BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am not a troll!

So your saying vegetarians are basically boycotting all of Africa cause their main export is chicken? Link me Africa's main export then I will consider your argument. If they are eating meat and not in the presence of "blacks" where are they getting said meat if they are trying to avoid using the "black" supply of meat. You are still definitely racist even if you have a black cousin. That is like saying I can't be racist to clowns and that I don't hate clowns and I'm not a clown hater cause my family owns a circus... Troll on bro.
I am not a troll!

ok lets be real here this next argument i have is about vegetarians i think we ll know that vegetarians are just racists... they use "i don't eat meat" as a way to avoid black people. we all know this worlds supply of fried chicken is supplied by the blacks and the vegetarians don't like that. they will stop at nothing just to avoid the blacks. don't eat meat? F dat i see those nigs eating meat all the time just not with the blacks. p.s. it's ok im not racist i have a black cousin.
I am not a troll!

#1 That post was made by you. It has your lack of capitalization, misspelling, and overall sentence structure. Hint Hint..I stated it wasn't a "credible" source cause anyone can post. I only used it as a quick reference. I used google search to find any credible resources and came up empty handed cause mexi isn't a slur and was not used to be a slur. Mexi-Cocina Restaurant This is a restaurant in San Diego that uses Mexi in the title. If it was a slur why would they 12355 Poway Rd title it in the restaurant. Poway, CA 92064 (858) 748-6452 #2 You can flip flop on what you meant but I know for a fact that you used it classifying ethnicity and not for region based use. Why don't you get some culture and experience so that you can be a more educated troll. #3 You can right click every word that has a red wiggly line under it to make you seem more intelligent by spell checking. "You dink bear?" Does this bear bite?
I am not a troll!

#1 http://en.wikipedia.org... bam behavioral guidelines thank you very much. i don't know where you did your half assed broken neck research but plz come back with some real prove before you start targeting my credibility. #2 i use the term Asian for Russians based on region not based on cultural experiences and history. #3 i dink the bear form the glass but das boring das boot oh yeah thats more like it keep pouring, i have ze German accent and so of course i like bear but how much can the boot hold ein zwi dri ein swi dri bear? das boot i have see bear so i need se lite snack, giant pretzle? totaly perfect cheese goes nice with that and now im all dirty and tired and probably needs a shower. energy drink should do i just need more than 5 hours das boot so very totally cool i wake up early and i hunger for breackfast but not pancackes sasage eggs bacon sugar and cinimon...
Feminism is not sexist.

According to the rules, I can't make my rebuttal now, so I will skip directly to my second point: Based on my opponent's definition, feminism is not sexist. Now that I start to think about it, I don't really have a BoP, since my opponent is the one claiming that something (feminism) has a particular characteristic (sexist). Nonetheless, I will do my best to provide good reasons to reject the assertion that feminism is sexist.Reminder:Definition of feminism as stated by my opponent: '[Feminism is] The advocacy [or support thereof] of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes"Definition of sexism as stated by my opponent: "[Sexism is] Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."The definition of sexism contains three important words: Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. I will address them one by one.Prejudice:Definition: 'Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience' http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Does feminism advocate prejudice on the basis of sex? According to the definition of feminism, it does not; feminism advocates equal rights between men and women. Experience (as well as reason) as thought us that a society in which everyone possesses equal rights is better of than one where that isn't the case. Therefore, one can not say that feminism advocates prejudice on the basis of sex.Stereotype:Definition: 'A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing'http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Does feminism use stereotypes on the basis of sex? According to the definition of feminism, it does not; advocating equality between men and women is actually a good way to ELIMINATE stereotypes, which historically have been mostly directed at women (a few examples: http://www.businessinsider.com...). Therefore, one can not say that feminism is using stereotypes on the basis of sex.Discrimination:Definition: 'The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex'http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Does feminism advocate the use of discrimination on the basis of sex? Again, according to the definition of feminism, it does not; advocating equal rights is a good way to make sure that we live in a JUST system. Feminism actually seeks to eliminate the idea that men and women are 'different categories of people'. (I have already covered prejudice). Therefore, one can not say that feminism advocates the use of discrimination on the basis of sex.(My other arguments address what my opponent says in Round 2, so I will keep them for the rebuttal)Since feminism advocates neither prejudice nor stereotype nor discrimination, we can safely conclude that, according to the definitions of feminism and sexism, feminism is not sexist.
Feminism is not sexist.

I accept this interesting challenge.I need some clarification for round 5: Are we allowed to answer the cross examination question? If not, that means you won't be able to answer mine.My position is (obviously) : Feminism is not sexist.Since the BoP is on both of us, I will:1) Try to demonstrate why my opponent's syllogism is flawed.2) Try to demonstrate why, based on my opponent's definitions, feminism is not sexist. I look forward to your arguments.Good luck.
Feminism is not sexist.

Intended to do this with a specific user, however, they have not responded yet, and i do not think they will, so i am opening up this debate.A few Rules before we begin:1. We will be using the definition of feminism from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... states that "[Feminism is] The advocacy [or support thereof] of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes"2. We will be using the definition of Sexism from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... states that "[Sexism is] Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." -I hope these terms are generally understood, however, i shall include links to the preferred webpage to use for the definition of these terms.-Prejudice: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;-Stereotyping- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;-Discrimination: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;-All of these are used in the verb form.*"typical" here is to be considered within the informal connotation, which suggests that Sexism is expected, or popularly associated with women, though not necessarily usually directed at women,*3. All propositions must be supported, and sources must be utilized. "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."- C. Hitchens4. Logical Fallacies may be pointed out, but the truth or untruth of the conclusion must be independently assessed. (See the Fallacist's Fallacy here > http://www.logicalfallacies.info...)5. I have presented the webpage that i used to produce these definitions. As such, they are not to be considered a debatable topic. Round 1 is to be used for Acceptance, and a brief statement of your position in relation to the resolution. Round 2 is to be used for Opening Arguments ; Rebuttals by PRO will be dismissed by myself and the audience,Round 3 is to be used for Rebuttals. Defense by PRO will be dismissed by myself and the audience.Round 4 is to be used for Defense, and a Cross Examination Question. Round 5 is for Closing Arguments.NO NEW ARGUMENTS MAY BE PRESENTED IN ROUND 5. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I shall present my brief statement in syllogistic form:1. Any movement which actively supports bias towards, or against, a single group within the Legal, Social, and Political arenas. is discriminatory. 2. Any movement that does this on the basis of gender is sexist. 3. Feminism does this. C. Therefore, Feminism is sexist. I shall unpack this as this debate moves forward. This is simply a brief statement of what i intend to try to prove. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you wish to accept, comment with "I accept" and a paraphrase of the above resolution, THIS DEBATE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT.
Marriage is Outdated

Why do we really need Marriage?To PROVE our love, to show our commitment?We already do those things!! (those of us in relationships whether it be a boyfriend/girlfriend, or even just a PARTNER if you have been together for a long period with no marriage.) People who are completely for marriage say the ones who are against it are either AFRAID of commitment, or are just "lazy". That's not always true, who are YOU to say we aren't committed? I am currently in my own COMMITTED relationship of 5 years. We have been through so much together; other women (not the cheating topics), other men, medical issues(currently), even went as far as if I really do love him. I have had my moments of being scared where our relationship would bring us or lead us, I think everyone does. But that doesn't mean its a question of my commitment! I am absolutely committed and I love him immensely. My choice for not wanting is simple.....I am not interested. There's nothing about it that interests me or even appeal to me. But yet, I'm a horrible person for not wanting this?? Seems a bit ridiculous. You don't NEED marriage to stay with someone, marriage doesn't make a relationship FINAL. You don't need marriage to make you happy.
Marriage is Outdated

"Um actually there's no first person experience....never been married. Why is there judgment being placed in your argument???"Im not claiming you were married, I looked at your profile and I can see that you have been in a stable relationship for 5 years now and still are not married. Since your denouncing marriage and voiced how you dont think its necessary or a big deal I assumed that the reason you think marriage is outdated is because of events going on in your personal life, that was all...." So part of it is based on money??? Cause that's not what love is to me at all. Love is about being with someone that makes you feel. And its a beautiful thing, it shouldn't be about money at all!!!"Whoah, whoa im not saying marriage is about money, im saying that FORMALLY the process of marriage results in the sharing of ones valuables and funds and that the government uses marital status to assess the amount of income tax waged on a articular person, thus making it relevant to society.... You gotta stop looking at marriage only through how much people love each other, there are other angles to observe. "I am "one" with my partner without marriage, why is it so hard for you to understand that?"I do understand that and i respect your independence, the point is though that the random stranger who views commitment between 2 people bases that view off of their relationship status. Since marriage is the ultimate indicator to strangers you are committed to someone else then that makes marriage relevant to modern society."Ill give you your fight on number 3. Ill rephrase...its not outdated....but its definitely something people are doing less of"So it could be argued that through current trends it may become outdated, but as of right now it is not outdated..."is the fact that I don't want marriage make it that much less of commitment??? If so that's bull! "Of course it doesnt to people who know you or know how strong your relationship is, but to complete strangers it could look that way since the quickest way to judge a relationship to people is often through marital status... "I don't need marriage to prove my love to the world!!!"Im not questioning that!!! Im questioning how you think marriage is outdated solely on the grounds that in some cases the lack of it might imply a poor reflection on the strength of a relationship...(dropped arguments)1) Marriage is useful to society since gay and lesbian couples are using marriage to gain equality in the US2) Marriage has spawned parts of industry making it very relevant to jobs and manufacturing of goods around the worldMarriage (or lack of) may occasionally underestimate the true strength of the commitment between 2 people, but just because something is not a 100% accurate indicator of something doesnt mean its completely outdated or obsolete I thank the Con for an interesting debate and I thank the voters for reading
Marriage is Outdated

Um actually there's no first person experience....never been married. Why is there judgment being placed in your argument??? ".....formally made an agreement to share ones assets, debts, land..."- So part of it is based on money??? Cause that's not what love is to me at all. Love is about being with someone that makes you feel. And its a beautiful thing, it shouldn't be about money at all!!! And you're right, my relationship is more than a status update on Facebook, thanks for "reminding" me of that. I am "one" with my partner without marriage, why is it so hard for you to understand that? It is that hard to even for minute think that someone is one as a couple without marriage?? It is possible I PROMISE I'm living proof of that!!! Ill give you your fight on number 3. Ill rephrase...its not outdated....but its definitely something people are doing less of, and for those who are good for them..its their right and they deserve it. But don't look down on someone who doesn't want marriage. Number 4 (your argument)- Marriage isn't the only thing that symbolizes commitment. I'm committed, is the fact that I don't want marriage make it that much less of commitment??? If so that's bull! I can guarantee you that even married couples look at other people all the time! Its human nature to be attracted to someone else for a quick second, its not wrong at all we all have "those" feelings every now and then. I still do, I see men all the time that I find attractive! Do I act on those feelings NO cause I'm committed. I don't need marriage to prove my love to the world!!! I don't care what the world thinks!! Just what I know and feel in my heart and soul. I love and am very much committed to the man in my life. There shouldn't be a FINAL commitment!! Commitment is NEVER final.
Senator Barrack Obama is white

First of all I would like to congratulate you on actually spelling my name properly- instead of with a "g" like so many mistake the "q" for. As for your arguments, well they are flawed in several respects. First of all you seem to be basing the premise of this debate around the fact that Obama is black, but this is not the topic at hand. Rather, it is about whether or not he is white. What is white? It descent from one of the Caucasian races of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East and people descended potently from these people. You yourself acknowledge that his mother as one these types of people (for image see http://images.google.ca...) and it is therefore logical to assume that her spawn, with at least half her blood is of the same kind, because as we have previously determined race is based on one's genetic lineage. If people are so keen on choosing to identify this inspirational young Senator as a single race why cannot it be white than? If some other people are calling him white do not other people like myself have equal grounding as to call him by the other half of his lineage. Perception is not important, because people can categorised by a variety of other methods as well. But look at that image a try to refute that his half-lineage is not white.
Senator Barrack Obama is white

Hey Farooq, Your assertion that Barack Obama is white, though it may be fair in that he has a white mother, conflicts with today's conventional wisdom on race. You did note that today's measure of race is an "illogical consensus", so I'm assuming you are making a side point that today's race classification system is wrong, which would make Barack white (as well as black) because of it. In response to this, I start off by saying that Barack Obama is black because it is congruent with society's definition of race. Because a part of race has to do with how you appear, and Obama looks like a black person, he is probably black. Further, because Obama acknowledges the part of his lineage that is black, he is black. These assertions are made with the assumption that a person cannot be both black and white, which is the same as the assertion you made in your first argument. To generalize, If people must choose only ONE race to acknowledge, then an individual who meets the criteria for race X while aligning him/herself to race X, than it has to be that he/she is race X. This topic does open up several questions about how society classifies race, to which if you want to argue that the general method used today is wrong, there is room to debate a whole different topic in round two. But for now, I leave it with Barack is Black because he says he is, and society's definition of black supports his argument.
Senator Barrack Obama is white

I got bored of itellectually pleasing debate and decided I wished to post this one instead. So here it is. For this debate I will assume the postion of reality and leave my contender to determine what sort illogical consensus could possibly refute my short and simple arguemnt, that Barrack Obama is white (he was born Barry actually, but changed his name for some reason or other in college). It is reasonable to assume that he is a "white" (hearby reffering to Caucasian descent) because his mother was a white from Southern stock distantly related to the illustrious President Jefferson Davies (hardly a black man). Although many people deem Obama to be "black" due to his father's lineage this only helps prove my point further, for if the common person stereotypes this man as black due to a half-lineage than surely I am just as correct in calling him "white". For this arguement is not about whether or not he's black, but that he is white, which no ounce of reality will choose to refute.
Kim Jong-il was a fine leader to the people of North Korea.

Thanks for the debate. I had a feeling that due to the unpopularity of Kim Jong-il, his many missteps in leadership, and our lack of information about his life as a whole would make this debate lean towards the negative position. In fact, I do not know who would debate the positive side of this debate unless they want to play devil's advocate like I have done! I think at this moment, I should reveal the real reason why I created this debate. I wanted to gain more information about Kim Jong-il through the opposition side. I did not necessarily believe that Kim Jong-il was truly a good leader, but I wanted to try and see how well I could debate it. I believe that in the long run, no one would probably vote for me since Kim Jong-il was an unpopular ruler.
Kim Jong-il was a fine leader to the people of North Korea.

I support the statement that Kim Jong-il was a fine leader to his people. First of all, I according to the debate subject, I only need to prove that Kim Jong-il was a good leader to his people, not to the international populations. My first argument is that Kim Jong-il was able to advance his country into modern times with the tests of the nuclear war arsenal he has in his country. Although this action is unlawful in international circumstances, this would allow North Korea to be on par in terms of its military with the other higher class countries. This action from Kim Jong-il in around 2003 advances North Korea ahead of South Korea. It also heightens the enthusiasm from his people, since they have gone past the problem of widespread poverty and advanced their status in the world. Secondly, Kim Jong-il inspired hope from his people by displaying his cult of personality. His persona in North Korea has grown so that citizens during his time would be able to trust the government and his many programs. Although he has eliminated dissenters, he has also eliminated negativity in his nation so that his nation could work on progress. Many of his people have called him "the great successor to the revolutionary cause" and the "fearless leader." These claims show the trust and security the people felt when he was their leader. In his cult of personality, he had also encouraged the progress of cultural arts in his country. Kim Jong-il has allowed artisans to express themselves and the greatness of his father across all forms of media, thus allowing the spread of artistic ability. Kim Jong-il also kept the prosperity of North Korea in mind when he trained his son to be the next leader of his country. His foresight to his succession into rule gave him the wisdom to train his son in the diplomatic ways. In doing this, he is assuring his people that his policies would be safe with his son and his legacy would live on. During the drought of 1997, North Korea needed food. Kim Jong-il implemented a Military First Policy that although looked like would only benefit the military, soon was able to produce some economic progresses and some market practices. His wise decision to depend on foreign aid for food allowed him to advance his military. This action allowed him to increase the power of his military while slowly making North Korea independent from other nations with an increasing food supply. These shrewd actions may not have made Kim Jong-il unpopular with foreign nations, but it allowed North Korea to gain prosperity and security. North Koreans' reactions to his death clearly shows his importance to his country. Sources: http://www.biography.com... http://www.biography.com... http://www.biography.com... http://www.biography.com... http://www.biography.com... (by the way), I am trying to play devil's advocate in order to be unbiased in this debate. I hope that the opponent will have fun with this topic as well.)