BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"White people" in America have an affirmative duty to combat systemic racism.

I completely agree that neither white people nor black people are responsible for the individual acts of there members - a white person is not liable for the shootings in Charleston any more than a black person is liable for the DC Sniper shootings. Instead I am arguing that when systemic and institutionalized problems exist within a group, like racism or extremism, members of that group have an affirmative duty to combat the source of those group-wide issues. In other words, I am arguing that because systemic racism exists within white culture and institutions, white people have a duty to engage their peers who contribute or encourage racism or they themselves are implicitly contributing to racism. Similarly, it could be argued that Christians and Muslims have a duty to reach out to those misusing their faith or they too are contributing to the problem of extremism and hatred via their silence. For example, don't all Catholics have an affirmative duty to combat pedophilia within the Catholic church, since child molestation has been recognized as being a systemic problem within the church? Having a duty to act to change group problems within a group differs from being responsible for the individual actions of members of a group. White people, like people of color, black people or religious groups, have a duty to combat group-wide problems that negatively impact society and their group's reputation. This is wholly distinguishable from holding the entire group responsible or liable for the actions of its members.
"White people" in America have an affirmative duty to combat systemic racism.

White people are not collectively responsible for what happened in SC . Just like black people are not collectively responsible for the murderer of Zemir Begic--a white man--by black teens who yelled "kill white people".http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Black people are also not responsible for any of these instances http://www.dailymail.co.uk... A 13 year old boy in Kansas city Missouri who was doused with gas and set a light by two black teens who yelled "you get what you deserve white boy" http://www.wnd.com... "beat whitey night" at the Iowa state fair in 2010 The individuals who commit these atrocities are responsible for them--no one else. A black person who lives in Florida and took no part in the murderer of Zemir Begic is not responsible for his death. A white person in Georgia, California or any where else, who did not take part in the Charleston shooting is not responsible for it. Individuals need to insure that they obey the law, and that others around them obey the law. It is is not the job of random people to stop crazy thugs, 1000 miles away from committing violent acts. There is no way most white people could have stopped this massacre. There is no way most black people could have stopped the murderer of Zemir Begic. There is no way most slims could have stopped the Boston bombings. No group of people should take repository for what one member of that group do. When it comes to history 5% of whites owned slaves. most whites came to america in the 1800s and worked in factories. Others were indentured servants and craftsmen. Most whites don't have racist slave owning ancestors and most whites aren't racist thugs, like the Charleston shooter.
"White people" in America have an affirmative duty to combat systemic racism.

In light of the Charleston killings, the topic of racism in America has again been brought to the forefront. In order to argue for my position, I think I must show that (1) systemic and/or institutionalized racism exists in America, and (2) white people have an affirmative duty to affect change within those systems and/or institutions. (1) America was created by and for white people - our Constitution reflected as much by condoning slavery and the superiority of the white race. As naturally occurs, those in power generally do what they can to remain in power and over the centuries, the laws and systems created by the American government have always favored white people (or non-minorities or not people of color). This occurs not only through written law and judicial decisions, but also through those actually holding power and exercising it with their own discretion. Today, those who enforce the laws and control much of the economy still do not accurately reflect the demographics of America - most of the power still resides in white people's hands, and this power is continually used to benefit white people and violate the equal rights of non-whites. Recent headlines alone should be enough support for the position that institutional, systemic racism exists in America. (2) White people are part of a group, or race, and have consistently self-identified as 'white' since the formation of America. White people come from different communities, as religions have sects, but they benefit equally. There are members of the group that have extremist views, particularly those that feel like the white race is superior to other races (racists). Because white people with such views are more likely to engage and be persuaded by other white people, and because white people generally have privileges and opportunities resulting from these hateful views, it is the duty of white people to combat racism when confronted by it - indifference or silence to racism is merely implicit racism.
technology controls today's society

Technology does indeed control our society. As Con pointed out, each end every member of DDO uses technology, and this is just one of a multitude of examples leading to the conclusion that technology does in fact control our society.1. Cell phonesCell phone ownership nearly doubled within a span of 7 years, from 1998 to 2005 [1]. Currently, around ninety percent of all adults own a mobile phone, whether it is for work or for their own personal use [2]. This shows that cell phones have the potential to control today's society, and I believe that they do. Driving accidents are often caused by the use of cellular devices while driving, so it is evident that they are controlling of our society.2. Internet UsageAccording to a 2012 report by the Census Bureau of the United States, Internet usage in households has increased from 18% to nearly 75% - this statistic increasing by over 400% - over a period of just 15 years [3]. 3. CarsEven cars can be viewed as an advanced form of technology. Statistics are not likely necessary for this - just look out of the window nearest to you, and you will likely see multiple cars or other motor vehicles. We need cars to do our everyday jobs and run errands, and they are considered technology.ConclusionClearly, our society has become more technology-oriented than ever before. It would be near-impossible for most citizens of then United States to go a day without actively using technology, whether it be a phone, a computer, or even a car. Our society is becoming increasingly reliant on the existence and development of technology - and it is very logical for us to do so.Sources[1] https://www.census.gov...[2] http://www.pewresearch.org...[3] http://www.census.gov...[4]
The Internet hinders students to get profound knowledge

I strongly disagree with your opinion. You know that in order to read books the first of all we should find this book, and I know that today it is hard to find relevant books in the libraries. So, you mentioned that if we took material from the internet, it is like stealing someone`s ideas. In contrast it is not stealing or cheating, it is just credible materials which students paraphrase before using ideas on essay. Also, I remembered that you wrote about when we read material from the book, it will have some benefits, but I think reading the book and Internet materials are the same, because both of them are sources. And we can work with Internet as possible as with book, and it is not highly controversial to use Internet in order to get knowledge.
The Internet hinders students to get profound knowledge

It is obvious when you just download the information from the Internet, you will forget it immediately. I am sure when you read and research with books except the Internet, you will remember it forever. I do not want to say that we should read only books. If students want to use more Web material, they must also increase their use of other materials, especially reading books. When download the information from internet, it means we are stealing ideas and creativities of other people. We can do everything ourselves, do not depend on Web! We cannot limit our study only with Internet. At least we should combine reading books and the Internet because there is some information in books which you cannot find in Web. I strongly believe that books and Web need to work together to help students through the research process and to critically evaluate retrieved resources.
The Internet hinders students to get profound knowledge

Year, actually we have such students who use internet in order to plagiarize or to use it in a wrong way. So, you know that these students included into groups of people who cheated themselves. However, all we know that actually we can use the internet in order to get credible materials for writing perfect essay. You said that David Rothenberg wrote that he noticed internet disturb students mind, exactly how they wrote essay, and how expressed words before using the internet. In spite of this I think it is false. Everything depends on person. There are people who are using internet in order to keep their significant times. Due to internet they can save times, research articles, and create their ideas about essay.
The Internet hinders students to get profound knowledge

I do not say that we should read only books. However, we are forgetting about the books. Most teachers strongly oppose using the Internet. The Internet grows in importance as a tool for students' research papers. For example, in David Rothenberg's article, "How the Web Destroys Student Research Papers," he said he "noticed a disturbing decline in both the quality of the writing and the originality of the thoughts expressed" when he compared the second semester to the first semester. Using Web is making people lazy especially students. The easy access to information of Internet has made students lazy in terms of their education they just can download information without exploring their topic of research. Inventors of Web think that they just make our life more comfortable but Web are hindering students from their study. In my opinion, Web makes students robot. It means that Web makes people not to have his own opinion, idea and thoughts. Moreover, after sometime students can easily forget the information from Web. If we read books and search the information properly, profound knowledge will be forever in your memory. Can you imagine our life in future, when everyone depends on Web? What about books?
The Internet hinders students to get profound knowledge

I think that you are mistaken, even if there are some disadvantages of using Internet, today we cannot imagine our life without the Internet. I think that only studying with books is not enough to learn and research. The information can be old in books, but from the Internet you always can find fresh information. With the help of the Internet we always can be informed by the latest news in the world. That is why it helps to be broad-minded person. Most of all you can keep the limits of time because time is very valuable for us, students. Even sometimes it is very difficult to find related books to your topic of research; sometimes it can be very expensive. Using the Internet you can easily find a lot of information for you but not enough. However, if you cannot find from the Web you can find from books.
The Internet hinders students to get profound knowledge

The Internet is one of the most important things in our life. Students as well as teachers use the Internet wherever it is available; is this an opportunity for learning I want to do this! What's This? or is it hindering them from success? The Internet has become a major part in the professional, educational, and personal aspects of life. Our world is connected to the Internet; every topic, every country. Everybody in America has some type of connection to the World Wide Web. It helps us communicate and research, but using the Internet can be a distraction from the students' education. Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not as golden as it seems. Brandy Few, senior, says "The Internet hinders by offering too much, and sometimes false information, on various subjects." The Internet keeps people from using resources such as encyclopedias, atlases, maps, magazines, newspapers, libraries, and other sources of information. Since the invention of the Internet, the desire for knowledge has increased but the disdain for a good intellectual challenge has rapidly decreased. The things people want to know are things they should not know and are usually beyond their capacity of comprehension. One of the problems Internet users come into contact with is the issue of privacy. Students are too open with valuable information, leaving themselves exposed to cyber criminals. The Internet is a portal for the supernatural. In the cyber world, everyone can be who they want to be without anyone knowing who they really are. Besides stealing focus, the Internet can steal anyone's identity and eventually their sanity. The question still remains, is the World Wide Web helping or hindering to our society?
Hezbollah is a fascistic, sectarian organization

Few people on here seem to be willing to debate such a topic, but I've decided to start another debate on Hezbollah, because of a request in the comment section of my first debate about a related issue. I take the Pro position that Hezbollah is a fascistic, sectarian organization. Fascistic: Expecting unquestioning obedience and acting in a tyrannical manner that involves censorship, compulsion and persecution. Sectarian: Fighting for a certain sect and seeking sect-related, religious goals and ambitions. Rules of the debate: 1- First round is just for acceptance. Opponent can't present any arguments in the first round.2- Opponent should accept all the definitions in this round.3- Opponent only has to disprove all my claims to win the debate. He/she doesn't need to make any claims, because I'm the one providing evidence that Hezbollah is a fascistic, sectarian organization.4- Forfeits are not allowed. If anyone forfeits a round, he/she directly loses the debate. 5- Devil advocates are welcomed.
The Burqa should not be banned

Clearly, you are showing signs of incompetence and fascism. I don't know where you come from or who you think you are but I'm a Muslim. Terrorist is not the correct terminology and also how does it look like I'm a terrorist? Is it just another one of those racist assumptions incompetent fools like you make? I'm also not jealous of Christians. Why would I be? My religion is not oppressive and I believe it to the extent that I think you are a fool. I am a Muslim adolescent woman, and I have never once been denied a right in my religion, so I don't know why you're rambling on about rights. Another thing, I am a "dummypants"? I think you are better off reading your argument and checking the spelling and grammar then, judging who the "dummypants" is. Also I don't know how old you are but you sure act like you are 5 years of age. I don't know how terrorism came into this by the way.
The Burqa should not be banned

The principle behind the burqa is that it is clothing that maintains personal modesty. Clothing that is worn as recommended by the Qur"an is called Hijab. In certain portions of the Qur"an, Allah"s words as stated by Muhammad are that women should cover their "beauties": their chests, hair, legs, and arms. This is not oppressive but more of a protection to a lady's personal assets. Legally, the burqa is NOT a threat to society because, in airports, police stations etc, a person wearing a burqa would reveal their face to an officer, providing the individual (the officer) is a female. There is only reasoning behind action, therefore it is logical to conclude that the burqa should not be banned SIMPLY because there is no reason to ban it! It's just a piece of clothing. People say it harms women, well so do bras and high heels and the objectification of women in the media, we don't hear about any major government authorities complaining about those, do we? With this reasoning debunked, we can say that the movement to ban burqas is based PURELY on Islamaphobia and not for the love of our human sisters. There are those who say people could hide stuff under them when they go to schools or airports, well we can hide things in baggy pants. Does that mean we should ban those as well? Those along with every clown car, trench coat and big sweater in the state. Madness I say! To ban an article of clothing is an affront to humanity and reason. In the free countries where they are moving to ban the burqas they say that women are oppressed with these things. We should preoccupy ourselves with banning articles of clothing of women are being oppressed by men, we should focus on liberating women! If they are liberated from threats and harassment then they would be free to choose not to wear a burqa or to choose to wear a burqa for themselves! We shouldn't ban burqas, we should ban misogyny.
Cate vs Doge

Rule BreakingI have uploaded yet another picture showing that my opponent has not changed their profile picture to that of Doge. It is in the same album as last time in my profile. This is a clear violation of Rule #1 as stated in Round 1.Rebuttal"Note that we are debating which is better, cate or doge, and that the definitions themselves are not up for debate."I will begin by completely rejecting this statement. First, I will give a past experience in which a similar situation arose. It was in a debate between me and Envisage. Here is the link to the debate: http://www.debate.org... Since I did not put in the rules what the definition of a "diamond" was, Envisage was able to use a suitable definition to back up his case. We argued over which definition was appropriate. Just as that word was not defined, neither was Doge or Cate. We must therefore use the context of the situation to determine the correct definition for the way in which it was used."If a doge has higher quality than a delicacy, then I win this argument."Incorrect. Your resolution is: Doge is better than Cate."I feel as though these 9 different webpages are enough to define doge"None of the definitions provided match the context in which the term "Doge" was used in Round 1. They are not as good as the definition I provided in Round 2. The reasons for this are in my argument regarding the definition of Doge (and Cate)."These sources are more than enough to prove that cate is a choice food or a delicacy"None of the definitions provided match the context in which the term "Cate" was used in Round 1. They are not as good as the definition I provided in Round 2. The reasons for this are in my argument regarding the definition of Doge (and Cate).Contention I argued about a completely irrelevant topic in the debate. Con failed to provide any evidence to support the resolution which is "Doge is better than Cate" according to Round 1. Vote Pro."I am still following rule one, where it says "Con must have a picture of [a] Doge", because according to [7], my picture is a doge."Incorrect. Your picture is not Doge. The definition of Doge is found using the context of the situation. The best definition that was given is mine. Arguments to support this are in Round 2 in the argument regarding the definition of Doge (and Cate). Also, carefully notice how Con sneaks in one small word in brackets to completely change the context of the word Doge. Since in rule one it originally says, "Con must have a picture of Doge" it implies that it is a name, not just "the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa."Previous Argument (Round 2) Failed PictureThere was a picture that failed to load properly. Please refer to the comments section to see the appropriate picture.
Cate vs Doge

This round is for constructive arguments, or arguments that uphold my side of the BoP. This is not a round for rebuttals or anything of the sort.DefinitionsBefore I begin, I feel as though I need to further define the key terms of this debate. I will use many authoritative dictionary references and some nice passages from encyclopedias to corroborate the definition, and meet in a sort of "middle ground", if you will. Note that we are debating which is better, cate or doge, and that the definitions themselves are not up for debate.Doge - The chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. (I feel as though these 9 different webpages are enough to define doge)Cate - a choice food; delicacy [1,10,11,12,13,14]. (These sources are more than enough to prove that cate is a choice food or a delicacy)Better - of higher quality [15,16] (We can just use today's english usage for this word, I do not need to source spam this)Contention I. Ability for greater goodIt is thought that humans have the ability to have free will, and all humans (whether they like it or not) are performing tasks in the name of free will [17]. This means that people are freely able to help each other altrustically (non selfishly), and are able to make the small community they are in, and society as a whole, grow in terms of quality. They are able to selflessly help another person, and this means that they have intrinsic quality.If a doge has higher quality than a delicacy, then I win this argument.Let's look at what greater good a delicacy can achieve. They can satisfy hunger for one person, maybe, for a few hours, however they do cost a lot of money (this is common knowledge). This would mean that a delicacy does satisfy hunger, and that is a net benefit, however they it does not benefit the people that need it the most. In the United States, the main reason for going hungry is a lack of money [18] (of list, only poverty is applicable). This means that a cate is not able to have a large enough quality that actually benefits the society as a whole.A doge can benefit society as a whole, whereas a cate cannot. Vote con.[1]. Google definitions[2]. http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[5]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[6]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[7]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[8]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[9]. http://www.britannica.com...[10]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[11]. http://dictionary.reference.com...[12]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[13]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[14]. http://www.collinsdictionary.com...[15]. http://dictionary.reference.com...[16]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[17]. http://www.slate.com...[18]. https://www.wfp.org...--I am still following rule one, where it says "Con must have a picture of [a] Doge", because according to [7], my picture is a doge. I am still following rule two, which says to keep to debate structure, because I am only making constructive arguments in this round--
Cate vs Doge

I accept. My opponent has not defined any key terms for this debate, so I will do so here. This is allowed since I am not making any arguments; I am following rule 2.Doge: the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa [1]Cate: a delicacy [1]Better: comparative of good and well [1]I have the profile picture of Lodovico Manin, a Doge of Venice, and thus I follow rule one. [2][1]. google "definition of <term>"[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...I ask my opponent to have the profile picture of Cate because it is unfair for me to have to have a profile picture yet my opponent does not. This restricts my freedom on DDO and I ask that they remove this rule or comply with it as well. Good luck! the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa