BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black women in America don't try to look white. American white women try to look black.

1) Weaves do NOT allow black women to style their hair in ways that only white women can. Asians, native Americans, Indians and other peoples also have straight hair similar to white women. Therefore, since the majority of the planet has the type of hair that black women get weaved into their head, it is not acting white. Black women are naturally thicker, they do not get breast implants anywhere near the pace that white women do in America if you were to put population and poverty differences aside. Patients of breast augmentation in America is overwhelmingly white.(1) White women may of had more of an important need for looks, but in todays world that point is mute. Therefore, black women are naturally thicker and curvier due to having wider hips (2), different diets, and a different image of what is sexy, thus white women get implants and surgery to look like them and not the other way around. Black women only made up 6% of cosmetic surgery in 2007. Breast augmentation was also the top surgery for all women. (3) Therefore, since we are talking about the majority of America and the majority by far of all cosmetic surgies, specically in this case breast augmentation are done by white women; then it is my opinion that they are trying to be curvier and more volumputous which are black traits embraced by the black community (4). The study says that black women place more emphasis on shape then weight. Therefore, the small amount of black women who are getting breast augmentation and butt implants are getting them to look LIKE other black women. The ideal white look is skinny and no curves. The advent of pop culture icons like Pamela Anderson, the influence of blackness in it, and the influx of curvy white celebrities like Kim Kardashian are changing white women's minds. Breast implants is a white thing, big boobs are not a white thing. 2) There are many white women who do wear braids on a small scale, but braids are part of Asian and Native American culture too. Secondly, if a hair style is your main argument for why white women don't try to look like black women cosmetically then I think I win on default alone. (1) http://www.google.com... (2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (3) http://www.yourplasticsurgeryguide.com... (4) http://relationshaping.com...
Black women in America don't try to look white. American white women try to look black.

To uphold my burden of proof, I must prove that black women try to look like white women cosmetically and that white women don't try to look like black women cosmetically. So, my arguments:Argument 1 - Black women cosmetically try to look like white womenI am assuming that it is not my burden of proof to prove that all black women try to look like white women, seeing as that would be impossible. Thus, if I can prove that some black women try to look like white women, my burden of proof is upheld. First, I will describe a number of cosmetical things that are traditionally and culturally considered "white", and then I will show examples of black women emulating this. Blonde hair (or any variant of blonde) is most definitely a "white" appearance since historically, white people come from colder climates then black people, and they therefore need less pigment in their hair to protect them. Weaves are also "white", since weaves allow black women to do things with their hair that naturally only white women could do. Also historically, black women mainly come from Africa while white women come from the European area. In historical Africa, black women had a very respectable role in most societies while in Europe, it was common for white women to be prostitutes or be involved in a similar profession where appearance was vital. Historical tendencies have an impact on future generations, and that has carried to modern times - which is why I consider it "white" for a woman to get breast implants, because white women would have had a greater use for them historically while black women would have had little to no use at all for them. However, there are many examples of black women both dying their hair to blonde (or some variant of it) and of black women getting breast implants, as well as weaves. Here is a thread on a forum I found showing many examples of black women doing all of these things. http://www.lipstickalley.com... Thus, black women do try to look like white women.Argument 2 - White women cosmetically don't try to look like black womenAs my opponent points out in his first argument, the only main natural hair styles available to black women are braids, afros, and normal (straight, curly, etc.) hair. "Normal" hair is also available naturally to white women, so I'll put that aside. Braids and afros, however, are considered to be strictly "black", as those are pretty much all else you can do to a black woman's hair. In popular culture, however, white women do not sport braids or afros. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but I assume that we are talking about the majority of the population seeing as it would be impossible for me to prove that no white woman on Earth tries to look like a black woman. Therefore, seeing as the majority of the white female populace does not wear braids, afros, and other "black" hair, they don't try to look like black women.I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttals.
Black women in America don't try to look white. American white women try to look black.

For my main arguments: C1) The texture and nappiness of black hair means that styles and chances of lookig unique are extremely limited. Braids, afros, short hair or long hair is basically all you can do without using relaxer chemicals or putting in weaves or extensions. Thus, this is not acting white as black hair is typically the only type of hair that lacks the flexibility of style. Asians (including Indians and Native Americans) also don't have this problem. It is also very hard to maintain as it gets knotty and stiff very quickly. Straight hair is much easier to handle, keep clean and style. Thus, this is not acting white but trying to be efficient, optimal, trendy and having more of a choice. C2) Black women just as black men, have their own sense of style in terms of apparel which has actually been adopted by a lot of American society. C3) White women go tanning to darken their skin. This is an extraordinarily large American phenomena. Blacks rarely bleach their skin (besides Michael Jackson). C4) White women use lip plumpers and get lip enhancement surgery to obtain the full plump lips that black women already have. Collagen and botox are all the rage with white women. C5) White women get breast implants and now butt-implants. They even have products like "Booty Pop" for small-reared women to give the illusion of having a fatty. White women want these big hips, and no longer want the flat pancake butt that their mother had. These are traits embraced by the black community, and now today this black trait is being embraced by a lot of women of all races, one being white women. The western ideals of thinness are being overtaken.
Zebrafashionista is an egg

Actually, not all eggs are cool in the temperature sense. When eggs are sat on, incubated, and in warm climates, they are not cool. All of these factors apply to me. Additionally, I have the smoothness of an egg as today I applied sixteen different facial products which has softened and smoothed my face which adds to my egg qualities and egg-likeness, as you know, an egg. Not only this, but my boyfriend has no hair on his head, so he is a proven egg; he says that I am also an egg. My eggness has been advocated for by another egg, and is represented in my traits; this ensures my egg status.
There is separation of Church and Sate in the United States.

My opponent points out that,"People have worshipped the sun, the moon and the stars - non of which is a supernatural being - as Gods well before today's organized religions have been established," which is a false statement. According to Tour Egypt,"Ra was the almost universally-worshiped king of the gods and all-father of creation. A sun god, he was said to command the chariot that rode across the sky during the day. "[1] Furthermore, their religion was organized. Princeton states the definition of religion as,"an institution to express belief in a divine power. "[2] My opponent also states that,"The Pledge of Allegiance, even though ratified by law, is not a law of the United States itself and therefore not a "part" of the United States Government. " According to Merriam Webster, law can be defined as,". .. the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules. .. "[3] My opponent asserts that,"Furthermore, I have also already explained to my opponent that even though Christmas has been associated with Christianity for several hundred years, its celebration is rooted in the celebration of the Winter Solstice by Germanic tribes. " Lets look deeper into that root. "It was noted by the pre-Christian Romans and other pagans, that daylight began to increase after December 22nd, when they assumed that the sun god died. "[4] A pagan can be defined as,"Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic") is a blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions. "[5] This practice is still religious, and pagans practice a organized religion. My opponent points out my error in which I assert that currency not printed by the Federal Reserve Banks, and I thank him for this learning experience. He also points out,"Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that The Congress shall have Power: "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" . .. "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". " Than, I ask that if Congress does coin Money, and congress is a part of the legislative branch, and has the power from,"The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to enact legislation and declare war. .. "[6], than why should there be such a phase as,"In God We Trust," on our dollars. I have clearly put forth evidence that there is not separation of church and state in America. VOTE FOR CON! ---------------- [1]. http://www.touregypt.net... [2]. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4]. http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org... [5]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]. http://www.whitehouse.gov...
There is separation of Church and Sate in the United States.

Point One:"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. "[1]Said around the United States in almost every school, this pledge has been in existence and has been used widely ever since. Having separation of Church and State means that in a public institution, there should not be any words in a document about any deity or religious belief. Before, the pledge did not have the phase "under god. " But, in 1954, Congress put a bill through and it was signed into law, which added this phase. [2] Thus, the government did indeed put forth an action with religion in it. Point Two:"In God We Trust. "[3]If you turn around any dollar bill in the United States, you can see this phase above the word "ONE. " Currency is only printed by the Federal Reserve Banks, which is a government institution. Not only it is a motto on our dollar bills, but it is also our country's official motto, signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 as a law. This motto comes the bible it self, "in God I have put my trust;"(Psalms 56:4. ) The bible is the holy book of Judaism and Christianity. Both are considered religions. Point Three:"Monday, December 26 : Christmas Day"[4]This day is a Federal Holiday. In Christianity, it is the day in people believe Jesus was born upon. Most public schools observe this day, along with Easter, the day in which Christians believe Jesus came back to life. Along with this, the white house has a national Christmas tree, which the President lights him self. Other religions have holidays which are school holidays too, such as the New York City system, with a week set aside for Passover, Easter, and Good Friday. [5]Questions for my opponent:1. Why do national holidays have religious roots?2. Why is god stated in many official documents? ------------[1]. http://www.ushistory.org...[2]http://www.religioustolerance.org...[3]http://www.macquirelatory.com...[4]http://www.opm.gov...[5]http://schools.nyc.gov...
There is separation of Church and Sate in the United States.

I would like to start out by saying welcome to this debate, and my opponent. I will wait for another person to come on the pro side, and then round two will be opening statements, round three will be the main debate of each others sides, and round four will be closing statements.Round one is for accepting this debate."The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.[1] "--------------------------------------------1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The United States Ought to Abolish the Death Penalty

Greetings! I will be defending the position that the USA should abolish the death penalty. We: The USAAbolish: To get rid of completelyDeath penalty (DP hereafter): To be put to death (i.e. executed) for a crime.RulesRound 1 is acceptance only.NO VIDEO LINKSVoting period will last for 1 month.Good luck!
Christianity vs Islam

1. Muhammad Pbuh is a prophet. a. Because he was prophesied by the 'bible'. b. An unlettered man, who brought the word of God, which may make some possibilities : - Quran is forgery, but how com the forged one is the 'better' one? - Quran is a true words of God, with Prophet Muhammad as the messenger. 2. Deity of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. a. Jesus is the messenger, so no way he can be the message sender. (John 5:24) b. Indeed, Jesus is the anointed one, but his power was given (John 5:27), how come he is the 'creator' or the 'almighty', since it might contradicted with the word in the beginning (John 1:1). 3. Tawheed and Trinity. a. Trinity has no 'very' basic components in the bible. b. God explicitly teach the oneness of God, in the old testament, the new testament, and the Quran. So, I hope our next round will focus on those three basic topics, and I'm hoping for my opponent's rebuttal to be as explicit as possible, thank you.
You cannot disprove God but you can disprove Science

Since my opponent forfeited this round I will touch on two subjects he mentioned. The Big Bang Theory does not say we exploded it states how it was an expansion of space, and not an expansion in space an expansion OF space itself. For more info look at my debate on the Big Bang Theory(http://www.debate.org...) Science does not say humans evolved from apes. "humans didn't descend from apes. That's not to say humans and apes aren't related, but the relationship can't be traced backward along a direct line of descent, one form morphing into another. It must be traced along two independent lines, far back into time until the two lines merge(http://science.howstuffworks.com...)." So if my opponent has any other arguments which he would like to offer that would be very appreciated. also If we are using the simple definition that everyone knows of disprove- prove that (something) is false. Then how do you prove if something is false or not? prove 1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. What hard or physical evidence do you have of God existing besides a book or experiences that also cannot be backed by hard physical facts. I am not saying I can disprove God, but to disprove science you have to use science. Also you cannot disprove all of science you may disprove parts of science, but not the whole of science itself. Science is also backed with hard psychical proof that we can see, touch, smell, and feel. To believe in God you must rely on faith, which is not a bad thing by any means, but faith is not hard proof. Thank you.
You cannot disprove God but you can disprove Science

Science time and time again tries to disprove God, and tells us that God is not real. But why is he not real? Science cannot possibly explain why we got here and why everything is the way it is. Science tells us the Big Bang Theory. We started out as a "dot" or particle and everything exploded and made the trees, animals, plants, we see today. How could anyone believe that? I can disprove it not using the bible but with science itself. How did my house get here? Did something explode and make it get there? Since when were you able to get something out of nothing? Science also tells us that we evolved from apes. This is just complete ignorance. Now whoever is reading this might say I'm making accusations without evidence. I will be waiting for my future opponent to accept this challenge.
Should Guns Be Completely Banned In The U.S (U.S Residents Only Please)

I Am Very Sorry But I Won't Be Able To Complete This Debate As Something Came Up At College. I Must Seem Like Huge Hypocrite. I Sincerly Apologize For Wasting Your Valuable Time, Vote Pro. If Your Still Interested Pro I Will Create A Debate Similer To This One Next Friday And Challenge You To It. I Thank-You For Your Understanding.
You can be gay and straight at the same time.

PRO did not define "gay" and "straight" in round #1, so I have no reason to accept his definitions. They are subject to debate.PRO is clearly setting up a dichotomy between heterosexual and homosexual, but is attempting a semantics curveball by changing the definitions to however he sees fit. The implication inherent in comparing the two words is much more prevalent in discussions about differing sexual orientations, not a juxtoposition of temperament and sexual orientation.Is it possible to be gay (i.e. homosexual) and straight (heterosexual) at the same time? No. Bisexuals [1] are neither homosexual [2] (i.e. oriented ONLY with the same sex) nor heterosexual [3] (i.e. oriented ONLY with the opposing sex). Bisexuals are bisexuals...they are oriented towards BOTH sexes. Similarly, grey is not black AND white...grey is grey. Warm is not hot AND cold...warm is warm. etc...---In case anyone requires that I at least address my opponent's argument, technically (since his argument rests on a technicality), a gay (happy) person can NOT be straight (sexual orientation) at the same time. Even if someone is happy while desiring heterosexual intercourse, the person will also be hungry, tired, excited, scared, etc...i.e. the person will be more than just gay and straight. It is not possible to be just "gay and straight" at any time because you will also either be hungry or not hungry, tired or not tired, excited or not excited, etc...If you are gay, straight, and hungry, you are not gay and straight.If you are gay, straight, and not hungry, you are not gay and straight.Since you will necessarily be either hungry or not hungry at any time, you cannot be "gay and straight".It's a stupid technicality, but let's face it, this is a trolling debate based upon a stupid technicality.Finally, I ask that my opponent get docked conduct for posting a one-round debate. Thank you.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
You can be gay and straight at the same time.

Thank you for your acceptance.You can be gay and straight at the same time."can be" meaning that all I have to do is prove that it is possible in one scenario."gay" has more than one definition. One defiintion is relating to happiness and the other is relating to sexual orientation. [1]"straight" also has more than one definition. One definition is relating to angle and the other is relating to sexual orientation. [2]So a gay (happy) person can be straight (sexual orientation). SOURCES:http://www.merriam-webster.com... [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2]
Atheists believe in mythological concepts

DEATH- Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include biological aging (senescence), predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, homicide, starvation, dehydration, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death. Death has commonly been considered a sad or unpleasant occasion, due to the termination of social and familial bonds with the deceased or affection for the being that has died. Other concerns include fear of death, necrophobia, anxiety, sorrow, grief, emotional pain, depression, sympathy, compassion, solitude, or saudade. https://www.merriam-webster.com... Death, also known as the Grim Reaper, The Destroyer, The Hooded One, The Angel of Death, & The "God" of Death, etc. is a common element in human cultures and history. Death is an iconic character throughout the world and is famous for the "Death Touch." As a personified force it has been imagined in many different ways. The popular depiction of Death as a skeletal figure carrying a large scythe and clothed in a black cloak with a hood first arose in 15th century England, while the title "the Grim Reaper" is first attested in 1847. In some mythologies, the Grim Reaper actually causes the victim's death by coming to collect them. In turn, people in some stories try to hold on to life by avoiding Death's visit, or by fending Death off with bribery or tricks. Other beliefs hold that the Spectre of Death is only a psychopomp, serving to sever the last ties between the soul and the body, and to guide the deceased to the afterlife, without having any control over when or how the victim dies. In many mythologies (including Anglo-American), Death is personified in male form, while in others, Death is perceived as female (for instance, Marzanna in Slavic mythology). https://en.m.wikipedia.org... In this link, Sam Harris, an Atheist, speaks about Death. In one dialogue he even goes on to say "Death is very real." As a matter of fact, he talks about death a lot in his dialogues and videos. https://wakingup.libsyn.com... http://bigthink.com... https://www.brainyquote.com...
Atheists believe in mythological concepts

I look forward to hear some examples of atheists who believe in myths. Here are some definitions for the debate. Mythology: Traditional or legendary stories, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheists believe in mythological concepts

Pluto- (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt, a ring of bodies beyond Neptune. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Pluto- (Greek) was the ruler of the underworld in classical mythology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(mythology) Jupiter- The fifth planet from the Sun and the largest in the Solar System. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Jupiter, also Jove (Latin: Iuppiter, gen. Iovis), is the god of sky and thunder and king of the gods in Ancient Roman religion and mythology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Apophis66 QUOTE- "First, Sam Harris is just one atheist and not all atheists agree with everything he says." Richard Dawkins, Atheist author of "The God Delusion", speaks about death and admits it is real. https://www.brainyquote.com... Apophis66 QUOTE- "Second, death is a very real thing..." Aha!!! Apophis66 admits the hooded one with the sickle is real.
Short Story Competition

Okay. Welcome to this debate. This time we will have a short story competition. You have 3 days to write a story, with a maximum of 10000 characters. We will each need to write 4 short stories (Round 1 is just acceptance). Your story will be judged based on grammar and spelling, interesting plot, humor, and easiness to understand. No copying short stories from other debate.org members or form real authors (e.g. William Faulkner, Nathaniel Hawthorne) Let's go!