BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Police Brutality on Blacks is a myth

Regardless of my opinion on this topic (devil's advocate), I have decided to accept the challenge of this debate, And will strive to prove that police brutality against blacks is not a myth, But is quite real. This stance can be proven by both mere common sense, And I will attempt to do so in the following section. Common Sense. Unfortunately, Debates that cover this statement I am set to disprove so often delve into the field of emotion. There is no need for emotions, However. Merely looking at the situation logically will find the answer to our question. Firstly, Let us define police brutality. As defined on TLD (1), Police brutality is an unnecessary use of force when dealing with civilians. Which begs the question. Is police brutality to blacks a myth? Or is it brutally real. I would argue that, Regardless of the reason, There is certainly more brutality against black people than against whites. The reason is not quite what you would expect, But it makes perfect, Logical sense as an explanation of this brutality. It would seem to be perfectly logical, That, Because of the excess hatred that some black people have toward police officers, Some officers (especially ones who had shorter tempers), Would be more prone to violence toward black people, If only because of the threat they feel from them. Let us set an example. Let us say that you and two other people were being held captive. One of the two people being held captive with you had always been kind to you. But the other person who was held captive had never liked you, And had sometimes even taunted you and threatened you. Let us propose that your captor, For his own pleasure, Forces you to choose which person he will kill, And which one he will let go. Who would you choose? Although it is a sad fact, It still remains a fact. And the fact is that humans are, In the end, Creatures of emotion. We all claim that logic, For the most part, Dictates our decisions. But it is, For the majority, A lie. Think about it this way. Humans never do something they don't want to do. Although they may come to regret it later, In the moment whatever they chose was what they really wanted, At least out of all the options they could think of. The same fact applies to dogs, And every other creature on this earth. A beaten dog will turn and attack the master. Because of protests and the hatred toward cops published on main stream media, I would argue that, Regardless if the police realize it, They are being hurt mentally. And when a time to strike back comes, Some of them will choose it, Even if they have no true hatred of black people. . . Through the law of association, They will strike out, As a dog who has been mistreated by only men will have a hatred of men for the rest of his days. (1) https://thelawdictionary. Org/article/what-is-police-brutality/ (Also, As a side note: I have no idea how to debate, So. . . )
Iran is still a threat despite 2003 report that the nuclear weapon develop was stopped.

yes, terrorism. terrorims is not caused by nations, but rather by individuals and international organizations. Iraq was accused of having nuclear weapons that we never found, then of supporting Al-Qaeda and the leaders weren't even in Iraq, then to spread democracy, that i get, but it was all trough the wrong means. now cross apply this argment with the iran scenario. the difference here, is that Iran is much more influential and has allies that could harm the US, and im not talking about terrorism, im talking about international action agains the US if we take the 1st step against iran. Venezuela will raise the oil price like crazy and we are going to be paying more than we already do. Russia already warned that he will not stand for the US invading iran, and Russia is ot exacly the country we wanna piss off. So the US when it comes to terrorism is pushing it to much [patriot act, guantanamo bay, wire-tapping, racial profiling, airport security, etc etc] It's true, terrorism needs a global effort, and if Iran is a high valued target, either the US or most likely Britain would've taken that aggresive action already. so, in orther to kinda sum up, i can tell you im not just thinking about Iran holding nuclear weapons, but the actions the US would take [if true] and the consequences of that. I think we can let go of the idea that middle east nations are terrosists and rather hunt down Osama and all of Al-Queda that, let me remind you, are everywhere. we should really stop policing the world and let every country to protect their homeland, after all, we are not the only ones who have been attacked.
Iran is still a threat despite 2003 report that the nuclear weapon develop was stopped.

totally agree bout china and when you get that debate posted will jump in. In terms of Iran I do support the diplomatic efforts. I'll leave it at this regardless of what Bush has done right now and in the future areas of the middle east will be a possible threat. Same goes for Iraq and I know this will sound just like bush but terrorism is going to be a global fight where we need to gather good intelligence, monitor, and look for possible sanctions and if we get certain high valued targets take aggressive action.
Iran is still a threat despite 2003 report that the nuclear weapon develop was stopped.

i get that people are mixing up the conflicts between both nations. But 1st of all, if Iran will not be a nuclear threat until 2015, the lack of support for the Bush administrations should be the less of your worries. He's gone next year and with the brink of civil war in iraq, the americans demand for the troops to be out of there, and that is something that the next president WILL have to do. If we ought to be worried by a country, we should panic about China. [i'll start a debate on that lol] on the other side, they have recognized as a terrorist state but diplomacy with Iran will not stop so the whole idea that every middle east nation is a terrorist supporting Al-Qaeda should really stop. And even though the weapons come from iran, there is, according to "american officials" [http://www.nytimes.com...] there is no evidence that the government has anything to do with it. and at this point, avoiding a conflict with iran is one more benefit from withdrawing from Iraq.
Iran is still a threat despite 2003 report that the nuclear weapon develop was stopped.

That is true about the 2010/2012 dates and I did hear that report which to me means they should be watched. My other reason incubuses many so I will keep it short. Iran has an influence in the current war in Iraq and supplying weapons that kill American troops is aiding and abetting our enemies. Also they have been recognized as a terrorist state. * I do agree for right now I do agree that military would not be the best and support the current strategy. My only fear as an American citizen is that so many people dislike/distrust bush and view Iran the same as Iraq. The risk with this is that instead of looking at the long-term threat they will ignore it.
Iran is still a threat despite 2003 report that the nuclear weapon develop was stopped.

ok... it's true that Iran has a certain hate against Israel but the lack of topic specification allows this resolution to be all over the place. 2nd of all, you should not base you argument on a report published on 2003 but due to fact that u mentioned nuclear weapons and for some reason the only one who can be a victim if that threat would be the US. A U.S. intelligence report released on Dec. 3 expressed that Iran would not be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015. And let's also say that if Iran had, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons,they would've used them already at the past of a weak time for the US when the military is streched thin and a weak economy. truth is that due to the tecnological advantege of wealfare in the US, no one will attack the US due to the nuclear responce that we are most likely to have. the fear tactic works. reason why no nation has taken action against the US. Diplomacy works, economyc sancions and INTERNATIONAL action against Iran's nuclear program made this program fade and no action of the irani government has raised any alarm to think that a nuclear weapon will be their ambtion.
Latin is a dead language and it will not help us in our life

Actually, I took Latin in school for five years . I always have and still do find it to be a absolutely stunning language, in it's smooth transitions and word differentiation. Now while, most assuredly, native or bilingual speakers of a language may increase the beauty for some, but I do not believe that that actually helps your point. This is because, as you have already stated, no one speaks Latin natively or bilingually; and thus no one would have a biased view, yet many (such as I) still believe that it is a brilliant language. The main difference between Latin and the examples you gave (English, Russian) is that not only does it enhance our already existing cultural strong points, but it also gives us scientific advantages (which I have already stated). Also, when you say that these texts, the Odyssey and the Iliad are "just stories", do you suggest that these are not important? Latin influences our heritage in so many ways, these "stories" to be the strongest among them (along with our languages cadences alongside them). These technologies and philosophies I spoke of did indeed use Latin as a vessel rather than a standing point, however that does not reduce the point that they could not be carried without Latin. A sailor is but naught without a ship, just as a soldier is naught without his sword.
Latin is a dead language and it will not help us in our life

Now, Latin is "very important" is some, had we used something else in the place of Latin, with all of its irregularities. Perhaps, sir you have not yet actually taken Latin in a school, where a subject is a subject nothing more. But Latin in itself is not a beautiful language anymore than English or Russian, where people from Russia may take offence because in their minds it is beautiful however in the mind of a person who does not understand it, the language of Russia is far from beautiful. It is true that Latin has given us the translation of ancient texts or epics such as The Oddessy and The Illiad but other than long and fair stories, they are but just stories. Now as far as the philosophy and technology, no i say. I say that the people themselves gave us their philosophies and etc and they were merely carried through Latin just the same as it was carried through Greek. the Old must die for the new to grow strong. AKA we cannot have our time to shine and create epics, quotes, stories, poems, books, heroes, and etc if we are trying the reap the already reaped and sown seeds of the past.
Latin is a dead language and it will not help us in our life

Latin is very important for a multitude of reasons. The most important, in my personal opinion, is it's scientific usage. Most biologists/botanists/etc. have to know the Latin roots for the names of these creatures and plants and whatnot. Another important usage is the linguistic learning it provides. Once you learn Latin, the possibilities of learning other languages are widened to extraordinary amounts. Latin holds very strong roots in all romantic languages, and even a few others. Also, Latin is detrimental to some historians, intellectuals, and archeologists. Translation of ancient texts and quotes of days before modern record are both, in my opinion, very worthwhile topics to pursue. Even discounting its numerous productive values, it is still a beautiful language, which holds countless amounts of historical poetry, song, and political treatise. The Latin language has allowed us to implant many philosophies, technologies, and religions into our modern day society.
Latin is a dead language and it will not help us in our life

NO one likes Latin, it is very boring and the teachers are for the most part very angry. Latin as it may help with some parts of some words in English medicine and law, have no real use. No one talks latin because we cant. We cant write latin because Latin was written with no punctuation or spaces. solikethis? Give me 5 reasons why latin should not be taught at shcools.
Latin is a dead language and it will not help us in our life

Simply because few do it does not mean that Latin is not worthwhile any more than it means that philosophers and leaders and revolutionaries are not worthwhile. The bandwagon effect holds no true importance in the value of occupation. As for the cultural aspect of it, it is not that the ancient Latin culture directly affects us today, but it is that it sparked great cultural revolution. Great renaissance men and women from ages ago used this language as the vessel of their ingenuic feats. The cultural advances of not only that era, but of the many passed it, would not have existed if not for the Latin language. Also, yes, Latin will not help a computer engineer; but not everyone is a computer engineer! Their are countless occupations which are aided by or even rely upon the Latin language. Not every subject will be central to your intended occupation. For example, a Psychologist will still learn geography, though he or she won't need it. The Ancient Gods would not have been conjured into thought if not for the Latin language. Zeus, Hypnos, Vulcan, and more. Countless entities that set into motion countless sculptures and epics and inspired writings. All due to this language of old. To answer your question, this is the last round before the debate ends.
Latin is a dead language and it will not help us in our life

ok if latin is such an important part of our culture, then why dont more and more students and kids and even teachers learn it ? Actually the latin population is decreasing and i am not sure you have heard of the NJCL( national junior classical league) but other than that i really cannot see where latin has affected our culture very deeply. Now The oddessy and the Illiad are just as important as Harry Potter, because i can bet you a million dollars that there are more kids out there who would rather take a Harry Potter class than a class on the Oddessy and the Iliad. Besides imagine a scenario where you finish school with 4 years of latin ( that you had to take) and you want to be a engineer, you finish college at a decent place with good grades but how will your 4 years of latin help in finding a job, because even in my lack of knowledge on jobs, i know that engineers( computer engineer) doesnt need 4 years of latin nor will it help him get the job easier. Going back on your first argument, what religions has Latin allowed us to implant into our society? BTW how long is this, i have never done this before?
without God there CAN BE NO MORALITY.

"But whether there EVEN CAN BE morality without God." ----> Yes there can. As I've said, moral facts (metaphysical pluralism) can exist independent of human thought or a deity. How do we try to find what ethical proposition is true? Well then that is for the normative ethical theories. Let me break this down for you: Meta-ethics seek to find the nature of ethical propositions, of moral facts. If morality doesn't even exist in the first place (not the discourse I am referring to), then there is no point in finding what actions are moral or not. If there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong", then there is no point in discerning between what is right (helping old ladies) or wrong (murdering babies). Since I have argued for metaphysical pluralism, and you have NOT even attempted to refute this philosophy, then it stands that moral facts CAN and DO exist. That being said, I have shown that without God morality CAN exist. "Can you simply address the question of how we are to judge one moral viewpoint (say Nazism) against another (democracy) ? How is one thing 'better' than another?" ----> This is a job for normative theories, such as Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, etc. Judging what actions are moral has nothing to do with meta-ethics or the question. While consequentialists and deontologists may disagree on what actions are moral or immoral, they all agree on one fact: that moral facts DO EXIST. This brings us back to meta-ethics, and thus metaphysical pluralism. =====Conclusion===== My opponent hasn't moved an inch in this debate. He asks of me to prove how moral facts can exist outside of God's existence. I proposed metaphysical pluralism, a "meta-view". He hasn't even touched upon this argument and thus it still stands. Morality can exist without God because moral facts exist independently.
without God there CAN BE NO MORALITY.

The question is NOT whether an atheist can be moral or hold moral viewpoints, But whether there EVEN CAN BE morality without God. Can you simply address the question of how we are to judge one moral viewpoint (say Nazism) against another (democracy) ? How is one thing 'better' than another? By all means utilise moral realism or pluralism (If you understand them) but it is not my responsibility to read up on every 'philosophy' ( I use that word in it's loosest possible sense as it means 'love of wisdom') that my opponent pulls out of his sleeve because not only does he not have any core beliefs of his own BUT he can not even be bothered to pretend to have some! Quite honestly I'm getting more debate in the comments section.
without God there CAN BE NO MORALITY.

My opponent states that I haven't "argued" or "debated" during my Round. He obviously does not understand my simple argument. =====Counterargument===== "I challenged you to a debate and the very least you can do is to extend me the common courtesy and DEBATE ME." ----> Which I HAVE. You argue morality is nonexistent without a deity to an atheist. I argue that this is presumes all atheists are naturalists or materialists, which is false. Atheists can be pluralists, which allows for the existence of moral facts. There are different arguments out there, but I decided to use this one. It should be common courtesy for you to UNDERSTAND my argument before bashing me. "By all means use arguments derived from moral realism and/or pluralism but you MUST argue each of my points individually." ----> Which I intend to do when you give arguments against pluralism. Since you have yet to, my point still stands. Pluralism is still viable. I have showed that being an atheist does not necessarily make you "moral-less". "You MUST show that you understand the arguments!" ----> You haven't even attempted to understand mine, so stop accusing me of such. "NOT just post a link and the briefest of outlines. ----> And your first and second Round are SO much better? So not brief outlines? =====Conclusion===== I have shown that atheism can allow for morality by arguing for metaphysical pluralism. My argument still stands, and though it has no backing argument, my opponent has yet to even attempt to refute pluralism. He laments that my arguments seem short and trite, when he doesn't even bother to look at his own. A word of advice to my opponent, in a manner he can relate to: "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:5
without God there CAN BE NO MORALITY.

As it stands, my opponent argues that there can be no objective morality without a supernatural deity. I argue, however, for moral realism. Moral realism [1] purports that moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. My opponent's argument relies on a crucial premise: that an atheist HAS to be a naturalist. While most are, not everyone is (Bertrand Russell for example). Therefore, I argue that if one is a pluralist[2], then abstract entities such as moral facts can exist. A pluralist believes (in terms of metaphysics), that reality is made up of many different types of substances and not just matter - unlike the materialist or naturalist. Because pluralism allows for moral facts, my opponent's argument has been refuted. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. . http://www.philosophypages.com...
without God there CAN BE NO MORALITY.

If there is no God then where, exactly, does morality reside? If morality is a purely human, subjective experience, Is it then subject to the tides of public opinion and the storms of history? If there is no objective standard above and beyond human endeavor then how can we say one morality is better ( or even use the word better! ) than others? How can we say that Hitler ( for example ) is evil if we have no universal measurement? no standard?
America should become multiple (6-9) nations operating under an EU-style central government

Despite my agreeing with you on your proposed gun ideas, they are completely irrelevant to this topic. I would like to ask why you think that the US should split into multiple small countries? What is the benefit? How would borders be drawn? Would borders be open or are passports needed? You say they would be one central government, but the EU doesn't have a central government. We currently have one central government, but the nations of the EU each have their own government. How would the governments of these new nations really work? Does each nation have it's own Congress and President? If each nation had it's own government, what is to say that the governments would choose to work together? What happens when the extremely liberal nation in the northeast disagrees with the very conservative nation in the deep south. Will each nation have it's own army? Can each nation declare war on it's own? The EU doesn't declare war together, in fact they have fought wars within the EU. Over time, will the "nations" of America fight wars against each other? You would be taking one of the most patriotic countries in the world and dividing it. You would be taking one of the most powerful countries in the world and dividing it. Millions of immigrants come to America because of it's freedom and economic opportunity. They are chasing the "American Dream. " Why would be destroy this country that so many view as the greatest country in the world? Not only is this plan unrealistic and not very practical, but it would anger and disgust many Americans, including myself. I am an American and I am extremely proud of my country. I firmly believe that this is the greatest country in the world and would not want to live anywhere else. Throwing away everything that this country has built up over the years would be just plain dumb. Why would you ever want to separate the UNITED States of America. Without real arguments and answers to most, if not all, of the questions I proposed I see nothing of value from you in this debate. Great arguments on gun control, but that is an entirely different debate. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
America should become multiple (6-9) nations operating under an EU-style central government

Although as an American citizen I am (one way or another) going against the 2 amendment. Although Peirs Morgan challenged this topic on his show (and got hated for it); he was a bit extreme on things. See, I don't believe in restricting WHAT gun an American citizen can own. However, The biggest challenge with firearms in the United States is getting them into the right hands. There are cases in which one with mental problems or a felony gets his hands on a gun (like how the Sandy Hook shooter did), but this happens rarely. It's getting firearms out of the hands of gang members and convicted criminals that is the challenge. I propose this: - Have more intricate background checks on people who want to posses a firearm. - Do not allow people to conceal their firearm, but DO allow them to carry it in the open (guns are great deterrents) - Require that person to prove they were member of a shooting range for two years (min) before they acquire that license - DO require special (and more strict) licenses for those wishing to purchase a sniper-rifle, or heavy-duty machine gun, and make it illegal to use such weapons off their property(s) and gun ranges. Although these laws seem awfully vague and hard to enforce... they a