BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers

Sorry to have confused you with my logic, as I am not a politically correct, trained debater. I have absolutely zero training in the politically correct art of debating, which in no way was brought to my attention, as a prerequisite to participate in debates on this site. My take on starting a debate is to make a statement, and then take the position of Pro, being for the statement, or Con, being against the statement. That of course is a common sense approach, something seldom seen in politically correct circles. What is the definition of fool, since you asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com... I believe you mean to suggest that trolls are people lacking good judgement, according to the definition, and not pastries. If I am incorrect please retort specifically. Are you a qualified judge? If not, you may be the fool. Your use of CAP LOCK as a means of humor, tells me that you believe you are qualified to judge who is a fool and who isn't, yes? maybe? you have taken this debate, or the bait of a "troll" haven't you, against your best judgement, and seek redemption through humor? If you are enjoying this, please refer to Websters, for you are a fool. GET OFF MY BRIDGE GOAT! lol!
Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers

I am used to the generic resolution type, whereas the resolution is a positive statement such as the one above and the affirmative will have to defend the statement. Such as "Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers" Con would be the affirmative (or Pro) because you agree with the statement, not because you agree that the statement should be done, but as a fact that calling people trolls is rampant internet racism. Whether or not you believe people should be called trolls is not part of the resolution, though you can bring that into the debate. The debate I am used to is arguing over whether or not the resolution is a fact, not whether it should or should not be done. Seeing as this debate is not going this way, I'm not too concerned about that anymore, so I'll argue on your grounds. When someone is called a troll, reasoning has generally already been tried. Arguing with a fool proves nothing, so it is best to either 1) ignore them or 2) call them a troll to warn others about their nature. That said: THIS IS A TROLL DEBATE YOU ARE WRONG MWHAAHWAHAWHAHAAHA! Just kidding....continue with the debate please :) Sorry for any interruption.
Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers

Truthfully, my use of the term racism was misstated, I should have used the term bullying. However as I reflect on saying that, I realize that Trolls, the big green monster sort, are actually a race, albeit a mythical one, but brought to life on the internet, and labeled by the bullies. My position of Con is appropriate, because I am completely against the use of generic labels being used for the purpose of making your adversary appear less human then the name caller. Calling someone "troll" means that you have no ability to argue straight up and will resort to 2nd grade tactics, however I have found the term used many times against myself and others by those that are held up as pillars of intellect. It really is quite funny to me.
Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers

It seems the Con should be arguing for the Pro in this debate, so I'll negate the statement: "Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers". I. When a person is called a troll, generally it is not on the base of race or ethnicity, therefore it is not "internet racism." There is internet racism labeling, and there is troll labeling. Generally they do not overlap, and if anyone is doing the racism in trolling scenario, it is usually the troll. II. "Trolling" is usually very clear, made by the following signs: 1.CAPS LOCK ALWAYS ON 2. Insulting other people using profane language without any evidence or sound arguments. 3. Blatant stupidity that even after corrected they continue to use. Ex: "My dog has 16 legs" "Obama signed the constitution to enforce communism" "You are wrong you are wrong you are wrong" I await the affirmative (but Con) rebuttal.
Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers

Well done! I will have you know that there are those amongst us that decry others as "trolls", while those they label have met none of the criteria you use to define a troll. Maybe you should get the word out to them that trolls cannot be defined. You are not of the Webster clan are you? Maybe if so, you could create a new definition! I debate for fun, and to prove a point. While calling someone a "troll", is not certainly racist, is there not an evil, human eating race, called trolls? I believe that is the inspiration for the name calling. I would probably revise my debate title to "Good Trolls Unite!", given the opportunity, however I speak with my heart on these issues, and not with a long calculated strategy as the debaters with the best records do. Thanks!
Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers

I didn't mean to insult you or demean your credibility through my confusion about the resolution, and reading back on my post I should have kept that section shorter. Please accept my apologies. "What is the definition of fool, since you asked" I never asked what the definition of fool was. "I believe you mean to suggest that trolls are people lacking good judgement" Re-read my second contention: " II. "Trolling" is usually very clear, made by the following signs: 1.CAPS LOCK ALWAYS ON 2. Insulting other people using profane language without any evidence or sound arguments. 3. Blatant stupidity that even after corrected they continue to use. Ex: "My dog has 16 legs" "Obama signed the constitution to enforce communism" "You are wrong you are wrong you are wrong" " Your statement agrees with third point. Trolls do lack good judgment, however, as I stated in point three, they neglect correction. In addition, take into account points 1 and 2. These imply the malicious intent of those labeled trolls. If one is labeled as a troll, then it will be caused by them exhibiting all of these signs. " Are you a qualified judge? If not, you may be the fool. " I don't think fully understand what you are trying to get across here, as I do not believe there are any experts on trolling. Trolling can be determined by the three sound points I listed in my contention. " Your use of CAP LOCK as a means of humor, tells me that you believe you are qualified to judge who is a fool and who isn't, yes? maybe? " My use of humor at the end of the debate is meant to stay as a use of humor, nothing more. Why does Caps Lock indicate to you that I believe I am qualified to judge who is a fool and who isn't? " you have taken this debate, or the bait of a "troll" haven't you, against your best judgement, and seek redemption through humor? If you are enjoying this, please refer to Websters, for you are a fool " Whether I am a fool or not isn't a part of this debate. This is attacking the arguer instead of the argument (or the bad joke). " GET OFF MY BRIDGE GOAT! lol!" *NO*
Abolish the Electoral College

When you enter the voting booth to vote for candidate X, you don't. You vote for an elector selected by political party bosses to cast an electoral vote for candidate X. Are you, as a registered party member, aware of the selection? Are there electors for your vote as an independent voter? No. These electors pledge to vote after the general election for the candidate who wins. In all but two or three states, ALL the electors go to the winning candidate. If the vote is so narrowing divided as Florida was in 2000, and Ohio in 2012 it really doesn't matter. The electors aren't distributed proportionately. If the college isn't abolished, a restructuring to reflect the vote proportionately would be a big step in the right direction. Unlike my opponent I favor multi-party systems of representation. I abhor the "winner take all" ethic of elections. Also, the elector is only bound by her "pledge". There have been several instances of so-called "faithless" electors who vote for candidate Y when they get down to the statehouse. There's no penalty, other than never getting to be an elector again no doubt. To address my esteemed colleagues arguments: As to "Transregional appeal" I need not remind my friend and that presidential candidates did not actively "campaign" in the early days of the Republic - it was thought "unseemly". It was, and still is. As a former resident of Wyoming, I know that if presidential candidates made two visits it was remarkable. The minor states that he cites as "swing states" are definitely not. Swing states (e.g. Florida, Ohio) require a good number of electoral votes to be considered swing. Additionally, they have a tendency to "swing" either way (if you'll pardon the expression). Ohio and Florida are not therefore "written-off" as solid red or blue domains. From personal experience, Wyoming's three (solidly red) electoral votes never swung an election. Neutralizing Large States Again, sadly, this isn't true. California, New York, Ohio and Florida aren't neutralized. Their residents, however, are discriminated against. A vote in California doesn't carry the electoral weight of , say, Texas. The populations are 36,756,666, and 24,326,974 respectively. They have 55 and 34 respectively. Comparatively, 668,303 residents are represented by an electoral vote in California, while it takes 715,499residents to "earn" an electoral vote in Texas. Consider a mid-sized state like Nebraska. An elector represents 356,686 residents. It gets totally unrepresentative when one considers Wyoming with an elector representing 177,556 residents. Interesting point: The District of Columbia has no Senate representation, and only a "delegate" sits in the House of Representatives with no voting right. It has three (3) electoral votes, one per every 197,277 residents. Territories don't vote. I didn't know that. I believe I addressed "Preventing Divisions of Political Parties". My worthy friend and I agree to disagree - but agreeably.
Abolish the Electoral College

THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. As amended: "The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. " The Electoral College served its purpose at the time of adoption. There was an abject distrust of the voter; communications and technology were not sophisticated. It is antiquated, elitist, disproportionally unfair, unnecessary, and dangerous (eg 2000). The president should be elected by cumulative popular vote.
You choose the topic

Don't worry about the 8k character limit, I don't write too long arguments, especially on fun topics. The resolution can be "Coffee is better than tea" since I am pro. Coffee is better than tea as it is easier to prepare, has more caffeine and makes you alert, and gives an energy boost. Coffee has antioxidants, boosts metabolic rate, and lowers the risk of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer's. It has some health benefits and isn't as bad as most people think. Coffee is easy to prepare, just take some water and/or milk, pour coffee powder and sugar and heat if needed. In tea, there is a lot of things you need to add and the taste might not be good if you are trying to make it for the first time, but coffee is a constant. Also, coffee has two variants, cold coffee and hot coffee, while tea is usually drank hot. We all know coffee helps you want to stay awake in the night. Tea doesn't have the boost required to charge you up, whether it be in the morning after waking up, or in the night when doing an important assignment. Moreover, coffee has a better taste than tea, according to my opinion. https://authoritynutrition.com...
You choose the topic

Thanks for the challenge! Here are some topics that I imagine would be fun to debate. 1. Pokemon Alpha Sapphire is a better game than Pokemon Super Eevee version 2. The Whopperito is a bad idea 3. Tea is better than Coffee All of these topics are written in such a way for my opponent to affirm and my to negate. If he would rather take the negative, then I would be fine with changing the wording of the topics to switch sides.
You choose the topic

This is meant to be a fun, light hearted debate. Whoever accepts will offer three silly topics in their first round, and I will choose the one I like best. If all of the topics offered by con are offensive, overly serious, skewed, truistic or otherwise inaccessible, then I'll choose a different topic entirely. There are no hard line rules, just don't be an idiot. I reserve the right to expand on what that means as necessary, but hopefully I won't have to. Just be a decent human being, and let's have a fun round!
Race is a biological construct, not social.

Thank you Danielle, for participating. I do not agree that the differences in races are minor and do not have a major impact whatsoever. At this point, the whole debate depends on our definition of 'minor'. How do you explain the difference in IQ levels and test scores averages between the Caucasian, African and Asian races in the United States? I would agree that socioeconomic factors could be the reason behind African American's low Scholastic Aptitude Test scores but, according to an article with a compilation of studies conducted by The Unsilenced Science, since 1976 to the present day, African Americans' scores have only slightly improved despite the massive leap in equality with Whites in terms of income, job opportunities, racism and so on. Also, I find that significant physical differences do not count as minor. In terms of superiority, people of African descent tend to show significantly advanced physical skills compared to Caucasians and those of East Asian descent, while the latter two showed highly superior intelligence compared to those of African descent. For example, though they may not always be willing to say so, sports physicians have found physical differences that give different races advantages in different sports. Whites and West Africans, for example, differ in proportions of body fat, width of hips, thickness of thighs, bone density, and proportion of fast- and slow-twitch muscle. Even East and West Africans differ in important ways that explain why they excel in different sports. Although egalitarian partisans " most notably Steven Jay Gould in his 1981 book, The Mismeasure of Man " have tried to discredit the evidence, it is well established that average brain size differs from race to race. A study by K. L. Beals, published in Current Anthropology in 1984, reported that a survey of 20,000 skulls shows that the average size of the brain case in Asia is 1380 cc, while in Europe it is 1362 cc and in Africa 1276 cc. Other studies have found that the brains of American blacks are approximately eight percent lighter than those of American whites Source: http://www.amren.com... On the side note, this is my first debate on this website, so I apologize if I sound very biased and slightly opinionated.
Race is a biological construct, not social.

I'd also like to state that Pro is factually incorrect. That is not a matter of opinion; it's a scientific truth. My opponent writes, "To this day, there is a stark difference between the races of America, and we intentionally block it out and deny it on the basis of 'racism is wrong, we're all equal. '" Of course, differences between races does not prove that the races aren't socially constructed. Furthermore, the push to reduce racism doesn't prove that race isn't socially constructed. Races are genetically distinct populations within the same species; they typically have relatively minor morphological and genetic differences. Humans belong to the same species (Homo sapiens), and even to the same sub-species (Homo sapiens sapiens), but there are small genetic variations among us. The diversity of our racial appearance is mostly marked by hair texture or variations in skin color, which does not constitute a drastic genetic difference -- especially when you consider evolution as a whole. In this debate, I'll explain why our minor physical differences do not constitute an entirely different race based on biological classifications. You do not have to accept a liberal philosophy on racism to acknowledge that race is, in fact, a social construct.
Race is a biological construct, not social.

1st round will just a brief summary of my opponent and I's view on said topic. Sources, expansions will be brought in round 2 and rebuttals will be commence in round 3. Recently, in the past 30 years or so, we Americans have had an uncanny obsession with equalizing everything, trying to put everyone and everything on the same level. Race for example, is a topic widely discussed in this country even before its foundation in 1776 and wasn't until the counterculture of the 60s and 70s that the idea of race, the science and studies behind it were completely and utterly rejected solely on the basis of feeling and emotions (I.E the folk of the 60s and 70s who demanded world peace and opposed war). To this day, there is a stark difference between the races of America, and we intentionally block it out and deny it on the basis of "racism is wrong, we're all equal". To my opponent, what is your stance on the idea that all races have distinct features, whether it's physical or mental, and the idea that race is purely a social construct? Thank you for taking the time to debate, by the way.
If Hilary Clinton will be a good president or not

Quick question, in your arguments, you referred to her as a "good candidate." Then, you went along to say that she wouldn't be a good president in your closing. Rebuttals: She Might Not Run According to CNN news, they said and I quote, " Clinton will announce her presidential campaign, a move that is all but certain now that Clinton's timeline for an announcement appears slipping toward the spring." [1] If She Runs/Wins Party Primaries Yes, there is no guarantee she would win democratic party primaries. Really, there are no guarantees for any president running. For her, the chances are high. She has multiple assets that she can use to her will. Plus, there are roughly 158.6 million females in the US. Us women of the US deserve a voice, and she is our way. This would be a punch of media bias that the Republican presidential candidate will not be able to handle. Because with the media on your side, everything is possible! Arguments: Barrels of Money: Between now and 2016 Hillary could easily raise more than a billion dollars and much of it early. In fact, just this week it was announced that Ready for Hillary had raised over a million dollars in June 2013, without its candidate of course.[2] You may ask, how would this help her? Well it just goes to show how many people would go and support her. The Republicans Have a Weak Bench: If the Democrats did not have Hillary, or she declines to run, then both parties would have weak benches.But the Democrats do have Hillary, and all signs point to her running, so that leaves only a weak GOP bench and the question," How can any GOP candidates possibly win 270 electoral votes?" Calling Hillary "Old" Insults the Old Republican Base If elected president, she will turn 70 in her first year in office. In the 2012 election, voters over the age of 65 composed 16 percent of the electorate and voted for Romney over Obama by 56 percent to 44 percent"making this age group Romney"s most loyal voting block.Now it is Hillary who will wear the competent and accomplished label more often than black pantsuits.[3] Cites [1]-http://www.cnn.com... [2]-http://www.thedailybeast.com... [3]-http://www.thedailybeast.com...
If Hilary Clinton will be a good president or not

Preamble:In this debate I shall primarily seek to prove it is doubtful she will become a good president of the United Stated of America (or any any nation, if pro puts forward such an argument). In doing this I shall refrain from Ad Hominem attacks against her, like those she suffered during the 2008 election.Argument:In short, she is unlikely to be elected president. Being elected president, is a noteworthy requirement to become a good president. Should it be proven she will be elected, I shall then address why she would not be a good president.She Might Not RunAs reported by CNN, she has not confirmed if she is running, nor will she this year [1].If she does not run, the odds of her being popular enough of a write-in candidate to be elected into office are abysmal.If She Runs Party PrimariesThere is no guarantee she would win the democratic party primaries.Good candidates wash out all the time, for a host of reasons.In 2008 she was the clear choice according to pulling, yet it was some inexperienced senator who had not even shown up on the original polls who took the democratic nomination [2]. Which also demostarted how useless current polling is about her chances (again, if she runs).If She Wins Party PrimariesShe would still have the main election to contend with. The last time there were two democratic presidents in a row, was when Kennedy was assassinated.To be fair, at this point she would have about a 50/50 chance of being elected (the precise political climate we'll have in two years can hardly be guessed at).ConclusionIt is highly unlikely she will even become president, let alone a good one. Sources:[1] http://www.cnn.com...[2] http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...
If Hilary Clinton will be a good president or not

"Your rape quote, has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton."Apparently Hillary Clinton's ethically questionable past actions "has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton." Yet no reason to turn this vague assertion into an argument has been presented.Her moral beliefs are that rape victims should be put on trial, and slandered with lies [7]. In her own words, she had an "ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent" [13], meaning according to her, that is what every defense attorney should do to victims of rape. That is what she offers the white house, the further victimization of women."if you do not understand where I quoted or which to read.. It's not very hard to figure out. Just use your mind, and I bet you could figure it out n your own!"Not making your own case, instead copy/pasting someone else's, then telling people to use their minds. Please use your own advice during future debates."she has had experience as the First Lady and being Secretary of State. Knowing this, the Republican would not be able to send someone with such high credentials and experience that she has."If voters cared that much about experience, Obama would have lost to McCain, and Bush would have lost to Gore. Clearly current voting trends do not favor such."Now, what American would not vote for a humiliated women?"Anyone who prefers strength? Also sympathy votes are not indicative of a good president."The Long GOP Primary System..."1. Further plagiarism. Please write your own arguments next time. 2. No reason to suppose Hillary Clinton would even hold a candle to Elizabeth Warren has been presented.Conclusion:Pro's case that Hillary Clinton would make a good present, seems to center around her being very old, a little experience, and having a vagina. Honestly that seems closer to an Ad Hominem attack against her, than an argument in her favor.Sources:[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...