BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 3/5 compromise was better for slaves than if they had full representation in the census.

Thank you Skynet for your reply. I would try to defend my position on New England seceding, but seeing as how the last rounds shouldn't"t add new positive arguments, and seeing how your critique of the federalists (who were people with a love of a larger, more powerful federal government) was accurate, and seeing how we don"t have more rounds, I will submit that Skynet does have the sounder arguments. The error on my part was in making sure the same people that started the Revolution was seen as the reason for any federalist calling for secession at all, given their historic favoring of larger government, and thus showing that the people of New England, as well as the elite, were thinking of secession. This was a fun exercise for me, and I regret that I did not do the argument more justice. And thank you for addressing the argument presented rather than going with a more simple "well, the north would have just had slaves too to counteract the south." I think we both agree that, without any secession attempts by free states, slaves would most certainly have been worse off if their masters had more power over free men precisely because of them. In short, Pro really does have the better arguments. It is truly a shame this debate was not longer, but the short length is understandable given the topic, and it still does not excuse the oversight of a crucial point in my case when presenting my argument. I forfeit this last round.
The 3/5 compromise was better for slaves than if they had full representation in the census.

An intriguing scenario in answer to what I thought was going to be a cut and dry argument, with the New England States actually going through with secession from the Union after the Hartford Convention. "There are a number of reasons why historians doubt that the New England Federalists were seriously considering secession. All the states, especially Connecticut with its claims to western lands, stood to lose more than they would gain. Efforts were made in the delegation selection process to exclude firebrands like John Lowell, Jr., Timothy Pickering, and Josiah Quincy who might have pushed for secession, and the final report of the convention did not propose secession."http://en.wikipedia.org...Too bad for us, according to my opponent's source, the proceedings of the Hartford Convention are intentionally lost. But it appears there may have been enough reasons for the Federalists in New England to leave secession out of the final report, even if the Slave States had superpower in the House.Furthermore, the Federalists were thouroughly discredited by a combination of false rumors of a treasonous return to English loyalty becasue of thier opposition to the war of 1812, and decisive military victories over England in the ongoing war, which was a large reason for the convention. Considering Southern political power and thier policies (harsh embargoes, ammassing federal power) were the main reasons for the Hartford Convention, increasing Southern power through House Seats probably would not have changed the inevitability of the War of 1812. Perry, Jackson, and the like would still probably have had thier victories. And the Hartford Convention would still have come to naught.My opponent's argument is an intruiging, fun to read and imagine alternate history, and I thank Con for the unexpected departure from the pedestrial drivel I had set out to encounter. However, seccession still seems fairly unlikely to have been included in the final report of the Hartford Convention, considering other disuading factors, such as the prospect of trading a moderately powerful country for two weak ones during the lifetime of the Founding Fathers, and Northern industry's easy access to Southern raw agricultural goods in the established Union.It seems even less likely that the Hartford Convention would have been taken seriously considering most of the delegates turned back when they heard about the end to the war.I must still disagree with Con's argument because it hinges upon unlikely New England seccession.http://www.shmoop.com...Good debate. Thanks Con, I learned a lot.
The 3/5 compromise was better for slaves than if they had full representation in the census.

Thanks for accepting. I hear a lot of complaints in main stream media and others about how inherently racist the US is because slaves were counted as only 3/5 of a person, and I created this debate to help dispel that false notion. As it appears my opponent already knows, the 3/5 Compromise was key in allowing the 13 colonies to agree to ratify the Constitution. Slaves (not Negroes) were only to be counted as 3/5 of a person in the census for representation and taxation purposes. Slave states wanted them counted as whole people so they would have more Representatives in the House (a main purpose of the Census is to allot seats in the House by State population), despite the slaves still not having human rights or voting rights. The North who did not want them counted as people in the Census, was more in favor of abolition, and wanted slaves free and therefore to have full citizen rights, instead of just being power leverage for their masters. If slaves were counted as full people, thus allowing more seats in the House to Slave States, it would have been harder to Congress to outlaw the importation of slaves after 1808 (Another compromise between the colonies.) If the Slave States had the extra House seats, the compromises that fed Southern fear of abolition and ultimately secession, may not have occurred. Legal slavery may have continued to this day, or at least until it was out competed by industry, or moral indignation against it increased at a later date than it did. http://www.britannica.com... http://www.britannica.com...
Call me White, Call yourself black.

An example of racism. Calling whites racist. You did that. That is the truth. Please define whites clearly. Beware that there are many you appear to sympathize with that will judge who is "white" by skin tone. Explain how to differentiate between a white and a non white, if you have a conviction we can all understand. Remember, there are many dark skin toned officers of the law. The BOP, Burden of Philosophy is your to prove now.
Call me White, Call yourself black.

Of course l'm not racist'...lf whites were not racists.l'd probably not even understand the word 'racist' its self! Now on planet earth like you asked me is full of white racists.White people are the fathers and pioneers of racism.That is how l got to learn that one race can hate another! Whites probably think l'm dissing them,but the truth is,and no man on earth even my opponent here can deny this in front of god! Whites have an incurable disease called racism! lf that cure is not found soon...This disease will continue to make the white people sick!
Call me White, Call yourself black.

l look in the mirror and l see colour! Whites want to hide colour when infact they are the bloody racists! l look at colour for many reasons! You will get a better job if you are white compared to been black. The chances of you been poor when you a white are less and the chances of you been rich when you're black are very slim! l look at color because l see how each race behaves.We are all humans l agree,but one thing is different! Color gene! Different color genes behave differently! Lets look at history. The white gene has been the most evil unfriendly,and most destructive of all colors! It is true and God can bear witness to this,that what l say is the truth...To deny this you will be definitely sleeping with the enemy the Devil! The whites enslaved people and even killed Jesus himself.l know its sounds provocative, but truth be told! It was the whites who crucified Jesus. It is obssured to say a black man is a racist. The truth is! A black racists doesn't exist! lf you find a black man been racist,his lying his not racist.He just doesn't love the way white man behave!l! lf a person doesn't like a white person,it is because that person would have realised that the white man is playing kissy poo with devil! That is why they are more white racists in the world than any other race!The whites entertain the devil more than any other race! Whites are the first gay people, and are the only race pushing for gay rights which is against Gods Law.Thats sleepling with the devil right there! 2.Whites are the only race that has killed more people than any other race believe it or not! 3.Whites are the only race which fits the character in the bible-wolf in sheep's clothing! 4..Whites are responsible for creating weapons of mass destruction totally evil in gods sight! 5.More whites are atheist compared to other races FOR ME RACE COUNTS SINCE THEY ARE WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING!
Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is not a coherent doctrine

How in fact does one prove Christianity is true? The only way I've seen it is in the phrase "I was once blind, but now I see." Christians know there are things they do not know, but their proof lies within their past experiences. Sola Scriptura claims the Bible is all you need for salvation. Well there's really nothing else one would need to be saved other than the Bible (concerning texts). If you think otherwise, say so. And if the Bible needs a bodyguard to defend Christianity, what would you choose? There are non-biblical texts, but all they do is confirm what the Bible has been saying in the first place. There are archaeological records, but all they do is confirm locations in the Bible. Sorry for the disorganization, I didn't quite understand what you meant by defense.
Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is not a coherent doctrine

So this is a debate over whether or not the Bible alone can be a coherent defense of Christianity or Christian doctrine. This isn't a debate about whether or not the Bible is true, trustworthy, or from God. It isn't a debate over the existence of God or the truth of Christianity. For the sake of the debate, all of these factors are irrelevant. My position is that the Bible alone as a doctrine should be abandon by the Christians that hold this as it is a flawed doctrine in many ways. It is not a reasonable position. Round 1 make your case. Round 2 I will rebut and you can respond Round 3 I will make my closing argument and then you can respond Any takers?
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe

mars is actually likely to be populated within our lifetime, or atl east soon relatively. space x has shown a lot of potential to do so. i could get into the details, but it is beside the point. space expansion is possible. it is rooted in reality. it is doable. time travel is merely theroetical, and as far as we could be concerned, not based in reality. (there are even logical paradoxes that would be involved with it) con has to resort to non reality to support his arguments, which only goes to show that his points are themselves not based on reality, and are illogical. irrational says it best.
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe

I'm sorry but this isn't a debate if we are arguing the theoretical side of this. your resolution says "advanced hominid descendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe" this refers to present not future. and as of present there is no hominid more advanced than us. if we are going to get theoretical we should place time lords as being valued above homo sapiens because there's a possibility that somewhere in our infinite universe that some species has developed time travel. pro is living in a world of theory and isn't based in logic at all, he has yet to address why humans couldn't poplulate mars, as they plan too
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe

it is possible in theory for an advanced hominid to arise. therefore, it is illogical to ignore that possibility. in the astronomical aspect of time, we will be expanding into the universe, or die. i would hope we expand. mars, to the moons of jupiter where there's more energy than here, and so on. it might be a remote possibility that we evolve more, given we conform the environmetn to us, but it's a possibility as we expand deep into space and become mroe isolated. if we were to try to speed evolution, it would be less inetivable. space ships like star trek never to return leave. pushing our current technology, but if those ships could then create ships, it would speed up even more. eg, a hundred of our best go out. they breed a thousand to prevent inbreeding. then a hundred of their best. then they breed to a thousdand, on and on. evolution would be inevitable. the choice will be a choice we have to make at some point in the far future. i'm merely asking us to ask the question now. con can't even get off home base to first base, as he is caught up in not even wanting to consider it.
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe

advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe eventually man will have to expand off of earth, or we will go extinct. wouldnt it be wise to allow first the most advanced of us to leave and expand civilization? this very well could (and perhaps should) eventually lead to hominid speciation. we could have a loyalist approach to it, and argue that our species should be of higher priority than allowing or promoting our decendants to be of superior quality, albeit a different species. but why should we take this approach? are they not both our decendants either way? sure, maybe we can try to both save homo sapiens, and allow or try for advancing homind species. but if we have to choose a focus, isn't it better to focus on a superior decendant?
advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe

Pro has succumb to my arguments, he first argued we as humans cannot expand and thus we must place a nonexistent being over our selves. secondly he has yet to show why a hominid species above us isn't theoretical. And lastly he has yet to actually show why they should be valued above us. my opponent simply doesn't make sense throughout this debate, they have been illogical and grasped at the theory that one day we will be inferior species. I'm not sure what else to say, its hard to understand their arguments, they want to be able to debate a theory but also not at the same time? and I'm not even sure what space X is, is it another space? one outside of our own?
The U.S. Government Should Increase Funding to Their Military

The U. S. may spend 58% over the next 10 powers, but by GDP per capita, the US is only at 3.9% compared to 5% from Russia and 13% from Saudi Arabia (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). Expenditure does also not equal might because Russia outnumbers the U. S. in tanks, submarines and warheads. They are also not as outdated due to recent rises in expenditure (. http://www.globalfirepower.com...). Security is paramount, but so is the offensive. Especially considering the other military alliances other nations hold such as Russia and China, the second and third most powerful. It wouldn't be productive for anyone to have a war, although, conflicting goals can create strong tensions like the South China Sea. The burden on tax payers is a good point but the U. S. already has low taxes on a comparative scale to others (. https://www.irs.com...). The U. S. has the potential to do much more. The U. N. is irrelevant to this argument because they aren't an armed organization. The world will ever give up arms for food, and if the U. S. lays down their arms first, others will take advantage. The U. S. has the capability to protect these nations, mostly because of good relations and interests. Even the military combination of the E. U. falls short of the Russian military. especially with Putin trying to rip Ukraine apart. The U. S. is obligated to protecting their allies. The world will never recover from the military industrial complex, especially since the trio of the strongest nations on Earth, DC, Moscow and Beijing continue to militarize while the U. S. cuts back. The arms race can't stop and the U. S. needs to reach the finish line first. The U. S. is not just concerned with terrorism as I made a great many examples of international powers rivaling the U. S. trying to take a bite out of international sovereignty. The U. N. is as useful as a car with no wheels and one nation needs to stand up instead of sit down. As for your statements concerning Green Sweep, I do agree. This does not change the fact, however, that other factors of global problems are rising and the U. S. needs to update their status quo.
The U.S. Government Should Increase Funding to Their Military

Hi, there debaters!This debate is for me to try and persuade you all that the USFG should create a larger expenditure for the American military. My opponent can do whatever they wish in Round 2.I. American Interests Are Currently SufferingThe United States has suffered a series of budget cuts to the American military (http://www.wsj.com...) and due to such expenditure shortenings, the U.S. should try to rekindle the fire of our great military. It is evident and prevalent how our enemies are flowering as our military is cowering and our rivals, empowering! The United States can take an example from Syria because our sissy foreign policy of not having boots on the ground, there was an open invitation to Russia to stick their flag in Syria and destroy American-backed rebels under the curtains of morals saying they were targeting ISIS (http://foreignpolicy.com...). Now that the Russians knows the American military isn't willing to get fully involved, they have the stronger foothold in Syria to such a potential, we lost our window of opportunity to take down the dictator Assad and free Syria! This of course can be changed on America's next military campaign if we increase our budget and maintain our position as the world's strongest military!II. American AlliesThe United States is also losing their allies in Europe as Putin stuck his fork in Ukraine and is eating at the sides! NATO has been questioned for their potential to actually defend against a seemingly imminent Russian invasion (http://nationalinterest.org...), and our allies can rest assured and feel safe enough themselves if we increase our military expenditure. This will also be a slap in the face to Russia for thinking they can reach in Europe and take what they want, knowing that America has the potential and know-how to fight back!Those are my points for now. I hope my opponent provides good arguments!
Life begins when the baby has brainwaves.

I was trying to make the, it is definitely technically life regardless, argument for the sake of voters because it applies to the title of the debate. I do want to win and that was a hole in your argument.God may do as he wishes, he knows when it is someone's time. But we, through our free will, can and do kill. We shouldn't as we shouldn't lie, cheat or steal. You are the one who brought him up, not I.I have been leaning towards rights at implantation, but I'm still not convinced. If you did take a life through preventing impantation, if that is killing, you can still see the sin without guilt. Why? Because going back to God whom you brought up, he takes it up so we don't have to. With the fifteen year old, I will admit it makes me angry. Why? Because I have desperately wished to raise a child from the age of thirteen, and I can't imagine someone being willing to throw such an amazing blessing as a child away. But I can forgive them, so even in murder they can forgive themselves.Feelings don't change the status of a human, I'm quite sure a good portion of the reason it took so long to abolish slavery is because people didn't want to see the mistake in themselves.Sadly you didn't address the ethics at play when we use any stage of development as an indicator for humanity and rights, so I cannot do much more with that.Technically, before a baby can detect stimuli it isn't sentient. I think that was the wrong word to use in the first place. It only means, "able to perceive or feel things." It has nothing to do with thoughts, or the idea of being individual, or human. Just feeling things.And the individual that is produced by conception is individual at any stage. That set of DNA will never be repeated, and the map never again followed. Unique as the rest of us each one is. It knows how to make that brain, and it knows where it is going every step of the way.Especially seeing as brain development is not done until early adulthood. Anyway, the brain starts it's most basic development at Week 6 with the closing of the neural tube. That is six weeks not twenty. One of the reasons seeing the unborn as people only after week twenty falls apart, by this point they are already capable of a lot and their brain exists in a rudimentary phase.https://www.mayoclinic.org...In both spina bifida and anencephaly, that stage of brain development doesn't go smoothly but both are still quite human, one of the reasons I think that even then it makes very little sense. With the most severe anencephaly the child may only have a brain stem.From the beginning they are building up to the brain developing. It is easy to argue that it was in progress the entire time.I belive that the fact of humanity and development are what determines rights. Not a stage of development.Thank you for your time and I conclude.Ps, I appoligize if I'm a bit everwhere, I have been sick for the last week.
Life begins when the baby has brainwaves.

The embryo is alive the way sperm and ova are alive, and true individual sentient life begins when the baby has brainwaves. You might say and embryo has its own genetic code, and I am telling you so does certain cancers as well as DNA or RNA viruses like HIV. That is the beginning of a potential person, not a person with sentient though. You might bring up God and the Bible. Who aborts more embryros than Yahweh God? Yeshua was always God incarnate, but His body was not complete until He had brain waves. Let's entertain the thought that I'm wrong for a bit. Only Yeshua God is always right, but this is not a religion debate, so save it. That alleged life I prevented from implanting has no rights or personhood. I was raped. What had more rights, me or the fertilized egg. We might even both be wrong, but life at brainwaves make an H of a lot more sense than fertilization or birth being the only options, and what about my anonymous friend who had that abortion when she was 15? Her body, her right to choose, and anyone with any belief or disbelief can adopt my view point, because religion never really says when life begins, so science should dictate the law. Let me be clear: Life at fertilization or implantation is almost as arbitrary as life at birth. The fertilization versus birth debate presents a false dichotomy, and I will redo this debate when I have more references. All Other theories fall apart under scrutiny. I have experimented with many views, and the only one that holds up is life at brainwaves.
Life begins when the baby has brainwaves.

Stating that, "Brainwaves equal life for humans and animals." Is not proof of that. The burden of proof falls on both of us in something like this, because being wrong has major consequences.Even Pro-choicers agree that the embryo is alive. That is a biological fact.https://www.quora.com...Now please respond to my last arguments, including the moral implications of basing the rights and status of a human on any developmental event.I at no point said that contraception causes abortion, so please do not put words in my mouth.I hope voters will consider Pro's previos remark when voting on this in the section of conduct, "pseudo-religious fantasy".I didn't even mention religion.