BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racial Profiling Allows Certain Criminals to Get Away and Promotes Discrimination

Racial profiling is not discrimination and helps law enforcement to find the suspect they are looking for. How could you not racially profile and figure out who a suspect is? One of the first questions a cop asks you when any criminal activity takes place is, what did the suspect look like? When describing what a suspect looks like, you have to tell them their height, weight, their physical attributes as far as abnormalities they may have, skin color or race, the clothing they were wearing, and anything else that may help to describe them. If there was no such thing as racial profiling, you wouldn't be able to report their skin color or race. This being said you could explain what the suspect is wearing, but still not know who it is. Take this example for instance. The suspect was a male with blue jeans, black boots, a dark colored t-shirt, and had a slender build. By the time, the cops go looking for him he could of changed clothes or got rid of his clothes. Then what do you do? Very rarely does racial profiling end up in getting the wrong suspect. Racial profiling is only part of the search for a suspect.
Serial Killers are more Dangerous than Military Dictators

Ahh, but your mistaken. See, it's not the dictatorSHIP's we are arguing about, but the dictators themselves. This has been a personal argument all along. You'll notice that the title doesn't say "Serial Killers are more Dangerous than a Military Dictators Regime", but states simply "Military Dictators". My first argument specifically stated that it was your job to defend the dictator. It is their army that is dangerous, not themselves. Hitler's ARMY caused the deaths of millions, not Hitler himself. You have failed to meet the standards of the proposition as a whole. If you cannot prove that a dictator himself is more dangerous than a serial killer within this last round, then I have won this debate. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Serial Killers are more Dangerous than Military Dictators

Dictators are far more likely to cause the infliction of harm as compared to serial killers. Please explain how being more personal is somehow inflicting more harm. Hitler CAUSED the death of millions, the USSR directly caused the death of millions, and the serial killers you listed killed just over a few hundred. If you can not prove that serial killers are more DANGEROUS than dictators, rather than just more personal, then you have failed to meet the standards of your own proposition.
Serial Killers are more Dangerous than Military Dictators

And thank you DucoNihilum for accepting. Now onto the debate. By your own definition, dictators are less likely to "inflict harm" than serial killers. Here are some kill-count statistics: BTK Killer - 6 Charles Mason - 9 Ted Bundy - 36 Jack the Ripper - 5 confirmed, possibly up to 18 Albert DeSalvo (the Boston Strangler) - 13 Cho Seung-Hui - 32 Dexter Morgan - 46<* Hitler - 2 (one of which was himself, the other his wife) As you can see, Hitler was more a danger to himself than to others. What people really fear and die from is the army they control. The jews, when stuck inside attics and behind hidden walls, they didn't fear Hitler. He certainly wasn't going to come looking for them with a pistol. No, what they feared was the Nazi army. All of which are serial killers. Dictators don't kill anyone. Except themselves, when they're about to be caught. So by your logic, it seems serial killers are the more dangerous. Hitlers about as dangerous as my shoe. Its the ones who wield the weapons, the real killers, that are more likely to inflict pain on another. Your chances of dying when in a room with Ed Gein are staggeringly higher than if your in a room with Hitler. So, logic dictates that dictators are more docile than a dangerous, deranged... killer. Sources: [http://www.allserialkillers.com...] *Just a joke
Serial Killers are more Dangerous than Military Dictators

I find it very interesting. Before I begin, I would like to wish you the best of luck in your rounds. The core issue I see here is the definition of Dangerous. I will define it here to avoid confusion. danï¿½gerï¿½ous Listen to the pronunciation of dangerous Pronunciation: \ˈdān-jə-rəs; ˈdān-jərs, -zhrəs\ Function: adjective Date: 15th century 1 : exposing to or involving danger 2 : able or likely to inflict injury or harm — danï¿½gerï¿½ousï¿½ly adverb — danï¿½gerï¿½ousï¿½ness noun WHEN DANGER IS Main Entry: 1danï¿½ger Listen to the pronunciation of 1danger Pronunciation: \ˈdān-jər\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English daunger, from Anglo-French dangier, dongier, from Vulgar Latin *dominiarium, from Latin dominium ownership Date: 13th century 1 aarchaic : jurisdiction bobsolete : reach, range2obsolete : harm, damage3: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss 4: a case or cause of danger SO, which group of people, Dictators or serial killers is most likely to "likely inflict harm" or "exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss"? The clear answer is dictators. The direct actions of dictators have killed hundrends of millions of people, from those in rule of the USSR, to Mao, to the dictators in charge of North Korea, and Nazi Germany. They did not do this in a directly personal way, they did not personally kill every person, however, they did directly cause their deaths. Without these dictators ordering others to kill them, they would not have died. While it may appear that serial killers are more dangerous because they are more personal, this is an illusion. There is absolutely no relation between how "personal" somebody is and how "dangerous" they are. They are dangerous if they simply cause more death, or are more likely to cause the death of another. Are you more likely to die under a tyrannical dictatorship than in country which happens to house serial killers? Of course. Since your chances of death, or harm (by definition, danger, or dangerous living) are much higher with dictators than serial killers, dictators are the most dangerous individuals.
Serial Killers are more Dangerous than Military Dictators

Definitions provided by dictionary.com and Wikipedia: Serial Killer - A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents Military Dictators - a form of government wherein the political power resides with the military; it is similar but not identical to a stratocracy, a state ruled directly by the military. Dangerous - able or likely to cause physical injury As Pro, I will be defending that Serial killers are more dangerous than military dictators; thus the polar opposite of my stance that my opponent will have to defend is that Military dictators are more dangerous than serial killers. When one says 'evil person', more often that not (or at least within my personal experiences) the first names that come up are usually along the lines of Hitler, Stalin, and/or Saddam. Secondly, if at all, one will think of someone like Charles Mason or Ted Bundy. However, which one is really more dangerous? I propose that serial killers are. Why? Because they actually get their hands dirty. A dictator, for all their self awarded medals and the pistol they carry around, how often do they actually go out and kill? When one thinks who was at fault for the 5.7 millions deaths, people usually point the finger at Hitler, but he certainly didn't personally pull the gas chamber levers or fire the machine guns that caused the deaths. Rather, that job was left to the members of the SS and Nazi army. Hitler's words caused others to act, but he himself didn't actually kill anyone. But serial killers do. They physically face their victims and kill them, however they do choose. There is actually the personal touch. They intended to kill them, they wanted to. They went out of their way to find their next victim, capture, and commit the murder. A dictator doesn't kill anyone, its his cronies that do the deed. Its those people everyone fears because they're the ones who are going to come and get you. Kim Jong-il isn't going to come out of his palace to personally cause strife among his subjects. It's the grunts. The killers. They are the dangerous ones, the dictators only a figure head. A face to put with mass murder. But a face doesn't kill, the gun or knife does. The person who pulls the trigger or does the stabbing is the real holder of power. They are the dangerous ones. And that is what the serial killer does. So, for the reason that the killer really kills, and the dictator only dictates, the former is infinitely more dangerous than the latter.
Thus, debate won...

You know very little, Sir. What you say it is is not actually what it is. I'm not sure why you would post the opening argument after speaking to a few Christian buddies. You especially shouldn't have said that you automatically won the debate, since you haven't. Your title seems to completely discourage individual thought and exploration, as you put it. Who am I to argue with a nut? You seem pretty nuts. Your logic is poor and you can't justify anything very well.
Thus, debate won...

Real neat argument. I was going to start a religious debate about the time you made this, but your premise is appealing. Let's have at this. I'm not sure what you're saying, here. I think you're crazy, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I hope you don't disappoint. Your zombie revival concept sounds pretty neat. Let's say you go to any, uh... "nonbeliever" tomb, on Earth. You hate all Muslims, right? And Jewish people? or not Jewish people? What about Buddhists. I'd like to get your viewpoint on those. But, anyway, you go to their graves, and you say that it's time. They might not think it's judgment day. They might think it's time to wake up after their long sleep. Nah, I'm just kidding. They wouldn't get up. Neither would the Christians, probably, since I think they could only be woken up by God. But, I dunno, if you know some ancient Egyptian resurrection spells or something, they might come back to life. And I think creating Zombies is against Christian theologies. But, I guess a swarm of Christian zombies would be pretty creepy. Especially if they're Fundamentalists. That sounds like a b-movie, to me. I wouldn't want to be stoned mentally and spiritually by the walking dead. Especially since they're so uppity about their religion, and refuse to accept agnosticism as a plausible system of belief. Maybe physically. Not mentally. If Christian zombies can't accept a simple point that I make, and they throw rocks at me, then I don't think they deserve to go to heaven. The quote you gave, I'm assuming, implies that Christians concentrate too much on the Afterlife and not enough on reality. I think that's sorta true. Real life is nice. Not as nice as Heaven, sure, but it has some charms. I'd like to enter the tombs of Nonbelievers. I'd go past the Christian ones. the Christian ones would try to get me to convert. Maybe I'd try talking to a Zoroastrian zombie- I bet that would be a cool experience. They don't try to convert people. I like gaining new perspectives. I'm not biased. Except towards Christians, maybe. Maybe the Christians are wrong. Maybe Buddha was right. Maybe you'll be the one who wakes up in a dark tomb. Maybe you'll have to admit that Buddha was right. How do you like that, huh? I bet those fellas in the dark tomb can sit in the dark tomb forever and talk things over like good chums. Jesus is a snob if he denies people based on belief. Sorry, Jesus. I know you're not like that. Some people think you are. Thus, the debate is not won. At least not by you, yet. Let's keep going. This is a very neat debate. Tell me some more, please.
Thus, debate won...

What would happen if we went to any other tomb; on Earth, opened the doors and said "Wake Up, It Is Time!"? Every nonbeliever and their idol hands would remain a lifeless body. What would happen if we said, "How can you see what is in Heaven so clearly but you can't see what is standing directly in front of your face!"? We would be stoned mentally and spiritually by the walking dead. What would happen if we persisted even further? We would become surrounded and stoned physically! Therefore we walk past the tombs of nonbelievers and do not enter. If the dead ever find themselves trapped in a dark tomb with other nonbelievers waiting for Christ to return then forgive one another, confess to one another and the gates of Heaven will open and Christ will be revealed.
The god of the bible does not exist

Awe the poor wittle wist fwuffy foo foo is a completely lost brain salad incision rectal itch man with no outs and nowhere left to go. Boo hoo hoo. Cry for the fire (great song by The Residents) with all of your smoking gun lung power for all I care. Now name who stated "Who's more the fool? The fool? Or the fool who follows him? "
The god of the bible does not exist

Rules: Prove that the god of the bible exists 1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god. 2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god of the bible's existence. 3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any scientific evidence to prove its god's existence. 4. Chapters and verses only please using either the KJV, NIV, NLT translations/ versions only. 5. For extra credit, Prove that any god from any religion has ever existed. 6. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.
Global warming is a myth

I accept your challenge. The real debate here may be misstated though. The idea that the Earth has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, is not really in question. But perhaps, the debate should more properly be titled, "Is Man Made Global Warming Is A Myth" because that's actually what we will be discussing, is it not? Does humanity have anything to do with the average temperature of the Earth?
Global warming is a myth

“If Con is expected to claim that someone is selling you a myth, wouldn't exposing the motivation behind the myth of paramount importance?” First off I have never said anything about someone ‘selling a myth’, this is a delusion of yours. Secondly, the motivation behind ‘selling a myth’ is indeed NOT of importance when discussing this topic simply because they are different topics. As I’ve stated previously, challenge me in a debate on economics, on abortions, on overpopulation, evolution, or whatever in ANOTHER debate, not this one. I have a lot of data for each of these topics as well. Since you have failed to provide any evidence to support the idea that climate change is not anthropogenic I must be the concluded victor. I’m sorry your conspiracy theories haven’t come to fruition. I’m not here debating this because it’s what ‘I believe’ but because I can provide substantial data to back it up. Here are some definitions: Positive Feedback Loop – caused by a self-amplifying cycle where a physiological change leads to even greater change in the same direction. White - of the color of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of most wavelengths of visible light. Photon - a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass. Energy - power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines. Here lies the theory of the positive feedback loop that can and will tip the scale of the Earth’s global temperature. The white snow that reflects the photons which contain energy which provide heat (which is the amount of jiggling a molecule undergoes) is what allows our ice caps to stay cool. When a large imbalance of different chemicals (with different properties) in our atmosphere ensue over a short period in time, our planet begins to change. One of the characteristics of carbon dioxide is that it has the ability to trap photons or energy or heat in this case, not allowing this heat to leave the planet. The positive feedback loop is when it gets hotter because of carbon being pumped into the air which causes the snow to melt (where it normally doesn’t) which causes the ground to be exposed (not white) which causes the ground to get hot which causes the surrounding area to get hot which causes the surrounding snow to melt and continue on. The other positive feedback loop involving the anthropogenic climate change is that when the snow melts it turns to water which flows towards its lowest point following gravity and usually causes weathering to occur in the nearby rock structures, which also releases carbon dioxide into the air furthering the effect. In conclusion, I have taken this debate seriously while my opponent has decided to provide little to no data to support his wild ‘theories’. He rants and raves about other issues that do not relate to the topic at hand. You have to be pretty good to tie global warming to Warren Buffet donating money to abortion clinics. Thanks for accepting my debate and may the best man win! Good luck!
Global warming is a myth

My opponent fails to provide evidence to support his claim that global warming is not caused by man. I will refute the topics at hand relating to global warming only, if you wish to debate overpopulation, economics, or anything else send me a challenge! 5* Enough sunlight reaches the Earth in one hour to power our world for a year. Let us do a little math here: All we have to do is harvest a fraction of a percent of the sun’s rays. This does not even include geothermal, wind, and other energy sources. However, this is a bit off topic, the main point of emphasis was to illustrate that the cars have not been getting more fuel efficient for extraneous reasons. It’s not difficult to make a car fuel efficient, it’s difficult to engineer it to be economic, go a decent speed, and pass safety inspections. When I mentioned cars were becoming fuel efficient I was referring to the change in slope of Figure 1 (in the previous argument) beginning around 2008. This just indicates that the ratio between vehicles and carbon production per vehicle has changed. Automotive vehicles play a big part in adding carbon dioxide and increasing the greenhouse effect, however it is not the only contributor. 6* Concrete production, the natural gas burning process known as flaring, deforestation, controlled forest fires, industrial processes, and of course electricity and heat production. 7* In fact, scientists and climatologists agree (97%) that humans play a big impact on global warming. See Graph Below. 8* Thanks to Willard Libby and the discovery of radiocarbon dating in the 1950’s, we are capable of seeing hundreds of thousands of years into the past. This means the data taken by earth scientists using radiocarbon dating has further added to my argument that climate change is indeed man-made. 9* Take a look at the graph below. The red line represents carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 600 thousand years ago to today. Big difference, right? The green line represents the nitric oxide in the environment today opposed to 600 thousand years ago, and the blue methane. That massive spike around the zero is around the same time the industrial revolution began. Is it just a coincidence that methane, carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide have all spiked around the same time humans started burning fossil fuels? The answer to that question is a resounding NO. (5) http://www.sandia.gov... (6) https://www.epa.gov... (7) https://en.wikipedia.org... (8) http://www.pbs.org... (9) http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...
Global warming is a myth

I'm glad you pointed that out! In fact we will be discussing the anthropogenic changes to the environment as global temperature rise has been proven true since the late 1800's. 1*According to motherboard.vice.com, 38.2 billion pounds of CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere in 2011 (which was a record high at the time). So the question is where is all this carbon coming from? We know that cars produce carbon monoxide (CO) as a byproduct which can turn into C02. 2*Take a look at this graph which represents the global temperature difference since 1880 taken by NASA. It is clear that the temperature has increased well above average in recent years. 3*Now take a look at the vehicle production since 1950. There is a noticeable correlation in the production of automotive vehicles and the rise in global temperature. The extraction of carbon-based fluids such as oil and natural gas from the Earth that would have been left in its natural sediment far below the surface is where all the carbon in our atmosphere is coming from. These carbon structures are known as greenhouse gases. 4*Carl Sagan was the discoverer of the cause for Venus’ extremely high temperature known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the positive feedback loop of rising CO2 levels which causes the sun’s heat to get trapped, which increases the global temperature exponentially. (1) http://motherboard.vice.com... (2) http://www.nasa.gov... (3) http://www.greenbuildingpages.com... (4) http://io9.gizmodo.com...
It is fair to raise taxes on the rich.

I was unable to access the internet to post my previous response. My apologies to my opponent. My opponent has established that the rich own a vastly disproportionate amount of the world's and nation's wealth. This is true. He has also stated that the rich usually keep their money to themselves. This is also true, however, I believe that this is not quite to the point of this debate. While it may be true that money could be put to more productive use if it was taken from the rich, this is a different issue from whether or not taking more money from the rich is fair. For example, it would probably be economically beneficial to society to kill off all unemployed people, but I'm sure that my opponent would agree that this would not be fair. Similarly, although raising taxes on the rich might be economically beneficial, this does not make it fair. I think that it can only be concluded that it is fair to raise taxes on the rich if it can be shown that the rich cause poverty among others, or are responsible for the state of the economy, thus the rich would have an obligation to pay to mitigate the problems they cause. However, the burden of proving either of these conditions rests with my opponent, and I look forward to his response.
It is fair to raise taxes on the rich.

I apologise to my opponent for my late response.I will be arguing under big contention. The amount of un-used wealth in position of the richThe former richest man in the world(and the richest in The USA) has approximately 67 billion dollars. Looking at the provide source [1.http://en.wikipedia.org...] we can see the wealth he has. Now, if you notice the lowest amount of money he reached is 40 billion dollars. Now, as we can see he still has much money, even with the money spent on Microsoft and the charity. He has much money, and is earning much which is not being put to use. That money could be spent on many useful purposes instead of it being kept in a bank.Some give their money to charity, but not all do. But even when they do, they always have much money with them. The fact that the rich remain rich, shows that they can afford being taxed because their money is kept at a high amount, because a lot of it not being used. I look forward to my opponents response.
It is fair to raise taxes on the rich.

I am challenging my opponent to a debate about taxes.Definitions.Rich: The 1% percent of Americans who own 20% of America's wealth.RoundsRound 1: Acceptance and introduction.Round 2: Pros opening argument, and Con's rebuttal.Round 3: Rebuttals. No further arguments allowed.Round 4: Rebuttals. No further arguments allowed.Round 5: Rebuttals. No further arguments allowed. Conclusion.Burden of ProofThe burden of proof is on Pro, that is me.Good Luck to my opponent.