BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Confederate flag stands for rebellion not slavery now a days

Your first source that you use, The Confederate Flag: Symbol of Culture or Racism, also talks about the Nazi Flag. The Nazi Flag was a flag that represented Hitlers regime and his idea of taking over the world and being able to be a world conqueror. He wanted to kill people. No Matter where you go in the world there is controversy regarding anything. We can sit here and argue for hours for some such as 9/11 was an inside job. If you do go to the south, obviously the people with the thick heritage will probably believe in slavery but will not promote such acts. In popular culture, The Dukes of Hazards, A Confederate flag was displayed on top of the car. The producer had no problem with putting the movie out. In the movie, did the main characters that drove the car promote Racism, no they Promoted Rebellion. Another example that caused a commotion was when Fire Department in south jersey wanted to put a confederate flag on the t-shirts that bared their companies logo. They voted 12-10 to use the flag.
Confederate flag stands for rebellion not slavery now a days

I have shown through my sources that the Confederate flag stands for the southern heritage, and is still considered a symbol of slavery today. Let me address some of the flaws in your argument: "you are to tell that the state of Mississippi does in fact support the idea of slavery" No. I suggest that the state of Mississppi flys the flag due to its heritage. This does not change the fact that the Confederate flag is still associated with slavery and racism. "live in the northern states such as New Jersey and New York. They fly confederate flags but no one calls them racist." As a resident of New Jersey myself, I can assure you that flying a Confederate flag would be recieved poorly by many different people. I would be called a racist. In fact, a quick google search just now revealed a story that occurred only a few days ago about a man from Minnesota who flies a Confederate flag at home. [1] While the man says that the flag stands for individual liberty, he has caused an uproar in his community. The author of the article even discusses the flag's ties with racism. You cannot state that the Confederate flag stands for rebellion when so many different people from across the country have been outraged by its use. Let me remind you that you bear the burden of proof to prove that the Confederate flag stands for rebellion and not slavery in modern America. I have shown concrete evidence that proves that the flag stands for its heritage but is still associated with slavery. None of this has to do with the idea of rebellion. Furthermore, let me suggest you actually read the points I have presented, rather than copy and pasting your response from another one of your debates. [2] Sources 1) http://blogs.citypages.com...2) http://www.debate.org...I wait for your rebuttal. You have yet to address any of the contentions I have presented, and have instead inserted a cookie cutter response crafted from another debate.
Confederate flag stands for rebellion not slavery now a days

Now a days the state of Mississippi has the Confederate Battle Flag in it. In 2001, Mississippi legislative but to vote if they wanted to change the flag which was turned down. So you are to tell that the state of Mississippi does in fact support the idea of slavery. You do say that confederacy does mean a rebellion or unification of individuals. If you go outside and start waving the flag in a black community people will not agree with it. The only reason they will have that feeling is because of the history of the flag. The debate is about does is stand as slavery now a days. You have those people that call them self rednecks that live in the northern states such as New Jersey and New York. They fly confederate flags but no one calls them racist. They call those people wanna be rednecks. Rednecks are commonly known for their rebellious life style. You can say that you can rebel from anything. No matter how you say it, Confederate flag stands for both slavery and Rebellion. The question at and is really, has America realized that we have grown up and only the uncivilized people will support the slavery.
Confederate flag stands for rebellion not slavery now a days

My opponent is correct that the South seceded from the Union because they felt that the federal government was not within its rights to take away their "property," the slaves. Let me remind you that this is not a discussion of why the south rebelled, but what the Confederate flag represents. For my opponent to win this debate, he bears the burden of proof that the Confederate flag stands for rebellion in modern times, and not slavery. Unfortunately for him, the facts do not support his case. For example: White Supremacist Groups still use the Confederate Flag The Confederate flag is not a symbol of rebellion - it is a symbol of racism. Groups such as the KKK have flown the Confederate flag not because of its connections to states' rights, but because of its connotations to slavery and racial superiority. This occured during Reconstruction and even beyond that point. [1] [2] Controversy over the Flag still Exists My opponent cannot deny that there are still many people in the United States that associate the Confederate flag with racism, not rebellion. This alone discredits his argument. Take for example, a woman from South Carolina who has flown the flag in a predominently black neighborhood. After recieving death threats from her neighbors, she has resorted to being taken to court. However, her reasoning is not that the flag stands for "rebellion" but for her southern culture - her offended neighbors would say otherwise. If the flag does not stand for slavery but for rebellion, why are so many of her neighbors offended, and why does she say the flag stands for her heritage? She could have stated that she was rebelling from her neighborhood, or her government - but this was not the case. The flag is to some a symbol of their ancestry, and to many others a symbol of racism that has tormented our country. [3]Modern events such as the ones I have listed are proof enough that the flag, to some extent, stands for the racism associated with slavery. To state that the flag does not carry these connotations contradicts with the facts. Sources 1) http://www.wtblock.com...2) http://ecarson.wordpress.com...3) http://today.msnbc.msn.com...;
Confederate flag stands for rebellion not slavery now a days

Yes the confederate flag originated in the south. But what were the reasons that the south wanted to seceded from the north. When Abraham Lincoln was elected as president in 1860. Southerners thought the government was becoming too strong. They did not think the government had the right to tell them how they should live. Southerners felt if they stayed in the United States, the North would control them. Due to the southern states leaving the United States of America they need to create a flag which ended up to be the confederate flag. They REBELLED from the northern states and one of their beliefs were to have the right to own slaves. It represents states rights. Just like when America rebelled from England. Does are flag represent the belief on not to tax?
Prolifers showing aborted fetus pictures.

According to https://my.clevelandclinic.org..., after the 5th month, but before the 6th month, a fetus may develop muscles and the ability to move independently inside the womb. At this point, the fetus could be born prematurely and have a very good chance of survival. This is when the fetus is "a person" and it would be "murder" to terminate the pregnancy. So, in conclusion. showing the pictures of aborted fetuses should not be allowed, there is no reason to. People know the risks, people know how it is done, that's enough. All that does is attempt to scare people away from abortion.
Prolifers showing aborted fetus pictures.

It's not the fact that it's a fetus or anything. The wrong lies in the fact that the pictures are used to scare people. The pictures are used as a scare tactic to push people over to their side of thinking. It would be the same thing as an Anti-Military protester going to recruiting centers and showing pictures of mutilated veterans or dead bodies, blown up during war. People should be educated, not horrified.
The Gospels are the most reliable historical documents about the historical Jesus of Nazareth

The topic for this debate is whether or not the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the most reliable historical documents about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. As an apologist and author, I will be showing that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are indeed the most reliable historical documents we have about the historical Jesus. Here are the rules for the debate: 1) you can incorporate whatever field of knowledge you want into the debate, as long as it pertains to the debate topic, and most importantly 2) YOU MUST ACTUALLY ADDRESS WHAT YOUR OPPONENT HAS TO SAY! !
Technology is killing everything, including technology.

"Your eyes are a part of you, and anything that hurts you is killing you"If this was true, then stubbing my toe accidently into a wall is killing me. Or accidently cutting myself while shaving is killing me. Because anything that hurts me is killing me! Also, since he doesn't specify what he means by 'hurt', this could also mean that someone yelling at me in a derrogatory manner is killing me. None of the examples I provided above, which proves his theory to be false."you're most likely decreasing your sperm count"Okay, I would love to see how using a laptop leads to lower sperm count levels. The warrant for this argument was never provided from my opponent. It's just not a true argument. Since I'm effectively defending that technology is not killing me, then we can negate the resolution right here. But to take it a step further, let's look at some of the examples he provided."Technology is killing economics...by making it easier to trade things"This is blatantly false. If technology is making things easier to trade, then that's actually HELPING the economy by giving us added sources of income and revenue, which gives us more money and benefits our economy. So technology isn't killing this. "Technology is killing our personal lives."False, technology actually allows us to express our personal lives much more effectively than before. Where it used to be that you would have to write a letter to someone you wanted to talk to, or have to hunt them down yourself, if you wanted to tell them something, now all you have to do is call them or send them a text message, and you're already communicating. This allows our personal lives to function on a higher and better level than before. So technology isn't killing this either. "exhaust from an increased number of vehicles....directly pollute the air"Fine, but I already talked about this last round and you never responded to this. That's not technology killing us, that's greenhouse gasses and pollutants killing us. It's like saying that hydrogen gas is technology, which is false since it's a gas.So the round breaks down really simply. My opponent had to defend how technology is killing EVERYTHING. So far, he's failing to show how technology kills me, economies, personal lives, and even my opponent directly. That's four things that technology isn't killing. Thus, technology can't be killing EVERYTHING, so you negate.
Technology is killing everything, including technology.

So...your laptop is definitely killing you, albeit slowly. Studies show that the more screens we look at, the worse our eyes become. Your eyes are a part of you, and anything that hurts you is killing you, since bodily damage has a negative impact on your immune system, and less good stuff in your body can do less...good stuff for your body. Ergonomic issues with most standard keyboards can draw the same conclusion. If you're using it on your lap (if you're a dude), you're most likely decreasing your sperm count, which, when added up, is actually helping to kill the entire human race, as well. Most of this is extrapolation, but that's what time is, and why technology is killING everything. I should have come up with some examples myself, but I'm still new enough to use the "I'm new" excuse...so here are some reasons why technology is killing the essence of four topics from the forum: Technology is killing the arts, because technology is killing creativity, and the arts MEAN creativity. By stream lining everything we use and do, like making cars that are also phones, or phones that are also TVs, technology is funneling our creative process (really, ANY process) into the same process. I don't have to solve the problem of reaching my friends to hang out because the solution is a button. I don't have to solve the problem of finding a restaurant near me, because the solution is a button. Creative solutions have been known to create ideas, tools, moods, passions, everything. Creativity still exists, but in much smaller quantities, since most mediums can be digitally created. With a button. When everything is this easy to make, the drive to actually make it goes away, and, like all muscles, the brain (center of creativity) atrophies with decreased use. So, the less creative technology allows us to be, the less creative we're able to be. Really, the monster that the Internet has unstoppably become represents the inevitable death of creativity all by itself. Technology is killing economics, or at least economies, by making it easier to trade things that shouldn't be traded. Like, in America's case, nothing, or the projection of money and assets. This is another "technology=computers" one, but it kind of does. Technology is killing our personal lives. Status updates, wall posts, tweets, all make it easier for you and I to be like everyone else, killing our individual personalities. Technology is killing entertainment in the same way that its killing creativity, which was argued above. Also, exhaust from an increased number of vehicles (exponentially increased due, in large part, to more advanced technologies which make the production of these vehicles easier and faster) directly pollute the air I breath before any parts reach the upper atmosphere (greenhouse gas territory), and help to kill me directly.
Technology is killing everything, including technology.

"advances in technology, including the development of things that make air pollutants are killing me..."This assumes that the technology is actually what is polluting the world, which is false. Greenhouse gasses are polluting the world, thus making it the Greenhouse gasses that are killing us.As my opponent really doesn't supply any other argument aside from that, I'll posit my own contention.I contend that technology is not killing me. Me is defined as the DDO user named Zaradi (a.k.a myself). I can attest for this since I am currently using a piece of technology (i.e. my laptop), and it is not trying to kill me as I am doing this. Thus, technology cannot be killing EVERYTHING, since it is not killing me. Since I disproved my opponent's BOP, you negate.
Technology is killing everything, including technology.

Alright, for the sake of the BOP...advances in technology, including the development of things that make air pollutants are killing me, or my perception of me, and my perception is my reality, which our brains tell us, is everything. Its a cop-out that can cover everything, but give me a subject, and I won't use it again. Maybe technology is the wrong word for this debate...I'm sticking to it though.
a god without a beginning

Let me explain the difference between an assumption and a definition.Assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. http://oxforddictionaries.com...Definition: a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary. http://oxforddictionaries.com...So really my debate hasn't been base don assumption (which appears to be my opponent's single rebuttal).In the last round my opponent concedes that he is "not saying that god began to exist" proving that he definitely accepts a god without a beginning could exist.My opponent perhaps mis-wrote his resolution.All pro has to do is assert that there is a god without a beginning whilst what my opponent is actually 'con' to is that belief in a god, especially the one without a beginning, is only based on assumptions without evidence and I have put my very best effort into asserting that there is a god without a beginning in almost every religion with textual evidence and well-written explanation as well as first-hand witness form of evidence in its favour.My opponent has failed to address any points I raised instead dismissing all of my very valid points saying they are based on assumptions when in fact they are based on official Oxford-dictionary definitions.In conclusion, there is a god without a beginning.
a god without a beginning

What you call an 'assumption' is a definition.All the religion I stated define God as a supernatural, eternal force behind all that occurs and will occur. It didn't 'begin' because time itself is a product of this infinitely powerful supernatural force.I repeat. I gave evidence of the worship and concept of such a deity while you have not gone through the effort of countering even the contents one of those religious texts.God exists independent of time and space and thus has no beginning in either realm since those realms are products of God's creation.The issue you are having is coping with relating definitions and I am yet to see a single counter to any points I have raised let alone a single constructive point of yours.I look forward to the last round where I hope to see at least one rebuttal to the simple fact that if God made time and space then God cannot have begun since one can only begin at a point in either time or space (according to my definition) that you seem to not have refuted).
a god without a beginning

I supplied boundless evidence of a God without a beginning being both worshipped, written about and stated the simple fact that a god with a beginning is not a god at all thus meaning that inherently God must have no beginning.Beginning: the point in time or space at which something begins. http://oxforddictionaries.com...God might have originated but not at a point in time nor space for God takes up no space since God is a non-physical entity and God is independent of time as God is eternal and existed from the very beginning of time itself. The only argument one could make in your favour is perhaps that god began with time but this is false since time is merely the fourth dimension in which we exist and since the amount of energy and matter in our universe is invariably constant time itself is a delusion. God had no beginning either in time or space and thus I support the idea of a god without a beginning.
a god without a beginning

first i would like to thank you for accepting this debate then like you said "the only god ever proposed has been the eternal creator of the universe and of consciousness, the original, the first, the beginner" he was proposed they'all make the assumption that god is without beginning what logical evidence are there that can prove or support that claim because saying so in this or that scripture is not enough evidence so you start by saying god is without beginning and build an argument on that but isn't using an assumption in an argument will make the conclusion a probability so is it an assumption or there're hard evidence
That debating is a waste of time

Before I begin I would like to point out that my opponent agrees with my argument. He forfeited the last round, opting to use his time wisely instead of wasting it on online debating.The dictionary definition of debating is ‘an argument generally formalised’. Emphasis on generally. A debate does not necessarily have to be formalised, so that means any argument is a debate. And a lot of the time when someone starts an argument with someone else it is for no particular reason. They might be bored or they might be bratty people. So they go around arguing (debating) with everyone making everyone go into a negative mood. On the internet I found a quote about online debating:On ‘http://www.decorumcomics.com...; Arancaytar said “Rather than mitigating their emotions, debaters are frustrated by the impossibility of raising their voice, and compensate by using stronger language and hardening their tone on the whole. The negative sentiment is very much amplified by the isolation of messages: Rather than immediate rapport of face to face conversation, the debater is alone while reading the text and equally alone while formulating their response. No feedback mitigates their interpretation of the text, leaving them to draw their own (usually the most aggressive) conclusion. At the same time, the frustrating inability to interrupt the other debater while reading a text they disagree with is compensated by being all the more merciless in their rebuttal.Which ultimately means that any of two (the most common) approaches to internet debate are doomed to failure:1.) Believing that your job in the debate is to argue until everyone else agrees or shuts up. (the idiot approach)2.) Ignoring the frustration and latent aggression that the lack of non-verbal communication channels can cause. (the approach of people who can debate offline, but mysteriously fail online)” I believe he is right.
That debating is a waste of time

My opponent said this: "to be an adept debater or even a debater it requires you to have certain skills such as understanding of the language and punctuation that you are debating in. Having avid knowledge of the topic you wish to debate, or having the ability to understand and internalise facts of the topic." That is not true at all. Many people on online debating are just people wanting to start an argument, while the few good natured people are just wasting their time. Looking over the internet I found this: http://www.shoeboxblog.com... I think it explains online debating thoroughly and truly. I also found a few quotes: cymry3jones said on "uk.answers.yahoo.com" that "it [debating] can have a negative effect" and goes on explaining many of her own bad personal experiences with debating. Dave an administrator on "www.decorumcomics.com" said "Online debating is all in the opposition. Too stupid and nothing meaningful happens, so it's boring. Too smart and you're outgunned every time you type a word. Happy media, that's what you need." He is absolutely right. Skawesome also said on the same thread on "www.decorumcomics.com" that "you end up in an argument with an idiot. Then the webmaster gets rumors about death threats and your favorite forum gets shut down because adults revert to acting like children when politics/religion/beliefs get involved in a semi-anonymous arena. Yes this actually happened to a small forum I used to frequent." As you can see there are many people who think debating is a waste of time and are correct in thinking that way.
That debating is a waste of time

Debating is obviously a waste of time for many reasons: --It cuts into kid's precious learning time making them loose valuable skills. There are also many extra sporting opportunities you could be doing to keep fit. --It creates loads of arguing everywhere which can easily escalate to physical violence. --It teaches kids to talk back and argue. --In online debating it keeps people glued to the computer instead of being outside with friends keeping healthy. Studies show that people who spend more time on the computer have reduced real life social skills.