BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racism and slavery in America had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

Why should that be points taken off for no putting Roots in italics? Anyways, Roots is "faction," according to its creator. Just because it is "faction" doesn't mean they never said the N-word. And probably will not do any justice in proving your argument.That's just a coincidence.Very funny coincidence isn't it? The fact that white-men were mad that they couldn't have black men and women slaving away on their farms to give them profit. The fact that you are backing up slavery is ridiculous. Also, I don't care if Lincoln was a racist or not. Just because he abolished slavery doesn't turn it either way.Doesn't prove anything thing. Slavery ending in 1865, and the Klan beginning in 1866 doesn't make them anymore similar than Seinfeld having begun in 1989 and Wings having begun in 1990. Two different types of shows altogether.Neither does putting two different topics into an argument. When old plantation owners found out that blacks would be able to roam the streets, instead of picking the cotton for their "massas" they reacted in the only way they deemed fit. Attack someone who can't defend themselves, because if they did, they would be accused for beating up a white man for no reason. It's not fair.
Racism and slavery in America had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

Yes, as a matter of fact it did. Have you ever read the book Roots? Obviously the slave owners often used the N word to talk to their slaves.First of all, points for grammar will be taken off. Roots should be italicized or quoted. Anyways, Roots is "faction," according to its creator. The brutality and whipping was real. The racial epithets were probably made up (mostly by uneducated writers [I will be nice for the sake of debate, so "uneducated" is a nicer form of a term of how I really feel about those who claim racism = slavery]).Clearly, slavery lead Americans to believe that blacks were a lesser race. Slavery caused racism.http://en.wikipedia.org...A racist abolitionist against slavery. More racist Americans were of his type.http://en.wikipedia.org...He appointed Rowan to a government spot, which shows that Lincoln was a racist, but he also was against slavery, so what does that tell you?http://en.wikipedia.org...(colonist)He is the man that started slavery in North America's British colonies, later to be continued in the South. It wasn't started by a white man. In fact the English themselves were going to end it, but this man insisted to start it. Plus many black slaveholders still exist -- ever seen Black Snake Moon? Also, the Ku Klux Klan was started right after slavery was abolished, and these people would run around on horses and set houses of African-Americans on fire and take them out back and whip them over and over.That's just a coincidence. Whites against slavery (Hinton Rowan Helper) were afraid of what they thought blacks were capable of, being free. They were afraid white women were going to be raped. And it wasn't just against blacks (as an incident about 26 years later was incited against Italians in Louisiana, as well as against non-whites in the USA). The Klansman followed Helper's beliefs. Many of the slaveowners fled to South America, where slavery was legal still. He was morally against slavery and he had an intense hatred of blacks and other non-whites at the same time.They did this, because they hated the black race, which is racism. That's true, but it still doesn't have anything to do with slavery.It all started in 1866 by Nathan Bedford. Slavery was abolished in 1865. So, for you to say that racism and slavery had nothing to do with each other is ridiculous. Doesn't prove anything thing. Slavery ending in 1865, and the Klan beginning in 1866 doesn't make them anymore similar than Seinfeld having begun in 1989 and Wings having begun in 1990. Two different types of shows altogether.
Racism and slavery in America had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

Yes, as a matter of fact it did. Have you ever read the book Roots? Obviously the slave owners often used the N word to talk to their slaves. Also, the Ku Klux Klan was started right after slavery was abolished, and these people would run around on horses and set houses of African-Americans on fire and take them out back and whip them over and over. They did this, because they hated the black race, which is racism. It all started in 1866 by Nathan Bedford. Slavery was abolished in 1865. So, for you to say that racism and slavery had nothing to do with each other is ridiculous. Clearly, slavery lead Americans to believe that blacks were a lesser race. Slavery caused racism.
Racism and slavery in America had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

You are absolutely unbelievable if you think racism and slavery were nothing alike. Why did the slave trade happen? Because we found a people of lesser power, who were a different race, and because they were that race and only that reason, we put them to work with force. It is the same thing. The slave owners calling them the n word all the time, that's racist. But, I guess to get a real perspective, what is your idea of racism?The slave trade happened for this reason: Africans, as well as Natives, were chosen for enslavement. The main reason was that Europeans were Christians, and the natives weren't, so in their mind they had to be punished. As for the n-word and slaveowners using it, it's impossible. First of all, slaveowners were too concerned about their goals to even form an opinion of blacks (which were needed by them). If anything, "heathen" was probably more the word that slaveowners used more than anything else. Slavery basically was the same as it was in Europe or anywhere else at the time. This isn't my condoning or condemning it mind you, just saying it how it is. As far as planation slavery, the slavery that Lincoln destroyed the South to destroy was started by a black man, Anthony Johnson. The slave Lincoln would end was started by him. He petitioned the English to allow slavery.Racism basically is hatred of one or more races other than your own, and, to make it automatically opposite from slavery, the desire to keep them away from you, even if it has to be enfored with violence (lynching).
Racism and slavery in America had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

I will accept this argument. You are absolutely unbelievable if you think racism and slavery were nothing alike. Why did the slave trade happen? Because we found a people of lesser power, who were a different race, and because they were that race and only that reason, we put them to work with force. It is the same thing. The slave owners calling them the n word all the time, that's racist. But, I guess to get a real perspective, what is your idea of racism?
Racism and slavery in America had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

The racism that came to America had to do with feelings of white superiority that was brought with them from the West. As many immigrants started coming in big numbers (including African immigrants), many of the native white population feared their culture was going to be changed by "scum" races. Also there was the brutal conquest of Native American land by presidents like James Polk and Andrew Jackson. Abraham Lincoln was also a racist against Natives. During the Civil War, there was also wars to expand Westward (he appointed a racist man named Rowan Hinton Helper [which will be my subject for another debate]), but he also was anti-slavery, most importantly.They're also two different things. Slavery is absolute power over another human being. Racism has to do with hating another race. Plus, the reason Europeans enslaved the natives had to do with religion.
Racism and slavery in America had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

It's because grammar does count.That's not really grammar, but okay.the reason the enslavement of Africans happened was because of their status as heathens.Why was their status heathen? Is it not racist to say that someone that is a different race, makes them a heathen? And I don't need any sources, my answers are common sense. How about afraid of what they feared blacks were capable of doing to not just them, but their women, and their property. They should've been scared! But, being as that the blacks were still scared of the white man, because they had protection from the law, they couldn't retaliate. The Klan was formed soelly because blacks were free, and the white's did not like it. It was giving rights to the non-whites in general that the whites were not pleased about. Not only that, but you have more a case if you say that poverty was the reasons whites did those dramatic and drastic things. Thank you for proving my point. Whites were mad that OTHER races were getting rights. That's racism. Not liking another culture because their different from yours. Did you ever hear of a white man whip another white man, because he wasn't working hard enough? Yeah, me either. What are rights? Rights play right into slavery if you ask me. The 14th amendment was rights to all citizens. Abolishing slavery meant that blacks became citizens. If you're trying to get rid of the 14th amendment, you're also trying to get rid of the 13th. And if what you say is true about the Klansmen (points of grammar will be taken off because you used Klansman instead of Klansmen) not wanting to give the blacks rights, and that the 14th was passed years after slavery ended, then why did the Klan start right after slavery ended? https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Should Spinosaurus be more famous than T-rex

I cant see how you back up your thoughts that say the public hates T-Rex arms, or love Spinosaurus arms. You say the public hates the T-Rex hands? However, it seems that the tiny arms bring joy to people. Just make a google image search of T-Rex arms and you get a variety of funny things that that people come up with. My personal favorite is a Rex doing push ups. Having normal arms seems mainstream; all dinosaurs had long arms. Going back to the sail. It was not unique only to the Spinosaurus. The Spinosaurus is just an over glorified pescetarian Ouranosaurus. Think about it, both have the sail, long arms. The Tyrannosaurus Rex is and always be the king of the dinosaurs! :)
Should Spinosaurus be more famous than T-rex

I have to say the arms of T-rex were strong but the public hates it. The sail of the Spinosaurus is a disadvantage but the public would love it. People would also like how Spinosaurus' arms are so big. Spinosaurus used to be more famous than T-rex but due to World war two its fossils' were destroyed. I am not talking abou disadvantage or not, I am talking about how these features would make the public love Spinosaurus.
Should Spinosaurus be more famous than T-rex

Although the Spinosaurus would be a little bigger, (I say little bigger because recent studies have shown that the Spinosaurus might have been smaller than he was thought to be), the Tyrannosaurus Rex will always be more famous. When we compare two carnivorous dinosaurs, it is safe to assume that the meanest one will be superior. Your point is valid, that the T-Rex has ridiculous tiny hands for its size. However, that doesn't make them useless. Experts say that it used its hands to lever off the ground. So you can see the amount of power that the T-Rex had on its arms. Even though reach advantage on the hands might be on the Spinosaurus favor, we can see that for most carnivores the main weapon is the mouth. For both Spinosaurus and T-Rex the head if further in front of the arms. If we analyze the head anatomy we can clearly see that the T-Rex head is much bigger. His Jaw is huge and suitable for destroying anything that gets to its mouth. As for the Spinosaurus, they had a long jaw suited for fishing rather than battle. Now to compare body anatomy , the T-Rex had a huge tail which helps with agility, balance and combat. The Spinosaurus "great" feature is the sail and its purpose is... err, beauty? I don't really see what is so great about it. If the Spinosaurus was to fall on its sail, it would definitely break. So it is arguable a disadvantage instead of a feature.
President of the USA - place of birth

the res a president of the united states must be born in the usa must and will fall for the following one reasons being sometimes the best rulers are not from the country in question 1. native does not necessarily be the best being an immigrant myself i know that being born in a country doesnt mean that you are the best suited for a job for government. many people are able to pick up the customs of living in a country and how they should rule it very quickly. for example within the second or third year of coming to canada i was able to speak passable english and i knew lots of the vernacular. furthermore, i was also quite a bright student and i was voted class president many different times showing that one does not have to be native in order to govern the best.many people are famous for being born from different countries yet they rule justly. for example the famous arnold in california was born in europe but he is considered by many as a great governor. lets go back to the very start of canada, where a great ruler brought about the start of a great country, john a macdonald. john was actually born in glasgow, a very far place from canada, and he was a famous prime minister for his fairness and the way he handled many of the things he faced.
gay marriage

I believe that gay marriage should not be legal. It is against many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which are some of the largest religions. Also, if you are thinking in the long term, the population will decrease because less people are actually marrying. Their only choice will be to adopt a baby, as they obviously cannot make one on their own. Also, with our children being brought up thinking that this is okay, we are corrupting what god and the founding fathers of our country believed.
This House Believes Single Sex Schools Are Better For Education

While you make some fair points, I would like like to counter your statement by pointing out:2.) Women are better off in single-sex institutions Women in particular benefit from a single-sex education; research shows that they participate more in class, develop much higher self-esteem, score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to choose ‘male’ disciplines such as science in college, and are more successful in their careers. In the USA Who’s Who, graduates of women’s colleges outnumber all other women; there are only approximately 50 women’s colleges left in the States today.Elizabeth Tidball, who conducted the Who’s Who research, also later concluded that women’s colleges produced ‘more than their fair share who went on to medical school or received doctorates in the natural or life sciences’, typically male fields.Sources: http://www.theatlantic.com...http://www.usnews.com...
This House Believes Single Sex Schools Are Better For Education

Thank you for instigating; it is typically a brave move. Sexual exploration during adolescence is incredibly important. Indeed, is one of the defining features of adolescence, as you will find by watching any film, reading any book, or listening to any music in which adolescence is a key theme. To attempt to eliminate this from the lives of children is grossly immoral, and if that objective is completed, it would lead to maladjusted, awkward and frustrated adults who have no understanding of the other sex or the culture they inherit. As Simon Baron-Cohen, a professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge and Fellow of Trinity College, says ""A strong reason for co-education is that separating children for a number of years means they will not be mixing and learning about each other". Academic competition leads to success, unless it the environment becomes hypercompetitive and the students are put under undue stress. I don't see any reason to think that the presence of the other sex is going to cause 'unhealthy' levels of competition. Would healthy competition not increase academic success? Instead of viewing the the mixing of boy and girls as a barrier to education it should be seen as an opportunity for learning and integration. Acceptance and equality are incredibly important, and this is encouraged by co-education.
This House Believes Single Sex Schools Are Better For Education

Boys and girls are an unwelcome distraction to each other. Boys and girls tend to distract each other from their education, especially in adolescence as their sexual and emotional sides develop. Too much time can be spent attempting to impress or even sexually harassing each other (particularly boys toward girls). Academic competition between the sexes is unhealthy and only adds to unhappiness and anxiety among weaker students. As Tricia Kelleher, a school principal, argues, ‘rather than girls defining themselves by their interests, they define themselves by what the boys think of them or what other girls think boys think of them’. Furthermore, John Silber, President of Boston University, declared in 2002 that his university would prioritize male applications in order to even up the student composition and ensure the male population did not become ‘ungentlemanly’ towards women due to their numerical inferiority. A single-sex environment is therefore a space where (children) can learn without feeling pressurized by the other sex. After this point is refuted by you, I shall point out more factors as to why I feel Single Sex schools are much better learning environments. My source is listed below. http://www.perspicacious.co.uk...
This House Believes Single Sex Schools Are Better For Education

I've noticed that you doubt the legitamacy of my sources. Therefore, my next staement will be purely factual:3.) Boys and girls develop at different times and speeds, therefore they should be taught separately Co-educational schools attempt to establish uniformity in the teaching of two groups, boys and girls, who typically learn and develop at different speeds and using different methods. ‘They do not develop in the same way or at the same time; boys favour visual processing and do not have the hand-motor control that girls readily achieve in early grades’.It is widely accepted that ‘boys develop more slowly than girls..that’s true at every level of analysis’. Furthermore, they develop physically at different speeds, girls often developing earlier which can lead to bullying from the opposite sex for those who either over-develop or under-develop. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, at least in the United States, elementary school boys are 50% more likely to repeat a grade than girls and they drop out of high school a third more often. If they were taught separately and the curriculum and teaching was tailored to their needs, drop-out rates would not be so high nor as vastly disproportionate.Sources: http://www.csmonitor.com... http://www.zcommunications.org...As this is my final statement, I would once again like to re-iterate what a pleasure it has been debating with you. Perhaps we shall do so again.
Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Legalized

Stepping away from my usual debates regarding abortion and the existence of God, I'd like to try my hand at debating this contentious topic. The argument I will present is as follows:P1: Marriage has a special link to children.P2: Same-sex couplings do not have a special link to children.C1 (from 1 and 2): Therefore, same-sex couplings are not proper marriages.C2: Therefore, same-sex marriage should not be legalized.Round 1 -- acceptance.Round 2 -- opening arguments/rebuttals.Round 3 -- rebuttals.Round 4 -- closing arguments.I look forward to debating this topic with whomever would like to.
Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Legalized

I wish to thank Con for her reply.The problem with Con's opening argument is tht if marriage were only about love, then it's inexplicable why we should not allow most types of marriage? For example, incestuous marriage should be allowed, as should polyamorous (multiple spouse) marriages. Plus, if love is all that is required for marriage, then we should allow anyone to marry for the legal benefits, even people who aren't romantically attracted to each other, which would negate the reason those benefits exist in the first place: to encourage marriages that reproduce children to enter the work force.But now let's turn to Con's response to my argument.Let's respond to her critique of my two premises. It's true that my argument, at first blush, appears to exclude those who can't reproduce. But what we need to keep in mind is that male-female sexual unions are the type of sexual unions in which reproducton can take place. So even if a man and/or woman is sterile, they should still be allowed to marry because they are still a procreative-type union. Plus, male-female unions that can't reproduce can't reproduce due to some kind of anomaly that prevents it, whereas homosexual unions cannot reproduce by the very nature of the union. Advances in technology can help repair, in some instances (and perhaps more in the future), the anomaly that prevents conception in fertile couples.So this doesn't create second-class citizens. This does not claim that those who can't reproduce should be denied marriage. This is saying that only certain marriages should be recognized as such, those that create a stable environment in which to sire and raise children to be productive members of society. In the case of couples who are unwilling to have children, I, personally, don't see any reason why they should be getting married. It certainly doesn't require a marriage certificate to declare your love to the world, and if a couple is marrying for the benefits, then they are marrying for the wrong reason.Con's responses to my argument have no succeeded in undermining it, and Con's positive argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage has been shown to be an incorrect basis for marriage.
Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Legalized

My opening argument is that marriage is about love, not biological sex or gender. Who cares if two men or two women want to get married as long as they are consenting adults? My rebuttals: P1: Marriage, as properly defined, is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. As Girgis, et al, write, "The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law -- along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice -- of our civilization...It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing out into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity. In marriage, so understood, the world rests its hope and finds ultimate renewal." [1] My rebuttal is that this creates a whole bunch of second class citizens. Are you really saying that old people, people who don't want children, people who can't have children should not get married? Limiting marriage and sex to those that do implies a positive answer to my question. Marriage is not just about having children, it is about having someone to grow old with. P2: Same-sex couplings do not have a special link to children. My previous argument is relevant for this too. Are people who can't have children wrong to get married? My Conclusion 1: Marriage is about companionship too, not just reproduction. My Conclusion 2: Please see my first conclusion.