BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most major news networks are racist toward white people.

It's been fun. I'd also like to thank my opponent for brilliantly summarizing his entire position in just two sentences: "the links I posted were from right-leaning sites, that I agree with my opponent on. However, the content contained within were just plain facts. " My opponent has managed to display the entire problem at the heart of this debate in one fell swoop. As I displayed in Round 3, my opponent fails to understand the issue of truth in the media; this is evident in the sources he uses. As he concedes, the websites he pulls "evidence" from are right-leaning. But this is what my opponent does not recognize: because of this bias, the information he is presenting is no better than the information perpetuated by the mainstream media that he claims to be false. This is not a leftist objection, but a logical one. My opponent also FINALLY attempts to explain how mainstream media outlets are racist against whites: their guests. Pro presents the example of Jamilah Lemieux, the left-leaning Ebony Magazine editor. She often appears on panels on CNN and MSNBC. What my opponent does not understand is she is simply present to fulfill CNN and MSNBC's obligation to the public. Let me explain. Panels are brought together to discuss issues from multiple perspectives, providing viewers with different opinions to consider rather than propaganda. Are the journalists moderating these panel discussions promoting Lemieux's rhetoric, racist or not? No. Is anything being said that would indicate that Lemieux's position is superior to that of right-leaning panelists? No. Even though I would argue nothing Lemieux said was promoting a racist agenda, even IF Lemieux's statements could be construed as racist, that would not make the channel she happened to appear on racist. If CNN interviewed Donald Trump (as they have in the past), would that make CNN biased towards him? No. Framing this as an issue of "You hang around a racist, you get labeled a racist" simply makes no sense. These news outlets are just trying to present multiple perspectives, and the perspectives of Lemieux and that one Republican strategist are weighted equally; there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Clearly, my opponent has presented nothing that would have us reasonably believe that mainstream media outlets are racist against white people. The "evidence" he uses is no better than the information he has us believe is false. His speculations are meaningless, and do not advance his position at all. Pro utterly misses the mark in his understanding of media bias and opinion-based vs. fact-based journalism. That is it. This entire debate has been nothing but antifactual, absurd speculation at my opponent's end. All of my opponent's arguments have been dropped at some point in this debate; thus, I urge you to vote Con, as I believe Pro's "argument" has been refuted in full. Thank you.
Most major news networks are racist toward white people.

It doesn't matter what I post, my opponent will always say I am posting biased links. This is how the left debates. If the facts don't add up to what they believe to be true, it's biased. the links I posted were from right-leaning sites, that I agree with my opponent on. However, the content contained within were just plain facts. CNN is a major news network; possibly one of the most well known in that field. They have also been outed several times on reporting fake news or distorted news to fit their agenda. They continuously invite guests that have ideals of hatred toward whites. One recurring guest in particular, Jamilah Lemieux, will always spew her racist rhetoric on whites and cops. And even MSNBC brings her on as a "panel guest" to spew her racist rhetoric. And you can't tell me they didn't know about her racism before hand. And what does MSNBC do at the end of the segment? They tell their audience they don't agree with her statements ... yeah, like we're going to believe that. If you don't agree with her racism, why are you bringing her on as a guest to spew her racism? My opponent, I am sure, will bring up reasons as to why Youtube is biased, just as he brought up the bias in my previous links. I could look for evidence that CNN and the other networks claim to be racist, but who will claim it? CNN isn't going to come out and call themselves racist. I have presented plenty of evidence to prove they are racist by bringing their reoccurring racist guests on their shows. You hang around a racist, you get labelled a racist. Racism is racism, even when that racism is directed toward whites. Shocker, I know. Black people and other minorities can be racist as well.
Most major news networks are racist toward white people.

Let's start by defining what the "major news networks" consist of in order to bring some clarity to this debate. The major news networks air both opinion-based journalism and fact-based journalism. Opinion-based shows, which lay no claim to objectivity, dominate some major news networks, like MSNBC, and arguably Fox. A recent Pew Research study found that a large majority of reporting time on channels like MSNBC consist of opinion-based journalism. [1]One of the key weaknesses of my opponent's argument is that he uses opinion-based journalism to validate a characteristic of both fact-based and opinion-based journalism on other networks. Such justification is completely unfounded. Sites such as TheRebel Media and Liberty Headlines serve in perpetuating a certain agenda by populating their sites with completely one-sided stories, with outrageous headlines like "How the Left pushed pedophilia" and "Saskatoon Police search for bearded, Middle Eastern looking men in KIDNAP AND GANG RAPE case". [2] My opponent presents a factual resolution for debate, and then attempts to justify his claim with opinions. My opponent also makes the point that the mainstream media is "quick to jump" on stories which shed a negative light on "white America. " I'd love to see some factual evidence that the mainstream media is more prompt to pick up stories favoring ethnic minorities rather than whites. I'd also love to see evidence that the mainstream media "makes up" stories about white men degrading minorities. I wonder if my opponent's sole justification for these positions is even more far-right opinion-based journalism. My opponent attempts to prove the mainstream media's bias toward ethnic minorities by claiming that the media delays in labeling terror attacks as being committed by radical fundamentalist Muslim terrorists when it is "obvious" that these terrorists committed these atrocities. I'd like to see some factual evidence, as well, that suggests this delay, and what it means by "obvious". As of now, this argument is completely unsubstantiated. Also, as the resolution requires that my opponent prove that mainstream media outlets are "racist", I'd like to see evidence that the media actively promotes an agenda which portrays ethnic minorities as superior in some way. Evidently, my opponent utterly fails to justify the resolution and advance his position. All of his sources display extreme bias, which, other than exposing the hypocrisy of my opponent, fail to factually substantiate Pro's claims. Completely speculatory and unfactual claims are littered throughout Pro's argument, such as the claim that mainstream media outlets fail to label attacks as being committed by radical fundamentalists when it is "obvious". Clearly, Pro needs to make a choice: either present a factual argument to prove that the mainstream media is "racist toward white people," or continue on the path he is currently on, presenting wildy antifactual sources and simply speculating. [1] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[2] . http://www.therebel.media...
Most major news networks are racist toward white people.

http://www.therebel.media... http://www.libertyheadlines.com... In the most recent case of media hatred for white America, is the case of the Facebook live stream of four black teens who kidnapped, tortured and ridiculed a white mentally disabled teen, all while shouting racial slurs and saying "f*ck Donald Trump!" What did the mainstream media do with this story? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.... While news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox (to a lesser degree) will be quick to jump on stories where Trump supporters harass non Trump supporters and white-on-black crime occurs, they're silent on stories like the aforementioned. Sometimes they'll even lie to push the anti-white agenda the far left like to take. http://www.allenbwest.com... While these major news networks tend to favor minorities and their plight, women of any ethnic background (not really sure when women became a minority since there are slightly more women on this planet than men), they'll make up stories of white men degrading minorities and not bat an eye. It was quite prevalent during the presidential election. "If you're a Trump supporter you're just an angry white man who hates minorities, including women." This was the constant barrage of slamming "whitey" during the election by the leftist mainstream media; CNN, MSNBC, etc.... http://www.washingtontimes.com... Also, let's take a quick look at what these mainstream media outlets report when a middle eastern man decides to commit an act of terror in the name of Islam here in the States, or anywhere else in the world... When it is obvious the shootings or bombings were being carried out in the name of Islam and the attacker or attackers are Muslim, the media feels the need to wait and collect all the facts before jumping to conclusions. This is what they tell us. But when a white man decides to shoot up a school, five minutes after the fact, it's obvious racism or homophobia, or...you take your pick. Let's hurry and string 'em up and denounce this evil before we know what's happening. This is a constant norm today. In the latest terror attack at Fort Lauderdale the media described the man as "a white man who sounded angry." Turns out, they were dead wrong. But until just recently, stuck with the narrative of "an angry white man." https://therealstrategy.com... http://bluelivesmatter.blue... This occurs a lot in today's world. The media will continuously report on "whites committing crimes," while blacks committing crimes...well, they must have reasons for their criminal activities. Let's just tell it as it is.
Gender and Sex are interchangeable

So we both agree that:1. People should be allowed to identify however they like. 2. That intersex people do exist, And not everyone is born purely male or female. 3. Biological sex does not change - even with surgery. ---Your main argument seems to be that we shouldn't change the word gender because it's linked to biological sex. Let's go back to the eye color analogy for a second. There's a problem with your logic. a) We shouldn't call a trans-woman a woman, because their DNA says they are a manb) We should call a blue-eyed person's eyes blue, despite their DNA saying their eye color should be brown. Let me propose another analogy. What if you could change our height? Would you refuse to say a 6' man is 6', Simply because he used to be 5'7" before surgery? That man's DNA and biology say he should be 5'7". So I ask you, How tall is he? Body modifications are a rapidly advancing field of research. In just a few decades we might be able to change our eyes, Height, Skin color, You name it. Will you still be so stringent about biology then? ---My second argument is that words are allowed to change. Here are some other words that got redefined over time: [2] -"Girl" once meant a young child of either sex. -"Naughty" used to mean poor people. Because they 'Had Naught'-"Egregious" used to mean something outrageously good - it now means the opposite. Words and concepts change all the time because they are a societal construct. The word "Gender" means whatever society deems it to mean. Right now, That meaning is not the same meaning as "Biological Sex". [2]http://mentalfloss. Com/article/61876/11-words-meanings-have-changed-drastically-over-time
Gender and Sex are interchangeable

Question 1 If someone undergoes gender reassignment surgery, Would you say their Gender changed? Is it possible for someone's Gender to not match their biological sex? -If yes, Then Gender is not interchangeable with biological sex. -If no, Then how are trans people supposed to identify themselves? A: No, To me it"s like wearing a costume. You can put on a female persona, But still not be a female. Trans people can identify themselves however they"d like to, But when it comes down to the biology they are either male or female, Nothing in between. Question 2 What about intersex people? Not everyone is born strictly male or female. Why should we force them to pick one or the other? What's wrong with saying they are non-binary, For example? A: You are either born female or male, You"re assigned a sex at birth and it"s not something you can biologically change. If they don"t want to identify then so be it, They don"t have to. But in legal terms your sex is determined biologically. If that doesn"t make sense, Please do tell. I"d be happy to elaborate more Question 3 Did you know that you can get laser eye surgery to change your eye color from brown to blue? So let me ask you, If I changed my eye color to blue, Would you insist on calling my eyes brown? After all, That's the color biology intended right? No, I did not know that. After undergoing this surgery, Is the genetic makeup completely altered, Or do you still have X colored eyes, But with the outside appearance of Y colored eyes? If it has completely changed, Fair enough. But can we do that with our sex? If not, Then my point still stands
Gender and Sex are interchangeable

Hello Zyzml and welcome to debate. Org! The American Psychological Association defines gender as: "The attitudes, Feelings, And behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity". [1]So first of all, The definition HAS changed, And people are using the word correctly. But I don't want to argue IF it has changed, I want to argue WHY it changed. ---I have three questions for my opponent:Question 1If someone undergoes gender reassignment surgery, Would you say their Gender changed? Is it possible for someone's Gender to not match their biological sex? -If yes, Then Gender is not interchangeable with biological sex. -If no, Then how are trans people supposed to identify themselves? Question 2What about intersex people? Not everyone is born strictly male or female. Why should we force them to pick one or the other? What's wrong with saying they are non-binary, For example? Question 3Did you know that you can get laser eye surgery to change your eye color from brown to blue? So let me ask you, If I changed my eye color to blue, Would you insist on calling my eyes brown? After all, That's the color biology intended right? [1] https://www. Apa. Org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions. Pdf
Gender and Sex are interchangeable

I'd like to start of this debate by saying that this is my first debate here, Or ever. This is a completely new experience for me, And i'm excited to try it out. I'm 16, Naive, And I don't know a lot, But i'm not asking you to go easy on me, I'm here to learn and improve. With that being said, Let's debate. The way people use the term 'gender' nowadays is incorrect. It is interchangeable with the term 'sex'. The world people are looking for is 'personality'. You cannot "feel" like a certain sex, You ARE what sex you were assigned to at birth.
Every action we do is in the pursuit of happiness

Just a summation of your arguments: A: In machine one would still be cognizant, and still maintain that value B: Even if what I said was the case, the machine would be designed to make us as happy as we wanted Point: If my conclusion were true, then everyone would get on the machine Change necesary for validation: My first premise should be: To live is to consume and reproduce Response A: That is untrue. If you were in a state of atificial realism, then it wouldn't be true cognizance as you would see before you got on the machine. Response B: If one did value that true cognizance over that which would be provided by the machine, then any kind happiness provided by the machine would be irrelevant. That value in choosing true cognizance over entering the machine would provide the kind of happiness valued by the decider. Counterpoint: Not everyone pursues the same happiness, but what is certain is that we will make choices in the pursuit of our own individual happiness. Some might value the machine over their reality and pursue that, others as I stated before will choose to not enter it, but they WILL choose whatever they believe will make them the happiest. Cross apply that argument to what you say. There are others who believe that consumption and reproduction aren't the means to happiness, and will therefore pursue other means. Those two things fit under the category of "happiness" for you, and so your premise is included in my own, so my original argument still stands.
Every action we do is in the pursuit of happiness

To be more specific, the premise I am going after is 1. Living is to pursue happiness. To say that someone values their cognition over getting into the machine does not settle it. In the machine you will still be cognizant, only what you are processing is a electronically constructed reality and not what you are experiencing now. Even if that were the case, I could make the machine give you a million times more happiness then what you would experience other wise. Your options could be guaranteed infinite amount of happiness or only a chance of only a fraction of that happiness. If living is to pursue happiness, then everyone would get in the machine no questions asked. But people don't get in the machine, therefore the first part is not right. As to why this is has been debated by philosophers for a while, and my guess is that it has to do with reproductive success. I'm not denying that everyone does pursue pleasure. The topic at hand is if everything everyone does is to pursue happiness. You have to distinguish between all we attain for is happiness and happiness drives us to pursue certain things (pretty much eating and sex). So I think your first line should be living is to consume and reproduce. (I may have posted this in the comments as well, since I am still navigating the interface of debate.org)
Every action we do is in the pursuit of happiness

You still haven't addressed my argument that we do things in the pursuit of happiness. In regard to you thought experiment, if people choose not to get on the machine, then they have made a concious choice not to do so because they value their cognizance over the immediate happiness the machine would provide. If anything, that supports my stance. Look to our Constitution for what I am talking about. In the line about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the pursuit of happiness is given value by the other two. Life gives us the ability to live while liberty allows us to live to the fullest extent possible so that we could pursue happiness. Apply this to what you are saying. You say that it is not happiness that fuels our actions, but the genetic drive to reproduce, when they are one and the same. Happiness is not a sovereign thing; it is relative to our pursuits, that which we choose to do (liberty). Our drive to reproduce gives us purpose and a destination; something to pursue. What I am trying to say is that, though you have a valid argument, it still doesn't refute my own. Whenever we choose to pursue happiness, be it through reproduction or a machine, we are still pursuing it.
Every action we do is in the pursuit of happiness

Thought experiment: Suppose I could guarantee you happiness by connecting you to a machine that looks like something out of the matrix. You would be totally unaware of your current life in this experience machine. Your greatest fantasies would be fulfilled while you would suck yeast paste through a tube. In your mind you would be the president, a rocker star, or both. But to other people looking on the outside, you look like a vegetable. Do you hop in the machine? Most people say no. This is Robert Nozick's experience machine argument and it is meant to show that we seem to care more about just happiness. Happiness is an evolutionary mechanism for our genetic puppet masters to get us to pass on our genes. Our brain rewards us for doing certain things (pleasure) and punishes us for others (pain). The problem is that our reward system evolved in a time while our species was a group of nomadic hunter gatherers. But since then, we have changed our environment considerably. There is a difference between "we do stuff to be happy," and "we are happy when we do the stuff our genes want us to." I think there is a greater driving force then happiness, and that is reproduction. We live to breed. But the two are confused because one is used to reenforce the other. I think that also explains why people don't get in the experience machine. Getting the machine essentially means giving up all control of your reproductive successes.
Iron Man is objectively better than Batman

I do not get what your argument is about since it did not refute mine but I will refute yours - - First post about the Better Plan Umm Batman has a better plan why cause he ahs a plan Tony Stark's plan is attack which causes him to get hurt alot like what Thor Captain america and almost the whole marvel universe can do to him while Batman was able to beat people far exceeding him - - 2nd post about who did more good Yea and Iron Man is a cocky man that does not take orders until it almost destroys new york city - - 3rd post about gray areas And would it not make him batman anymore if he does not fight crime instead he uses all his money he fights to lessen crime that is why his batman not rich man - - 4 post about who does not cast thousand of innocent people Ahhhm yea not thousands millions IronMan was part of the illuminati who sent Hulk in space.Hulk went back angrier than ever smashed thw hole new york city to smitherines is that not letting people into a murder-filled death - - Paramount post I did not get this post Batman's first movie got 372 ,000,000 Batman's second movie got 1,000,000,000 Batman's third movie got (currently getting money) - Iron man's first movie got 585 ,000,000 Iron man's second movie got 630,000,000 - Tally Batman owns the box office if you compare them both - - - I like IronMan more but Bat's win