithets and misrepresenting a group of people is the way to go, and in such a manner offering an argument I can not objectively retort to as there is nothing objective to retort to. This is purely in the realm of the subjective within Pro's own head. I'm a civic nationalist. I am arguing in favor of something I disagree with, but a little kid with a passing knowledge of literature could pick the arguments you're presenting apart. But anyway, Godwin's Law dooms your argument, bruh. Debate = over, National Socialism = Very Yes.
White pride is a joke

Should one feel superior to another simply because of the difference in melanin in his/her system? Do not deflect from this question or I will ask again. It is a yes or no answer. My next question after that is "Why?" I am a white male as well, but I know that I do not have any white pride in me. I am human. I would postulate everyone else is human as well. I will never say that I'm superior to you because I'm white. I can say I'm superior because of my intellect. I can say I'm superior to you because I know the Christ. But I will never say that I'm superior to you because of the country I am from or the color of my skin. Thus I am making a judgment, I do not deny that I judge which is simply saying the result of the choice that I am making. White pride is a joke, it's nothing, it doesn't matter. Even if you create the argument of Indo-European superiority, which is basically what white pride is, how do you justify that you are better than someone simply because you born in a different place him/her? We are not our race, we are the person that we choose to surround ourselves with. Much of the time, it just happens to be the same race, but that doesn't we should define ourselves as such. I am a human male that likes to do activities with similar like-minded people regardless of any race. And I am comfortable with that judgment.
White pride is a joke

As a civic nationalist, I'm taking this debate up purely as a challenge. *ahem* White pride is not a joke. It is merely someone taking pride in their own skin color, which happens to be white. For the record, I have a penis, it's white, and I have no reason to feel ashamed of it, so let's get the race hustling nonsense out of this civilized and proper forum for debate now. For definitions, seeing as you merely insulted the practitioners of white pride, like you're some kind of problematic degenerate instead of a reasonable debater, I will provide a couple: White pride: White pride is defined as believing in one's superiority due to one's skin color and culture, with an option for pride in Western civilization in general, which was made entirely by white men. Hypocrisy: Enjoying the benefits of a culture's freedom and open forums for discussion to insult those who created said culture to their face. (Admittedly, that's an example, but still...) On a side note, apparently Western civilization, presided over almost in its entirety by straight white men for its millennia-long run, is good enough to outright erase other cultures by virtue of its inherent superiority, rather than genocide, as seen in Africa. That's right, the white man is so awesome that everyone else is seeing his success and trying to emulate him, even as their cousins who came over to his home and won't assimilate into his culture or play by his rules are decrying him for being too successful, or oppressing them, or something. I'm not really paying attention as their utterances are meaningless and unfounded.
Exposing children to secondhand smoke is abuse and should be made illegal in every U.S. state.

I will be pro for defining smoking near children as abuse and establishing laws against it for that reason. Round 1 is acceptance. I intend to support the notion that it is child abuse based on the legal definition of child abuse. The definition, according to the CAPTA Act of the United States, is:"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"; or "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm. "(source: . https://www.childwelfare.gov...)I only ask that whomever accepts this debate is repectful (e. g. no long, all-caps rants), does not go off-topic, and does not ignore the provided definition.
Exposing children to secondhand smoke is abuse and should be made illegal in every U.S. state.

I just want to briefly clarify that when I say smoking, I mean smoking tobacco. I realize that this was probably implied, but I feel as though it was neglectful to not mention that in the debate introduction, and so I apologize for my lack of formality there. And good luck to you as well. (1) Serious health risks are “imminent risks of serious harm". The CAPTA definition mentions that any act that causes an “imminent risk of serious harm” is abuse. I will firstly present the basis behind my reasoning that the health effects of secondhand smoke fall in line with that definition. - - - (a) For children, secondhand smoke exposure can cause frequent and/or severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, bronchitis, tooth decay, SIDS, and pneumonia. (Sources: http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.healthychildren.org...) (b) Secondhand smoke exposure can damage a child’s lung function by hindering lung development as well as place them at a higher risk for respiratory disease and metabolic syndrome (the latter of which will subsequently increase one’s risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes). (Source: http://no-smoke.org...) (c) Secondhand smoke is considered neurotoxic and exposure is heavily linked to cognitive impairments in children, such as ADHD and conduct disorder. (Source: http://no-smoke.org...) - - - Many of these health risks, such as SIDS and severe asthma, can be “imminent risks of serious harm”. If death or permanent damage is a risk, then it must be classified as such. And technically, any serious secondhand smoke-induced damage to a child’s body or brain is a form of “serious physical harm”. (2) Regarding exemption from the law Child abuse is, of course, a criminal offense in every state. Since secondhand smoke can cause both physical harm and imminent risks of serious harm through the health effects, exposing a child to it is an act that fits the legal definition of child abuse. Thus, since it fits the legal definition, it should not be exempt from being considered a crime.
your grammer

Note that my opponent has not defined what 'grammer' is. Even assuming that he meant to type 'grammar', the resolution 'your grammar' is still problematic, because this refers to my knowledge of grammar, and is not a statement. Instead, I will take the statement 'arts is better then sciences', which I assume to mean 'Arts are better than sciences', as the resolution. The BoP is on my opponent, since he made a positive statement
meem r gud m8 dont h8 m8

My opponent is arguing con under the topic "meem r gud" yet argued that they are good, which would be the pro position. As a result I will argue for pro very slightly and wait for another argument, 'meem' or memes are beneficial as they allow for groups to interact in humorous ways, and humor is beneficial for various medical problems such as depression. Source: -https://www.helpguide.org...
Incinerators (Pro) are better than Landfills (Con)

Landfills jobs are irrelevant? How is that? If landfills provides jobs and those jobs were caused because of the landfills, then how is it not irrelevant. What the heck are you talking about. This does not in anyway refute my argument that Landfills produce jobs therefore It is relevant. The reason why your point about Hong Kong is irrelevant is because you are only comparing the cost of Hong Kong money to American money. An incinerator in Hong Kong is not going to necessarily have the same value as in the United States so just comparing The value of the American Dollar in Hong Kong is irrelevant. You mentioned TeamTec and all those other Incinerator companies but you are of course forgetting one very big company which we know them as Covanta. Covanta has had an interesting history not just with it's environmental violations but also it's known bribes in which they had proposed to many cities. Much like cities in Middlewich, UK. I figured that my opponent was trying to be objective but he fails in this category. Hard. Leachate and methane though as I've said can be collected and those can actually benefit society as long as the leachate can be caught in the liner and as long as the methane can be collected which can be used as a gas. http://www.middlewichguardian.co.uk...
Incinerators (Pro) are better than Landfills (Con)

I will now begin my counter arguments as well as my own arguments. Firstly, in your first paragraph, you stated that incinerators cost less than landfills which the first paragraph of your argument doesn't matter because according to The World Bank, it costs "an order of magnitude greater than" landfills. ". Most incineration companies (probably Teamtec included) have forced communities to sign a Take or pay contract which costs just for operating and profit margins. While it also really depends on the type of incinerator, overall, the projects of incinerators outway the amount it would cost if we used landfills. Secondly, you said that Incinerators do not add to the growing problem of global warming. Are you honestly sure about that? Think about how we start a car and it's energy burns fossil fuels. Now imagine that we are burning garbage that could be ranged from harmless to toxic chemicals that if it got out into the environment, it would have devastating effects. Burning materials such as acids, organics and heavy metals can have severe consequences to the environment. By burning these, you are creating more problems and not solutions. I would now like to speak my points. I feel that while burning the trash is important, it's a waste to burn all of the trash. In some ways, you can say that trash is a goldmine. Let me explain. everyone is familiar with the three R's. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle but if we burn materials, what will be left to reuse? We could be recycling so many materials that have been thrown out as opposed to keep spending to create new materials. Now before I was mentioning contracts. What some contracts do in their local communities is that communities are forced to sign these 20-30 year contracts in which they have to provide therefore not giving incinerator companies incentive to recycle and that's only the beginning. Not only do we rely on recycling, but the entire industry of recycling creates jobs. More jobs than incinerators and where does the recyclables/waste come from? From landfills of course. Incinerators will not and cannot provide this service. References 1. . https://www.pembina.org... 2. . http://www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org... 3. . http://www.no-burn.org... 4. . http://www.davidsuzuki.org... 5. . http://www.euractiv.com...
Should male sex offenders be castrated as an additiona punishment to ensure heir crime is not repea

I believe that castration should be carried out by the full removal of penis and testicles. This removal should be completed in federal regulated labs. Women should also be subjected to this, via a method of female castration where the vagina is sown and clipped together. These castration methods are far more desirable than further straining prison and goverment rrsources.
Should male sex offenders be castrated as an additiona punishment to ensure heir crime is not repea

(Honestly I'm with you on this but I'm trying to be able to vote so yeah) First question, how well they be able to use the laboratories? What about women? shouldn't they have the same doe to them? they did the same crime but they just have ovaries, surely a better way to fix them is prison, and monitored 24/7, or perhaps even make it so they cant have a erection, but that doesn't stop him from still doing these heinous acts.
Gays should be allowed to marry

The marriage tax breaks are discrimination against non-married people. I'm against the income tax anyway, and this is yet another reason why. Copyrights, custody, and wills absolutely can be determined by contract. That's preposterous for you to suggest otherwise. A will is a contract, for goodness sake! I thought you were a libertarian. Why don't you trust the free market to provide these services? Why must the government do it? How did people get along just fine until governments decided to ban interracial marriage? Contracts are illegal in most states? States don't have to respect each other's contracts? What are you talking about? You are just making these things up. The Constitution is clear. Why is it that the benefits can only be granted by government? I could put you in my will. I could leave custody of my children to YOU. We don't need to be married by the state in order for this to happen. You are in favor of discrimination against non-married people. You are potentially discriminatory against people living in polyamorous relationships, etc., unless you think the state should also recognize their relationships and provide the same tax breaks, etc. Your argument is for bigger, more intrusive, and tyranical government. No wonder you support Joe Biden and not Ron Paul.
Gays should be allowed to marry

- I don't think anyone should be able to get married by the state. If they want to create their own entity to issue them a marriage, then so be it. But why use the state? It isn't necessary. The state exists to defend liberty, not to grant privileges and perform services that can easily be provided by the free market. + The benefits of marriage cannot be provided by anybody except for the state because the benefits are state oriented like tax breaks, copyright, custody, wills, etc. I don't understand how anybody could marry under a non-governmental way. - I don't wish to have jurisdiction over other states or countries. But under the Constitution, all states have to respect the contracts of other states. The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. + Well, they simply dont. These are not necessarly contracts but rather laws. These contracts are illegal by law and constitution in most states. All of the benefits you list could also be passed on through private contracts. You admit in Round 1 that marriage is a religious institution. Then you back away from that argument and the obvious conclusion it leads to -- that marriage and the state should be separate, just as church and state should be. + The benefits granted by the state can only be granted by the government. T- here was no need for state licenses or federal recognition of marriage in early America. In fact, "marriage licenses" first came into being in order to regulate against interracial marriages. Let's do away with this crude and offensive intrusion into our privacy by the state -- abolish state-approved marriages, end Marriage Apartheid, and allow all free individuals to freely associate and call it what they want. Anything else is discriminatory, and by arguing for it, you are actually arguing in favor of discrimination. + WTF are you talking about?
Gays should be allowed to marry

"However, you will notice that atheists and satanists get married on a non religious basis. Why cant gays get married if non religious people can?" I don't think anyone should be able to get married by the state. If they want to create their own entity to issue them a marriage, then so be it. But why use the state? It isn't necessary. The state exists to defend liberty, not to grant privileges and perform services that can easily be provided by the free market. "Civil unions are not recognized in every state or country..." I don't wish to have jurisdiction over other states or countries. But under the Constitution, all states have to respect the contracts of other states. The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. All of the benefits you list could also be passed on through private contracts. You admit in Round 1 that marriage is a religious institution. Then you back away from that argument and the obvious conclusion it leads to -- that marriage and the state should be separate, just as church and state should be. There was no need for state licenses or federal recognition of marriage in early America. In fact, "marriage licenses" first came into being in order to regulate against interracial marriages. Let's do away with this crude and offensive intrusion into our privacy by the state -- abolish state-approved marriages, end Marriage Apartheid, and allow all free individuals to freely associate and call it what they want. Anything else is discriminatory, and by arguing for it, you are actually arguing in favor of discrimination.
Gays should be allowed to marry

policydebategod, you are one of my favorite debaters at Debate.org, and I welcome this challenge. It is true that if you look at my profile, you will notice it says I am "against" gay marriage. However, you have to look at what the Debate.org questionnaire actually says. It says: "Couples of the same sex should be allowed to get married, and be recognized by the State." Now I am all for couples of the same sex being "allowed" to get married -- but I am not in favor of the state recognizing gay marriage, nor heterosexual marriage. Throughout history, marriage has been a religious sacrament. "Separation of church and state" is a good principle that I agree with. Therefore, I am opposed to the co-mingling of marriage (a religious institution) and the state. So let me go through your arguments: "Denying them is a violation of religious freedom" No one forbids churches from permitting gay-marriage services. I would be bitterly opposed to any efforts that did so. But tellingly, here you admit that marriage is a religious affair. This is the basis of my argument against state-marriage. "Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples" These benefits are available through private contract. Most educated people can write contracts for themselves, without a lawyer. However, I admit it is unfair for heterosexuals to have greater access to this contract, via the state (marriage), than homosexual couples. That's why I support civil unions for all and state-marriage for none. "Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation" Accepted by whom? "Proven biological causation"? I don't think so. It's up to debate. But what kind of argument is this? Who cares if society accepts gays or if the causation for homosexuality is biological? Would gays have any less right to contract if they were not accepted or if homosexuality were merely a choice? Does one not have the right to choose to be gay? I think one does. "Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination" I would counter that by saying that PROVIDING heterosexual marriages is what leads to the discrimination. State-sponsored marriage is not a Natural Right. It is a privilege. Therefore, the privilege should be taken away from the privileged to restore parity. I'm in complete agreement with your final three arguments, and therefore, I cannot rebut them. The question is one of less government or more government. I say less. I say take away the privilege from the privileged. Let's not forget that there are those who choose not to get married, and the government should not engage in social engineering to promote marriage or discourage it. All should be equal before the law -- straight, gay; married or unmarried.