BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jews control America

Funny how you change tack after discovering that in fact Hillarys donors are overwhelmingly Jewish. To think that her top donors have no impact on her is naive. It shows an interest in her by the Jewish community and it shows that Jews will often attempt to influence leaders who they see as beneficial. Since ive already explained undeniably how the media is predominantly Jewish run, not to mention the huge amount of Jewish news anchors and talk show hosts, it should be no great leap to understand how the media machine can influence elections either. 35% of the USA's richest 400 are Jewish. http://archive.is... 40% of the top 50 are Jewish. This is excluding hugely wealthy Jewish families such as the Newhouses, the Rothschilds and the Bronfmans who keep their wealth tied up in family trusts, real estate and multitudes of businesses. The only Rothschilds who show up are distant grandchildren around the 1000th richest Americans mark. American commercial banks and particularity investment banks are controlled by Jews such as Lloyd Blankfein, Ackerman, Stumpf, Gorman etc.. Even if the Chairman or CEO is not Jewish you can be assured to find Jews on board in other roles like CFO, Vice Chairman. Now given the level of racial cohesion Jews possess, even a 30-40% participation by Jews in high level positions and monetary lists would see an incredible amount of control be subtly seceded to them. Often we see greater than 50% participation. Jews identify as Jews more than any other race identifies with their respective race. They are always aware of how they are perceived and the awareness of others on the proliferance of Jews. They call this anti-semitism. http://www.jwire.com.au... https://www.jpost.com... http://www.pewresearch.org... http://archive.is...
Jews control America

A few Jewish people donating a lot of money to left leaning candidates is not the definition of control. A few rich devout Jews and JINOs (Jews in Name Only) donated a lot but Hillary listens more to the masses; to feminists, to NARAL, and to the American left. Hillary Clinton raised about $1.2 billion in campaign money (https://www.bloomberg.com...). Only about .06 billion of that was given by the top 20 (Jews and JINOs) in the country. After the top 100, there are more non Jewish dollars going to her campaign then Jewish and JINO dollars combined. Any laws Jewish people and JINOs make will be overturned by the US public if the law is terrible. This also applies to bills that congressmen vote on. The congressmen vote representing the people that elect them. If there is a law that makes abortions illegal in the whole USA, the democratic representatives would vote against it since they represent abortion supporters and the Republican representatives would vote for it since they believe in life. This is because Jews tend to be rich and they like giving money away. They don't have complete, majority, or even plurality control over America. There is Pro Israel propaganda, but there is also Pro Palestine propaganda with it's share of supporters (http://ifamericaknew.org...). The site trashes Palestine and many Americans believe what they say. There is propaganda on both sides. One reason why America has historically supported Israel was because many Muslim states were wanting to militarily destroy and invade Israel. The US also did this with Kuwait, Iraq and Iran. Those fights ended. The Israel Palestine Conflict didn't end. It's Hollywood and the left and SJW media; not America. It's just like me saying China controls America because most US imports are from China. Just because there are a lot of Jewish celebrities does not mean they control America. Congress runs America on their beliefs.
Jews control America

Acording to https://www.forbes.com..., Hillarys biggest donor, 2nd BD and 3rd BD are all Jewish. In fact, with the possible exceptions of Shaw at 9th (who married a Jew and gave $400K to a synagogue) and Woods at 6th, 19 out of 20 of her BD are Jewish. Jewish donors were very prominent in the previous election too. https://www.timesofisrael.com... Hillary's daughter also married a Jew. Also, Congressmen vote for bills, not people. Government think tanks such as the Brookings Institution, the Trilateral Commission, Human Rights Watch, PNAC and CAP are filled with Jews and also largely funded by Jews. Simply search through their membership on their wikipedia pages. The reason Americans support Israel is because of the favourable view the Jewish media gives it. Disney, Comcast, Viacom, CBS, Advance Publications, iHeart Media and Discovery Communications make up the majority of media in the US and much of it around the world, and are largely or totally run by Jews. Bob Iger, Brian Roberts, the Redstone and Newhouse families, Tom Liebowitz and Dave Zaslav. This article is several years old but it paints a picture. http://archive.is... Notice that Jews are the dominant race in presidents, CEO and chairmen. In Hollywood Jews are even more dominant. http://archive.is... This list of the most powerful people in entertainment contains 54 Jews, 6 partial Jews, 10 blacks, 24 whites and 29 unknowns. Interestingly THR says "And lastly, yes, we know that a lot of this list is white guys." In film, the majority of film studios (MGM, Universal, Warner Bros, Paramount, Fox, Columbia) were founded and continue to be run by Jews. On social media, Alphabet (google and youtube) and Facebook are completely dominated by Jews. Zuckerberg, Brin and Page, Sheryl Sandberg, Susan Wojcicki, Ruth Porat etc. My next argument will focus on Jewish economic power.
Jews control America

While the top 1% does have a lot of influence in America, there are many movements in the United States that are not influenced by the top 1%. An example is the Occupy Wall Street(OWS) movement, which hates the 1% being rich by making Iphones used by OWS. Not all people in the top 1% are CEOs. My dad is in the top 1% and he does not make decisions on who to go to war with, who to teach your kids at school and how many women you should be hired in his company. Also on the last example, the average CEO wants employees who are skilled in their job. The congressmen in office are those who had the most votes in their state/district for the position. Not all congressmen vote for whoever their financial bankers (FB) want them too. If your FB supports Trump over Hillary, then there will be many of his employees that support Trump, and there would be many people who support Hillary, and the FB doesn't care on the ideology of his employees. He cares about how much profit they can generate for the company. This FB would rather hire a productive Clinton supporter than a non productive Trump supporter since they want profit. I can't access the YouTube link since it's blocked on my device. However, the reason why The US helps out Israel is because a consistent solid majority of Americans support Israel, even around 50% of Democrats, who tend to be more pro Palestine ideology and they want a 2 state solution (http://www.pewresearch.org...)(http://israel-vs-palestine.com...)(http://news.gallup.com...). Trump's biggest donor (BD) was a Jew yes. However, was Hillary Clinton's BD Jewish? Cruz's BD? Bernie Sander's BD? He's Jewish, so he may have attracted more Jewish supporters, but was his biggest BD Jewish? John Kasichs BD? If all of them didn't have a Jew as their BD, then Jews make up about 25% of the top 1% and 20% of the BDs.
Jews control America

Does the top 1% control America? Yes. These people are LEADERS, elected by people. Political, corporate, economic and cultural leaders. They determine policies and matters that affect everybody, ranging from who to go to war with, who to teach your kids at school and how many women you should hire in your company. They influence discourse on contemporary issues. These people are elected one way or another, either directly with votes, or indirectly with money, purchasing their products whether it be magazines, an app, or a home loan. Take congress for example. They are only about 12-15% Jewish. Considering Jews are about 2% of the American population, this is a significant over-representation, but it does not amount to anything that can be called 'control'. However, due to the influence of the Jewish lobby (not restricted to just AIPAC), all congress men and women will usually vote for whatever their financial backers want them to. Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney claims that many in congress are forced to sign a pledge in support of US policies that are beneficial to Israel. Jewish money and Jewish networking are how you get 26 standing ovations in a 39 minute speech to congress by Netanyahu. See the works of Paul Findley (1985) and Grant F. Smith (2016) on how AIPAC "terrorizes" congress according to former congressman Pete McCloskey. This also works at the top level too. Trumps biggest donor was his close friend and Jew Sheldon Adelson. Since being in office Trump has filled the swamp with Jews such as Goldman Sachs men Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin. He has promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and continues the war of aggression against Israel's close enemies in the middle east. He has also pardoned Jewish criminals/fraudsters Lewis Libby and Sholom Rubashkin. My next post will discuss the influence from Jews through political think tanks as well as through a vast network of media businesses.
Jews control America

People who belong to the Jewish race have a level of control over America that exceeds all other races. To be specific, the vast majority of these Jews are of the Ashkenazi sub-group. Not only do they have so many Jews in positions of power and authority that make Jews the dominant force (or close to) in America, but the racial cohesion and benevolence of Jews mean that they can be recognised as one collective force, one which is easily able to influence consensus and install policies which benefit Jews. Therefore it is accurate to state that Jews control America. Jewish control can be broken up into three categories. Economy - Banking and trade Politics - Government, lobby groups and think tanks Media - The general press, social media, Hollywood and entertainment industries including music I will give a brief overview at first and elaborate on these later. As the Central Bank of America, the Federal Reserve has been heavily influenced by Jews for a long time. Here are the last 7 Chairmen. Jerome Powell (White) Janet Yellen (Jewish) Ben Bernanke (Jewish) Alan Greenspan (Jewish) Paul Volcker (Jewish) William Miller (unknown) Arthur Burns (Jewish) Last 7 Vice chairmen Randal Quarles (White) Stanley Fischer (Jewish) Janet Yellen (Jewish) Donald Kohn (Jewish) Roger Ferguson Jr (Black) Alice Rivlin (unknown) Alan Blinder (Jewish) Donald Trumps only two senior advisors are both Jews, one of which (Kushner) is married to his daughter. His other daughter Tiffany is dating a Jew last I heard, and one of his sons married a Jew as well. Its almost like he is marrying into the race. AIPAC is the most influential of all lobby groups, and as such have a huge amount of sway over presidents and congress, and thus they unconditionally support Israel. Of the top 10 American media companies (excluding internet based), 8 are either totally, or largely contorlled by Jews. Social network giants Facebook and Google are also dominated by Ashkenazi Jews.
Jews control America

Her donors have an impact on her decisions. however this influence doesn't possess her. She simply takes their viewpoints more into consideration. Although she supports Israel, it is because most democrats support Israel since it's been historically anti-communist. Most Jews don't know the top donors of Trump and Clinton. Much of the media has Jewish hosts. That is a painful truth. However, on the daily show for example, is the whole crew Jewish? You say that Hillary Clinton is influenced by her supporters, and that is true. But wouldn't the Jewish media also be influenced by their supporters? Wouldn't the Jewish media also be influenced by the non Jewish audience? If a Jewish reporter said, "Kosher foods should be mandatory" then their audience would not watch their show as much and much of the popularity of that show is lost. Just as politicians are servants of the citizens that they govern, many talk show hosts, in the same regard, are servants of the audience that watches their show. Yes, Jews are rich. Bill Gates is also rich. Does Bill Gates control America? Do all billionaires control all of America for that matter? No. They don't even control all of the merchandise. I can buy some food from a small business if I wanted to. Billionaires are influential for many Americans, but they don't make the final say in their votes, the people do. "Now given the level of racial cohesion Jews possess, even a 30-40% participation by Jews in high level positions and monetary lists would see an incredible amount of control be subtly seceded to them. Often we see greater than 50% participation." Can you clarify what it means? "Jews identify as Jews more than any other race identifies with their respective race." Just because you identify as a Jew doesn't mean that your taking over the world. Saying that Jews control the world because they call opponents antisemitic is like saying that Black Lives Matter controls the world because they deem opponents racist.
Homeschooling

I disagree with you because today 76 percent of children who have homeschooling do not pay money. The government pay money for homeschooling because exists a lot of different reasons. For example: unable children cannot go to school and the government provides free homeschooling education. What about school material? Today, exists the internet source which can provide free materials for children. In my opinion, in order to take a good education will be better if all children will have homeschooling.
Homeschooling

The last disadvantage is a big cost of homeschooling. In comparison to public schools, where education is free, homeschooling can be costly. Purchasing the newest curriculum and teaching tools can be very expensive. Parents may choose to use a paid homeschooling program, such programs may have added benefits, but may increase the cost of the child"s education. There are also other costs to keep in mind, like project materials, stationery, books, computer software, and field trips. Parents who choose to home school their children should be prepared to spend more money than parents who send their children to public schools.
Homeschooling

I agree with you that children lose some communication with other people. However, it can be helpful for their own development. When children study only with teacher without other children, they more attentively listen the teacher and try be more better. Children can find friends not only at school, they can go on some sports group, art group and so on and communicate with other children. A lot of children do not communicate at school and I think it is not problem for them.
Homeschooling

Homeschooling becomes more and more popular nowadays. But I think that it has more disadvantages than advantages. I want to mention 3 main disadvantages from homeschooling.The first is limited socialization.Rather than interacting with other children their age, most of their time is spent with their parents or an adult teacher. Home-schooled children might become socially awkward because they've been cut off from their peers and the daily social interactions that regular school provides. As a result, they might not develop communication skills and won't know how to interact in group settings. This can be very harmful for child. The further effect can be that the child would have troubles in future while building relationships with other adults.
Abortion is murder

Well that's too bad. I'll lay out my argument in brief and hope my opponent gives me something to rebut in the next round. First, let me point out that I will be talking about legal abortion. Late term, and back-room abortions don't enter into this. Ok, first a definition: MURDER 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought[1]So, we see that for something to be murder, it must be (1) a crime, (2) an unlawfull killing, and (3) the killing of a person. Since we have already established that abortion in the first trimester is legal in the U.S.[2], it is not a crime, nor is it unlawful. Now another definition. John Locke defined a person as:"a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places"[3]Clearly, an 7 week old fetus, which doesn't even have a closed neural tube[4] is not capable of reason or reflection, and thus is not a "person." Thus, abortion, whether you consider it right or wrong, is not "murder" because it is not a crime, not an unlawful killing, and not the killing of a person.References[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
Internet is not always beneficial

So i accept. Now I am just going to list out some basic stuff. 1) So the motion is that the internet isn't always beneficial and this way I would like to say that as Pro, I am stating not that the internet isn't beneficial but it isn't benficial all the time. Thank you for making this debate because all I got to do to win is prove that it isn't ALWAYS beneficial. 2) Continuation of point one and also something new: Turns out you basically did nothing but help me and my stance because as con, you are supposed to DISAGREE to the motion and the motion states that the internet isn't always good so you need to prove that the internet is good so thanks for contracting your own stance and helping me. :) My points coming into 2nd round thanks.
Internet is not always beneficial

I THINK SO THAT INTERNET IS NOT SO HELPFUL FOR US IN OUR DAILY LIFE THE REASONS ARE LISTED BELOW- Negative Impact Of Internet ARE Internet Addiction Disorder The biggest negative impact of Internet is the "Internet Addiction Disorder". Well, since the researches about this Internet disease are still going on, so it is hard to define it at this time. The person suffering from this disease behaves in the way as he/she is always on the Internet, even when there is no Internet. This Internet disease has been found mostly among the young adults. Recent surveys conducted in America estimated that around 10-15 million people are there who are suffering from Internet Addiction Disorder. The count is indeed very big and is increasing every year. Reduced Physical Activity Gone are the days when children used to play outdoor games. Now they prefer to play games online which do not involve any physical activity. Due to addiction of Internet, many people are doing less physical activities. This is one big reason why obesity is common to find nowadays. Continuous use of Internet is bad for our eyesight as well. Cyber Crimes Since anyone can use Internet, so the huge user base of this virtual world contains some naughty minds as well. Such people"s whole purpose of us
celebrate the rise of hacktivism

So i'm against hacktivism while my opponent will defend why we celebrate the rise of hacktivism. I will dicuss why hactivism is not good while my opponent will dicuss the benifits of having hackers in our society. i'm against this because it could cause us more harm in our country and also because that hacktivism is part of a cyber crime law so we should not tolerate them instead of hacking they can do something worthwhile like finding a decent job or focusing om their studies or use theit,intelligence to help our society or gov. than hacking .someone ot something.
celebrate the rise of hacktivism

I geuss I'm gonna have to elaborate on the 'basically the same thing' part. When I said 'they do basically the same thing in the end,' I meant it in that both hackers and hacktivists hack. But, as I hopefully got through in the same reply, they are motivated by different things. A hacktivist aspires to help you, while a hacker aspires to screw you over. That's the crucial difference between them. It is not likely, that you will ever get a hacktivist to change his values and stance on what he does with hacking. Yes, we are all immature, but some are better at controlling the immaturity than others. For example, if this was not on debate.org, we would not have to control the way we speak to eachother. We would be able to sling whatever name at eachother. That is not to say that I am restricted from doing this here (the rules tells you not to, but you can still do it but with the risk of getting banned). But would we really do that? Well, if you're interested in debating, then you probably would follow basic debating rules, even when those rules don't apply. The same way, hacktivists follow their interests, which varies but is often socially or politically interests. This was my first debate on debate.org. I am glad you enjoyed it as much as I did (even though I didn't reply for 2 day) -Regards, your chickenly opponent, Jack D Chicken
celebrate the rise of hacktivism

So they basically do the same thing so it's still risky for us to celebrate hactivism because you will never have the assurance that they will use it for good not bad because at the end of the day we can never control how people decidebecause you never know he's motive change suddenly because of some particular reason so can never have the assurance so it's risky and early for us to celebrate the rise hactivism because people even if they're grown ups well they'll still have this immaturity inside them. -thank you for those great arguments now i have an idea when we ever debate this matter
celebrate the rise of hacktivism

You're coming short of an argument, and I think you're not using the correct term for what it is you're describing. There is a difference between a so called 'hacktivist,' and a normal hacker. You see, you're talking about groups such as Lizard Squad, who are hackers because they aren't politically or socially motivated to hack and therefore just do it for the fun of it, and then there are people such as Aaron Swartz, who are politically or socially motivated to hack. Aaron Swartz campaigned for the public to have free access to information and scholarship. To quote him "It"s up to you to change the system" Let me know if I can help." It is very crucial that you know the difference between a hacker and a hacktivist, though they do basically the same thing in the end, but are motivated by different things. This means that the intend of the hacking is different too. Just because it's illegal, does not mean that it can't be good. I still stand that hacktivism is important for us as a society, because if we didn't have hacktivists, then the government would have free reins to put the general public in the dark on everything that is happening inside of the government. Another thing is, that hacktivists can help solve internet crimes with their knowledge on hacking. This means, as I pointed out before, that we can catch people who film and distribute CP (child pornography), people who murder on camera and so on. -Regards, your opponent and Chicken, Jack D Chicken
celebrate the rise of hacktivism

I am not against hactivism. I believe hacktivism to be an important part in politics and the judicial system, in that hacktivism can bring about truths. Whether they be good truths, or bad truths. For example, revealing info about pedophiles who shoot and distribute CP (child pornography), revealing info unavailable to anyone but the government (thereby giving birth to websites such as wikileaks), revealing holes in security, acquiring information to further proceed trials, and lastly, but not least, revealing crucial, confidential ongoing information to the general public. I would like it, if you could specify exactly what it is, you do not like about hacktivism. -Regards, your favorite debating Chicken, Jack D Chicken