BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are black people over populated in the United States of America

Blacks have invaded every american tradition. They come to our contry and get to miss school for veterns day when they dont even know who the presidetn is. Chicags black population is outta control. Theres no reason why these people can come here steaal my KFC and steal my education! You people dont understand. There are so many blacks peoples who are not included in your "41.7 million" they sneak at night! They kill people in chicago. This is a national crisis and neeeds to be resolved with violent force. I want to have a meeting with every black (african) human in the united states. This meeting will be held in Boston Massachusetts. Blacks have taken over our food supply. Earth is dying every second and we cant be waisting our food! they take it and just use earth as a public trashcan! Ohhh and on the KFC Eating out party, I have my family with me and a couple of my friends. We see big black people and we let them go first becuase they might shoot us/ rape family. I then proceding with my everday KFC ordering time and the lady( KFC Worker) said sorry no one chicken. My face was so angry. Then i ask why and she said The blacks took it all. We cant stand for this abusive. We need to fight back. I know you are afraid to lose this debate and thats why you want me to forfeit.
Are black people over populated in the United States of America

The population of African Americans in the U.S. is 41.7 million, making up merely 13% of the countries total population... Sadly, your argument is utterly biased and ultimately contains little logical and or reasonable facts, or supporting evidence as to how the African American population has contributed to mass destruction nor how they break every law. You made a proposition to hold a meeting with the entire African American populace, can you please give an example as to how and where you would like to house 41.7 million people? Near the end of your petty statement, you claim that the African American populace has "Taken over our food." In actuality, that statement is false as just over 1 tenth of our countries population is not capable of controlling and consuming the entire countries worth of food, especially through means of eating at KFC. In the end of your statement you quote, "On 5/6/2014 i wanted KFC and she said the blacks took it all." Who are you referring to when saying "she"?? Your ill use of grammar and remarkable lack of unbiased info or evidence makes it quite evident that you know little about what you are talking about. Do yourself a favor and forfeit the rest of this debate, no use in making yourself look any more unintelligent and ignorant than you already have.
Are black people over populated in the United States of America

The black population is getting overpopulated here in the US. years ago blacks werent as populated. Now we have a president and this getting outa control. Blacks are the reason of Mass destruction and we should gather them up and have a meeting with them and try to move them somewhere else where they wont take incontinent lifers of American People. They break every law. They sit here taking over our food. I cant even go to KFC anymore barbecue blacks take it all. On 5/6/2014 i wanted KFC and she said the blacks took it all!
abortion

Thanks opponent, onto the debate. I'm still going to have to deny that my opponent is not talking about potential life. He says that a fetus is all but guaranteed to become a baby but I don't really believe that to be the case. A fetus has every chance of being still born, of being naturally aborted halfway through. My opponent goes on to say that very young or very old people cannot survive themselves either that doesn't mean we should kill them. I disagree with this logic, very young and very old people have a chance to survive for themselves. They have the ability to live and will at the very least for a time. A fetus on the other hand cannot survive outside of the mother for at the very least the first 2 trimesters. Thus I still do not feel a fetus is ever true life. Going on.... my opponent ignores this entire paragraph from my last round, "But taking a step back for a moment I'm still failing to see the difference between wearing a condom and aborting a fetus. In fact hinging from my opponents argument on the potential Einstein I'd say wearing a condom would be worse considering one would be destroying the potential for multiple Einsteins. Going on though, a fetus shortly after conception consists of a sperm and an egg. Both of which die on a regular basis constantly. I fail to see how the two combined dying ever holds a moral significance over the two alone." Thus at the very least we're going to allow a fetus to be aborted for parts of the first trimester. Next we get to this doctor point. I never said it should be mandatory for abortions to occur. All I'm saying is that they should be legal. Government should have no involvement in the personal decisions of a mother. For instance, currently it is legal for a doctor to give you certain drugs if you are in a lot of pain. However this does not mean that doctor MUST give you the drugs. In much the same way if abortion is legal that does not mean that Dr. Jones MUST give you an abortion. Finally back on vegetated states, my opponent is once again proving that he is talking about vegetated states. He says a person in a vegetated state is not living, "it is basically the same as being stilllborn". Thus my opponent is saying that a fetus, in it's current state is not living. If a fetus remains in that state after birth is should be considered non-living. Thus it is only at the point where the fetus is no longer a fetus that we consider it to be alive. POTENTIAL LIFE. Apply all potential life arguments, adios.
abortion

I am not referring to potential life, I am referring to the current life in the womb. It is all but guaranteed that the baby will be born. Not having sex or using a condom means that no baby/fetus is even created, so none is being killed. I don't care if you don't want a baby, but killing it in the womb is no different than waiting nine months and killing it then. If you aren't born yet, why should you be killed? You haven't done anything wrong yet. You mentioned they can't sustain themselves. Neither can anyone at a young/old age! can a ninety-six year old provide for himself? Normally, the answer is no. Can four-years old sustain themselves? No! If it is in the womb, you're right it can't sustain itself, but that doesn't mean it isn't human. Also, say Dr. Jones is told they have to do an abortion. Dr. Jones is LDS (Mormon). We believe that abortion is a sin. Well how is this fair to Dr. Jones? what if he/she doesn't want to sin? It doesn't matter, they are required to by law. You have to think about the doctors as well. When I said being born in a vegetated state, I meant being born unable to basically do anything but breathe and crap. A fetus is only supposed to be vegetated, that's normal. But when they are born and can still not do anything, then it is basically the same as being stillborn. Thank you for this argument.
abortion

For starters my opponent says that his argument does not hinge on potential life but I honestly don't think that that is necessarily the case. For instance my opponent says that the act of destroying a fetus is immoral but apparently wearing a condom is completely fine. Furthermore my opponent goes on to say, "What if the girl who had irresponsible sex had an abortion and killed the next Einstein? " I'm not sure what this statement would mean if we're not talking about potential life. But taking a step back for a moment I'm still failing to see the difference between wearing a condom and aborting a fetus. In fact hinging from my opponents argument on the potential Einstein I'd say wearing a condom would be worse considering one would be destroying the potential for multiple Einsteins. Going on though, a fetus shortly after conception consists of a sperm and an egg. Both of which die on a regular basis constantly. I fail to see how the two combined dying ever holds a moral significance over the two alone. Finally on this subject, I'd like to point out that even a fetus of 8 months doesn't have a guarantee of being born. A fetus is still a potential being no matter how far along. On top of that I don't think it counts as life anymore than a sperm does especially considering that a fetus has no free will and cannot sustain itself. Two traits that I think we find really prevalent and characteristic of human beings. Thus I arrive at a new topic. This would be the last four lines of my opponents speech where he or possibly she outlines that not all abortion is wrong. Aside from the fact that I think changing an argument second round could potentially be mildly abusive to myself I'd like to take a look at the third point: "3. be born in a state of essential non-living, or a vegetated state. " I think we see a rather dire contradiction with this point. .. .. Apparently it is alright to kill a potential being if that being is going to be in vegetated state upon birth. However a fetus is in a vegetated state, in a state where it doesn't really ever do anything. Thus I think under my opponents moral framework it would also be rather permissible to end the life of a fetus, considering that it exists in a vegetated state. I have about two more arguments but not desire to go over 2,500 char so I'm going to let my opponent answer these first.
abortion

Thank you for accpeting this debate. I wasn't referring to the possibility, which you pointed out is incredibly vague, but the fact that it is there. it isn't stopping life by not creating it. But if it is created, it should be kept. You chose to create life (cases such as rape, molestation, etc. are discluded) and you should keep it. If you had sex, you chose to create a life, and you should not destroy it. I have no problem with using protection, then the baby is never born, therefore it is also never killed. My problem is that people will constantly say abortion isn't murder, but what is it then? It is the act of destroying an unborn fetus, which is a human and should be given the rights of one. What if the girl who had irresponsible sex had an abortion and killed the next Einstein? I'm not saying we need more people beingborn, just that they shouldn't be killed unless it will 1. Kill the mother 2. Be born from rape or a similar action, or 3.be born in a state of essential non-living, or a vegetated state. Thank you for the debate again, I
abortion

Evening. My opponents argument is as such, "even if it is still not "alive" yet, it would be alive in a few months". Thus my opponents argument hinges on potential life. In a few months they would be born. The question then goes farther. Should someone not wear a condom for the same reason? If someone did not wear a condom during intercourse then a baby would potentially be born in a few months. Of course we could go even farther than that. Wouldn't it be a bad idea for anybody who could possibly create a baby not to be having sexual intercourse? I mean, if everyone who could create a baby was having intercourse then we'd have a ton of babies in just about nine months. Under my opponents logic everyone should be having sexual intercourse as often as possible that way in a few months a baby would be born. Not having constant sexual intercourse is almost like murdering billions of babies before they are born. I doubt this logic. I would seriously doubt that potential life ever holds up. A life will thus never considered as such until at the very least after birth. Conception counts as nothing. Potential life holds no weight.
Marijuana Should Be Legalized.

My opponent's position (which I'd like to remind you is not really his position at all, but rather an article plastered all over the internet that my opponent has copied and pasted word for word) has been refuted. I have shown to you how every single point that my opponent has plagiarized is either irrelevant, contradictory, not in your best interest, or just plain wrong. In the face of these refutations my opponent has offered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in his defense. This means that even if you agree with my opponent with every fiber of your being he has sadly provided you with NO reason to vote for him. Even if these were actually HIS points, the only words you see in the space provided for my opponent to type his defense are (and I quote), "dazchilly forfeited this round." Therefore the facts at the end of this debate still stand as such: legalization would not uphold our country's democratic ideals of the right of the majority to prevail as 25 million is closer to 10% of the population than it is to 51%, taxation would eventually force marijuana underground again and MANY more unanswered arguments questioning my opponent's fallacious position. Once again, don't let my opponent blow the issue of marijuana out of proportion. In the face of opposition my opponent has provided you with NO reason to vote contrary to my position, thus be the resolution Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized, negated. Thank you.
Marijuana Should Be Legalized.

Sadly my opponent as forfeited the round, thus all of my arguments still stand and my framework ought be accepted. I will use this opportunity to express another important argument. It is critical to remember that even if one does subscribe to the idea that marijuana ought in fact be legalized I ask that you judge this round objectively. So you may completely disagree with what I'm saying but I ask that you consider the superior argumentation on my side (considering my opponent has been rather silent as far as opponents go :P). Once again I ask that you judge based n the argumentation not on who you actually agree with (I say this because I have seen the comments of people who disagree). As far as argumentation goes, remember the statistics, remember the argumentation, remember what we both have brought to the debate. At this point in the debate no reason has been provided for one to vote contrary to my position.
Should Pets be Allowed in Apartments

I think that animals should be allowed in apartments because they can help people with loneliness and they can have more people want to live in apartments because its cheaper and they can bring their beloved pets with them. Although animals can be messy or disruptive to the building, I believe that they will clean it up, its their living space, why would they want it to reek of pee and be disgusting and dirty. I feel these are just a few reasons why animals should be allowed, but I'd love to hear what others have to say.
Should Pets be Allowed in Apartments

This appears to me to be a confusion of the concept of property ownership. The landlord owns the property and the value it possesses: he or she rents out this property in exchange for what is deemed as its value in capital finance. As such, the person who lives in the apartment only owns it insofar as they use it and rent it out: they do not own the value of the apartment for this belongs to the landlord. As such anything that could potentially damage the value of that property, such as owning a pet, though whilst may be beneficial for the person living in the apartment is detrimental for the landlord. Animals can physically damage an apartment through scratching it or making a mess very hard to clean in it (which the renter is not always obliged to do under law, depending of course on the extent of damage). Or, they can do reputational damage, in that people will not want to rent out the house consequent to a pet-enabled living space based on allergy or the conception that it makes an apartment somehow dirtier. Thus, damaging the value of the property. Now, if I was to rent a car, should I be allowed to do certain things in it (like eat hot food, smoke, drink...) in it that could potentially damage that rented car's value? The same argument applies to housing.
No such thing as good an evil but all is controlled by perception of temporal cause and effect

I'd like to debate the essence of good and evil and it's potential non-existence as an independent entity. I argue that good is not a constant and can not exist as a solo entity. I like to debate with a con who can prove me wrong that good is indeed it's on constant and can stand as an independent factor . What is good can only be determined by what is bad and likewise what's bad can only be determined by what is good. Hence when we say what is good we in essence can say what is not bad( which summarizes most of the theories ethics provides us). But then what is bad? Is it not just an opinion based on the the viewer. A man is killed in the field yet his dead body is used to fertilize the plants. From it life springs forth. Was the murder therefore bad ( looking from the mans perspective) or good ( looking from the perspective of organisms that thrived from it) ? If that's true who's to determine the perspective in which we measure all deeds?
Atheism or Theism

I thank Microsuck for issuing this challenge, and I accept the terms set forth in his opening round. However, the existence of something cannot be put into a percentage. Either I exist or I don't. Either God exists or He doesn't. So I'd like to revise the definition of "improbable" to mean it is unlikely that such a God exists. Therefore, as instigator Pro must cast reasonable doubt upon the existence of God (or a god). It will be my job to show why Pro's arguments do not cast reasonable doubt on the existence of God.
Atheism or Theism

=====> Introduction <======I thank keytarhero for agreeing to debate this topic with me. This debate focuses on atheism-vs.-Theism. The full resolution is, "On balance of probability, the existence of God is improbable." Note that the title of the debate is not the resolution. Just a quick note to my partner, and the readers, all of my sources are found here http://www.debate.org... =====> Debate Guidelines <======Rounds:1. Terms and abstract2. Opening arguments3. CX/1st R 4. CX/2nd R5. Closing For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience etc.) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concernsgeneral revelation, and hence forms of religion are irrelavent. We are debating a judeo-Christian type God. "Improbable" will be defined as less than 50%. The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.Good luck :-)
it takes more talent to create a good parody than an original song

My opponent is mistaking talent (a skill) with creativity (imagination). In his example with the paintings, it is quite the opposite, the more colors you use, the greater your skill needs to be to properly use them all. While it takes more creativity to work with less, it does not require more talent. This is a debate about the talent. My opponent also mischaracterizes my argument regarding the math. While mathematicians and musicians are different and will work differently, I did not say, nor imply that they were the same. Only that the fewer variables that you have to use, the less difficult it is to find a solution. Remember that this was in response to my opponent's R2 that claimed that it was harder to find words to fit a set musical score, not that musicians were not creative or that they were mathematically based. To continued off the painting example that my opponent brought up just this round, an adequate comparison would be to compare someone that paints a unique painting, and someone that takes a tracing of that painting and just fills in their own colors to make their own painting. The difference in required talent is clear. Thank you,
it takes more talent to create a good parody than an original song

i don't agree with my opponent's rebuttal. to use my opponent's analogy, the more colours one has on the palette, the harder it is to paint a picture, when it is widely accepted that the more limited the pallette is, the more technical skill is required to create an accurate image. it's harder to create an accurate image if you're only using black, white, and grey because you don't have the latitude that using several shades of brown to allude to highlights and direction of flow for someone's hair will give you. while there is a strong mathematical component to music, music is not mathematics. in math, if you provide the same number set for a given equation to five mathematicians, you'll get the same answer five times because numbers are numbers. with music, if you provide five musicians with the same set of notes and the same topic, you'll get five widely distinct songs probably in five different styles because music is about creativity, which cannot be quantified as a numerical value, constant or otherwise. using math to create a parody will, in my opinion, result in something like the "tik tok" and "Friday" parodies, where they just essentially swapped out words that more or less fit in whether or not they made any kind of sense.
it takes more talent to create a good parody than an original song

My opponent claims that because the music is already set, it is more difficult to set words to that, because it is a constant, rather than a variable that you can change as needed. While it may seem this way, it is actually the opposite. For evidence, we can turn to basic algebra, that most of us probably learned between 6th and 10th grade. When solving for any problem, the more variables, the more challenging (as a general rule of thumb) a problem is. This is also seen with most things in life, the more variables that any problems has, the harder it is to pin down a solution for all variables. This also applies with music. While the words for the original may be easier than the words for the parody, the entire problem (encompassing all variables) is still more challenging and thus requires greater skill and talent to create. Thank you,
it takes more talent to create a good parody than an original song

thank you for accepting my challenge! your point is taken that an original song requires unique lyrics and music (i am, however, unsure what the difference is between a "run of the mill" song and an "original" song) - however, it takes less skill than to create a parody. there are various ways to create a song but the two major routes are a) write a set of lyrics then set them to music and b) write a song and create the lyrics to go with it. this is, of course, assuming that the artist writes the music AND lyrics, which many of them don't - it's either/or and, in the case of the most popular singers, neither. creating a parody, true: the music is already done so it's only to create the lyrics to go with it. here's where i feel superior skill and talent come in: if the artist, while creating a wholly original song, finds that the lyrics aren't fitting into the tune or the music isn't suitable to the lyrics, he's free to cut it all apart and mix and match until they do suit (or call the actual writer and/or musician and have them rework it). the parody artist, on the other hand, has zero latitude - if the lyrics don't fit, he has no choice but to keep shuffling the words around until he's got something that not only fits the structure of the music but also is still in keeping with the song he's creating. when one considers the stellar greats of the genre, such as "wierd al" yankovic, he not only creates a wholly unique set of lyrics that is 100% fitted into the original music but he also creates a whole new set of lyrics that are directly linkable to the original song or artist, thus narrowing his list of options even further. (ref "Amish Paradise", "Fat", and "Ebay" [one of my personal favourites] on youtube).