BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nations would benifit from using Tridemism as their political philosophy

I Did not go off topic at all, I contended that Trideism is the inferrior choice and I laid out the reasons why quite clearly. But for your sake, I will repeat why the system is obsolete and niot fit for nations in this century. Democracy :As i said above, every one has an opinion and in democracy we "vote on it"... Look at the Gobal warming issue in the United states and how long it took us to get over science denial by conservative elements. I repeat my earlier statements, It does not matter how much a people deny science- science is true regardless. You can Vote all you want but the opinion of the majority doesn't change anything in the real world. Democracy is an outdated system, designed to meet the needs of people who lived in a low energy civilization which was in the midst of a technological revolution that brought us into the industrial era and the eventual end of the colonial age.Nationalism :There is no way the children fo the future will be localized in this way. Already on our generations you see far less respect for nations and their borders, everythign about our culturue underminds the idea of having imaginary lines people that cannot or should be crossed. You music is global, our news is global, our movies and sdhows are global. Everythign about the 21st century culture is global and there is no room for artifical bounderies between people in that culture. Nationalism is detrmental to our society and serves only to slow down progress of a unified culture. General welfare :its a wonderful concept but Trideism is woefully inadequate to proporarly meet the needs of its people. The very anture of being a democratic national system puts it at cross purposes between serving people and the industries which power the nation. The "vote" must be considered ablong side the economic system with out these three systems being intrinsically atached. Its like playing 3 way table pong. In short, Trideism was a great system forthe 20th century. It would still benefit many nations who adopted it for the next few years while the developed world begins to make its transition into a more scientifically midned stage of development. There is a better way.
Racism

The question you asked in your opening argument was "Does race matter?" You didn't say in terms of such and such. I took the question plain as can be. As I stated in the comment section and in my last post that race does not matter in terms of society. I have white friends black friends who cares. Love is color blind. Race matters when you're identifying yourself all though we all come from the same ancestor. In terms of history, yes race does matter.
Racism

In terms of evolutionary process or adaptation to climate change or regional migration race is equivalent to species as you pointed out and was well documented by Darwin about finches. That is a different bag of cats or can of worms. In the context of debate set in my first argument...species identification or migratory adaptations has nothing to do specifically to racism described as social limitations brought by a person observing another of different skin color and making a decision to like or dislike based upon observation. Simplified further...KKK...Ayrian Nation. Neo Nazi skin head anti-the other color group hate speech race. Ethnic backgrounds are important...but why is "race" important. If we wanted to be technical I am a German-British-Native American...I am either a dark skinned caucasian or a light skinned native american...but if I was purple and you were blue...would color alone change who you are or what you do? Does that race...what everyone calls racist when you say something negative about their skin color...does it really matter? Put a herd of Americans( I keep referring to the USA because I live there) and put them in a dark room...blindfolded til they got there...then had them palaver for a while...would they know who was white or red or brown or yellow?
Racism

Does race matter? I am an equal opportunity hater...let's get that straight. I have no reservations about race,creed, or physical ability/disability...any one who doesn't understand honesty, integrity, or honor is a target....now that we all know I am not a saint or a do gooder.... Does race matter? Can you give me a single piece of evidence that there is a difference between me and someone else you've never met who has the same ideals or philosophy? If you asked a group of "multi racial" friends who all shared the same ideals....typed their thoughts on a subject...then asked someone else to arrange the thoughts to the picture of the person they thought it came from...would they get it right? The problem is that everyone in America is so charged and/or butt hurt over the Race thing that they have lost sight of things. You say African-American....Latino-American...Chinese-American...I say BS. They are American...period. The only way you could be an African-American is to hold dual citizenship...because let's face it Charlize Theron could technically be called an African-American since she came originally from South African...then Sharlto Copley...they were born in Africa...so...they could technically be called African American IF they hold dual citizenship...if they are full pledged US of A citizen...they are Americans. Next...colors. Your brown...they are red...I am white...that guy over there is darker red...or is that brownish rust? For the sake of honesty...I am caucasian in color...get me in the sun though and the legally able to be claimed native american lineage shows because I don't tan...I turn a dark rich reddish that my half Russian/Half German wife kindof digs...my wife just burns...my father in law turns olive tan showing his Italian roots. See my point here? Just because I turn Native American in the sun...does that make me anything but American? Or my wife? Or my father in law? Race is in your head...anyone can be an idiot...anyone can be violent...or successful...or a despot. ..but only those who see the difference between color of skin can be racist. In the Army...I didn't care if the guy next to me was green with tentacles and 6 1/2 eyes...he was an american...he was there for the same reason I was...because we love our country enough to care. So...does race matter? Or is it a socially implemented limitation people put on themselves?
Endangered Species Should Be Preserved

"What is the right thing to do?" That is what I have been arguing this entire time. Is it more right to let your child grow up in pampered isolation, or let him suffer a few cuts and bruises to better prepare himself for the outside world? We must look at the bigger picture. Our ecosystem cannot be pampered for our own selfish wants. Like any growing child that we care about, we must let our ecosystem suffer the cuts and bruises of a lost species, in order to let it be successful when we aren't there.
Endangered Species Should Be Preserved

My opponent makes a valid argument (albeit peppered with ad hominem evidence). I, as much as anyone, want to live in a perfect world, however, this vision is sadly childish. It is childish to assume possible that mankind putting a hand in crafting their own perfect species balance would be inconsequential and it is childish to consider underpopulation of animals to be the sole cause of an imperfect world. Both are impractical. If, for one happy second, underpopulation was the only problem in the world, then my opponents perfect world argument would be valid. However, it is not valid because the survival of endangered species will not grant world peace nor end world hunger, so it cannot be said that protecting those weaker than us will bring about a perfect world. Also, my opponent's natural selection contradiction is invalid as well. Natural selection is a very large part in the survival of species and certain species survive due to number and survival instincts. If a breed of earth worm was to spend the majority of its time on top of the soil, collecting berries and aphids, then natural selection would inevitably end that species. However, worms spend the majority of their time underground, ensuring their survival. That is how natural selection works. I will end by saying that Millymuffin has presented no conclusive evidence to validate her arguments and I stand on my position that nature should be allowed function un"assisted" by humans.
Endangered Species Should Be Preserved

4stfire argues that "it is not a perfect world". Well why cant it be? The only reason that our world is not perfect is because of 4stfire's own do-nothing attitude. Perhaps it would be a perfect world if, instead of being content to let things be, we as a society made conscious efforts to help those weaker than us. Also, if natural selection was a real factor in this argument than why have the smallest and weakest of creatures such as worms and ants survived so long? I end my argument saying that in order to create the perfect world that 4stfire believes unattainable, we must preserve our endangered species.
Endangered Species Should Be Preserved

To begin this argument, Id like to void one of my opponent's arguments. She referenced the Bible as a reason for the preservation of animals. Seeing as this is not a commonly accepted source of fact and is widely disputed, it should not be taken into consideration as evidence. ========================= I agree that in a perfect world, we should preserve those species weaker than us. However, it is not a perfect world. Any human interactions with the environment should be closely monitored. Everything is connected in the ecosystem and anything changed will affect another aspect of it. Say a brown bellied swallow was becoming extinct. We breed two together to preserve the species and they become numerous. Unfortunately, the favorite meal of this bird is the red herring. This fish becomes endangered because of the overpopulation of this bird. In result of this fish's thinning population, numerous other species begin to die out because of their reliance of having it in their diets. Everything in the ecosystem is in a precarious balance. Secondly, it is only natural selection. Some species are weaker than others and, in result, they do not survive. Hundreds of species are thought to have become extinct long before humans came along. It is simply a part of life and an unfortunate part of the world. It would be almost selfish to allow one weak species to survive while consequently harming others just because we would feel bad not having this species around any more. Lastly, my opponent says that "if we did not protect the animals of the earth, there would be none left". The ecosystem does a remarkably good job of maintaining itself. Humans aren't the only thing that keeps species alive, but are, rather, one of the largest factors to their endangerment via home production, hunting, and logging. I conclude by saying that it is not our "responsibility to protect the weaker species" but more our responsibility to allow nature to run its course.
It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man.

I'm really not sure on what you're basing your scenarios. People are not cut-and-dry like this. You cannot automatically predict what someone is going to do based on some superficial assessment of the parties involved. In other words, it's impossible to determine how some random man will react to two random women, one less physically attractive in your opinion, and with an amicable personality, and one without an amicable personality, but who is physically attractive in your opinion. These standards are vacuous -- dubios at best. There are all sorts of characteristics about a person that contributes to their physical attraction, including how they carry and assert themselves, how well they care for themselves, and so on. I've lived with a few women in my life, and I can tell you for a fact that a girl that wakes up looking fairly plain can walk out the door looking like a knockout, even without an overabundance of a single thing, like makeup. I can also tell you that there are several manifestations of a girl, and she can exhibit all degrees of physical attraction throughout the spectrum of their personas. When a girl lets herself go, and holes up in her room with unbaked cookie dough without brushing her teeth or washing, she will come out looking ratty and somewhat icky. However, after a shower, some exfoliation, and a little treat (say, painting her nails or something), she will blossom into a beautiful, delicious flower once again. So, these coarse distinctions by which you're dividing people as though through divine ordainment, are false, if not because these distinctions are meaningless (a good personality and sexiness), then because one requires the other. But, if we were to accept these categorizations as factual and immutable, then they're self-defeating. Anyone in a relationship, man or woman, would be inclined to seek satisfaction elsewhere if they're not attracted to their mate. This is because, they aren't with their mate because they mutually decided that they fancied one another. Instead, one convinced the other to be with him, using money as coercion. Not only does money then define the relationship, making it false in its own right, but it still does not guarantee committment. Those who enter into a relationship due to mutual interest are attacted to one another, period, lest neither would have had the opportunity to enter into a relationship in the first place.
It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man.

Ultimately I would say there's definitely more pressure on the female gender to LOOK GOOD for the other than it is in reverse.This is largely because while men have the pressure of getting a good job and basically being rich and dominant, they have little time for health matters (and if they do it's usually doing too much at the gym and ending up with an overly-ripped body). It's true that a hot guy is better off then an ugly one but not true that the ugly guy is nearly as disadvantaged as a female or equivalent ugliness.The reality is this: If two men, one ugly, one hot, compete for the same woman the head-start the hot guy has is rather minimal if his personality and money isn't nearly as appealing as the ugly one's.HOWEVERIf two women, one ugly, one hot, compete for the same man the head-start the hot woman has is HUGE, EVEN IF the other girl is more successful financially and is kinder at heart. AN ugly girl can't really get her man very hard can she now?Ultimately the world is sexist.
It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man.

My position will be that it is no more important for a woman to be "sexy" than it is for a man to be "sexy," with the word "sexy" meaning to denote "physically attractive. " A man that is physically attractive will get more attention from women, just as a woman with who is physically attractive will receive more attention from men. Don't forget that for both genders, behavior is just as relevant to physical attraction as is appearance. In other words, women who are feminine both in appearance and behavior. Men who are masculine in both appearance and behavior. If there's a dearth or imbalance between these two aspects (appearance and behavior), then the person will appear less attractive. So often, there are complaints that women will opt to spend time time with jerks as opposed to "nice guys", and this is likely because the jerk exudes some sort of behavior and appearance that the girl prefers, which the "nice guy" lacks. A "nice guy" in this regard could be someone ostensibly emotionally securing, but emotional security pales in comparison to sexiness when a woman is in the mood. Ultimately, it comes down to what a person is looking for. A man would certainly pass on a beautiful, though biitchy girl, and opt for a chunkier or more homely variation when it comes to marriage. A wise man that doesn't expect divorce, at least. I also notice that you point out that a man attracts women with moeny, success, status, or humor. Well, that's if he isn't attractive. Attractive men with confidence, especially if they have big diicks, don't need to use anything to attract women. Likewise, women who know how to work their skirts, heels, and makeup don't need to do much to attract men, either. But, those that don't need to rely on other things, like charm, nurturing, and sexual satisfaction.
It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man.

Sexy: To be physically attractive to the OPPOSITE gender.Well I would like to point out that while men attract women with money, success, status or humour. Women attract men with looks primarily.Most women would go for a less physically sexy but more emotionally securing/pleasing option. On the other hand, most men would put up with a hot girl's b*tchiness if the nice girls she was competing with didn't visually please him all that much (NOT ALL MEN AND WOMEN APPLY TO THIS RULE OBVIOUSLY). This I propose that for a women to be sexy is a more essential and important issue for her than being sexy is for a man.
It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man.

Closing StatementsPerhaps I wasn't clear in my initial arguments, but my point for asserting that a woman can transform herself is to indicate that physical attractiveness is relative. I'm not sure how you perceive the dating arena for men, but scroungy men that don't wash have just as hard a time picking up women as do frumpy women have attracting men. In fact, I notice that ugly men have a hard time ever getting laid at all, whereas unattractive women mostly complain about the caliber of men they attract. In that regard, women attract men no matter what. Some men simply don't have standards. And, this is usually because something's wrong with them, and that's why they're so lonely. If they're ugly, at least you know what the problem is, lol.A point that you never approached is that a relationship built on money isn't real. It's essentially a purchased friendship with benefits, depending on the amount spent and the type of girl she is. Many women respect themselves enough, however, to seek relationships based on other standards, rather than the amount of money she can glean from him.Ultimately, men who are "attractive" are considered "attractive" because they easily attract attention from the opposite sex. In this regard, there's just as much pressure on men to be attractive as there is on women. A guy with pit-stains, sweat under musky cologne, oily hair, dandruff, etc. -- these characters get no love.As for your assertions about performance, men can masturbate before engaging sex with an, er, "ugly" girl. And, gee whiz, that's a trooper, a girl who would simply use lube and "wait for it to eventually feel good by rubbing the clit a lot." Oh-my-word. Talk about a history of men with performance issues. In any case, I don't imagine most men get away with that nonsense. If that kitty isn't wet, you're probably not putting anything in it.
Vegetarianism is good for your health

"Also again depression, Alzheimer's disease, baby development and asthma have NOTHING to do with meat. I thought you count low brain function, constipation, diarrhea, pale skin... (In argument 1) as medical conditions. They are not diseases but they are bad medical conditions." I have never heard of any research to suggest that any of those disorders are in any way connected to vegetarianism. Since there are plenty of vegetarians out there and I have never heard of any of them suffering from those conditions I would conclude that they are in not connected. I am sure some vegetarians suffer from those conditions but I have never heard of any connection in the two. A Duke University study has shown depression is best treated by regular exercise. I do however see a connection in meat consumption and heart disease, obesity and multiple other conditions. I do eat all of those meats you mentioned. However I think I would be healthier if I did not eat them at all and ate a healthy well balanced vegetarian diet.
Vegetarianism is good for your health

True carbs are not bad for you, but having low fat and protein is bad for you. I was mainly putting blood fat into the list because it was a fact. True it depends on the fish, bit still you get Omega 3 anyways. It does not have anything to do vegetarianism. Also again depression, Alzheimer's disease, baby development and asthma have NOTHING to do with meat. I thought you count low brain function, constipation, diarrhea, pale skin... (In argument 1) as medical conditions. They are not diseases but they are bad medical conditions. There is one thing I agree with vegetarianism and that is they are good for a short time, if you want to lose weight. Another thing I have to say against vegetarianism is about the new lifestyle. Lets say you walk into a restaurant and it says they have steak with a lot of delicious spices. Well that would be mouth-watering, and if you are a vegetarian, you won't be able to eat it. Also at home you are going to have to abandon a lot of foods like sausages, steak, bacon, roast chicken, chicken nuggets, fish fingers, fish... Thanks for debating. A thing I'd like to say is that I'm only 11 years old, not 24. My mum allowed me to use it LOL. So if I made a lot of grammar mistakes that is probably the reason. Hehe but whatever thanks for debating.
Vegetarianism is good for your health

Despite what that Atkins guy says carbs are not bad for you, they are best in the morning though. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. The risk of vegetarians getting blood fat is very slim to none. As for the fish that depends on the fish, some has high levels of mercury while others have absorbed toxins from pollution. Again thought the problems that are helped by the Omega 3 comes from meat products thus still not an issue for vegetarians. I honestly do no know of any medical conditions from vegetarianism, just from poor eating and no exercise, which is common for omnivores as well. http://www.consumeraffairs.com... "The researchers found that a low-fat vegan diet leads to weight loss of about 1 pound per week, even without additional exercise or limits on portion sizes, calories, or carbohydrates.