BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racial Profiling

Right, I'll now defend my contentions and attack the arguments of my opponent.Contention Two: Racial Profiling is fairIt appears my opponent did not read my source. That is fine, because he was in no way obligated to. However it did say in my source "Consider the gang officers in Foothill Division, where I work. Each day, they go out in the field looking for Latino males of a certain age who dress in a particular way, have certain tattoos on their bodies and live in an area where street gangs flourish.". Is this racial profiling? Yes, but is under grounds for reasonable suspicion. Race is not the only criterion, but is is considered. Also, you don't have to prove your innocence, that's the entire point of the United States judicial system's "innocent until proven guilty". All statistics in defense of your point regarding innocence is extrapolated and hypothetical, however it is regardlessly highly unlikely that you'd even enter court after being racially profiled unless there was significant other evidence against you. How many people do you think have ever been arrested solely for their race in the past decade?I will also rejustify my first contention.Contention One: Racial Profiling is logicalWhen was the last time you heard of an 80-year old Swedish grandmother robbing a store at gunpoint? What about the last time you heard of a teenage black man doing the same?My opponent's graphFirst of all, the graph misleadingly does not mention what types of drugs (or their legality) and what types of weapons (or their legality). It also does not mention arrests or convictions. Here is a counter-graph that shows white drivers pulled over more, but black drivers searched and arrested more [1].Sociological IssueMy opponent may be right about this, but it cannot be denied that regardless of the reasons, crime is more often caused by minorities. Therefore it makes logical sense that on the balance, a minority is more likely to be a criminal.Sources:1. http://www.themaneater.com...;
Racial Profiling

I shall now rebuttal your claims, first of,what you described in your first example was eyewitness description.I don't believe anyone is against that.If someone was to rob me and if he so happens to be African American well I'm obligated to provide that information in order for the police to capture him.Racial profiling is wrong when someone hasn't even committed a crime and their either being followed or watched based on their race.And your second argument does not hold up either and I will explain why.Racial profiling is not fair and your example is grotesque and laughable,your example is like saying you can swim well why don't you swim to the bottom of the ocean how hard can it be if you can swim,it is very hard to prove one's innocence,if your the only one aware of your innocence,you enter a Courtroom where no one knows the truth and to prove that truth can be very difficult.In fact there isn't a clear statistic only estimates and speculation on wrongful convictions, [1] Because the sprawling criminal justice system is a patchwork of federal, state, county, and municipal courts, prisons, and jails each with its own system (or lack thereof) of record-keeping and data-reporting "we don't even know how many people are convicted, let alone wrongfully convicted, of crimes in the United States. "We don't even have a denominator," says University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett. "But the wrongful convictions we do know about suggest that there's a big problem." In fact it is estimated that 1 percent of the US prison population, approximately 20,000 people, are falsely convicted.As for your claim I haven't found any data to dispute your claim of crime rates for racial groups being higher than whites,but if so I will argue that is another issue a broader sociological issue that needs to be addressed as well.And I would refer to my graph,that I used in the beginning of this debate.It [2] shows that, when stopped, if searched, police are more likely to find weapons and drugs on Whites than on either Blacks or Hispanics. Cited references: 1.http://www.motherjones.com... 2.http://thesocietypages.org...
Racial Profiling

Round 1 was supposed to be for acceptance, but that's fine. I'll continue with the format I outlined in Round 1, which is why I will not touch any of my opponent's contentions this round. I am not dropping them. Contention One: Racial Profiling is logical Think about it. If you have just received news that a someone was murdered and have several eyewitnesses confirm that the murderer was wearing hot pink shorts and a neon orange t-shirt, it isn't particularly logical to go around stopping anyone you see on the off chance they might be the murderer. Sure the murderer may have changed his clothes, sure some random person might have had the ill luck to be wearing the same color clothing as the murderer. However, by focusing in on information about the criminal, you increase your chances of catching them. If a police officer hears how a woman murdered someone, he shouldn't cuff the guy right next to him. If a police officer hears how a midget just robbed a bank, she shouldn't arrest the seven foot NBA star across the road. Already it is widely accepted that information about criminals (vehicle colors, outfits, builds, gender, distinguishing marks) be used to catch criminals, but for some reason race is a controversial criterion. Contention Two: Racial Profiling is fair How hard should it be to prove your innocence if you're actually innocent? How hard should it be to prove your guilt if you're actually innocent? Even if you are profiled for something you didn't do, stopping racial profiling entirely is taking a step in the wrong direction. Some might contend that it is unjust, but is it unjust when someone is pulled over for driving a car that looks like an at-large criminal's? No, it is accepted as necessary for the public safety. If police cannot use all the information available to them to attempt to catch criminals, it will decrease their effectiveness [1]. Contention Three: Pulling people over is good A British study showed that there is an inverse relationship between people pulled over and crime [2]. Contention ???: This isn't really a contention, but some evidence I couldn't make into a contention. Some might call it a prebuttal. Although statistics often show minorities pulled over more often than whites, it is because the crime rates for those racial groups are higher. Often the minorities are even pulled over less than one would think when crime statistics were provided [3][4][5]. I may expand my arguments later. Note that sources 3, 4, and 5 were all written by the same person. Also, my formatting was ruined and for that I apologize. Sources: 1. http://articles.latimes.com... 2. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us... 3. http://www.nytimes.com... 4. http://www.city-journal.org... 5. http://www.city-journal.org...
Racial Profiling

I accept your challenge AlwaysMoreThanYou Well,to begin my argument i would like to state that i believe that racial profiling does not work on many levels. I would state that racial profiling is wrong morally based on it's profiling of Middle Easterners,African Americans,Hispanics and various other ethnicity's.I also believe that racial profiling may be considered by some an act of antagonization.Racial profiling does nothing but promote hostilities and creates tensions between the races.It creates various sociological problems and a turbulent enviornment.What follows shall be my first argument. Racial profiling simply does not work: Racial profiling just doesn't work ask any person and there are also various cultural examples to support my point.To comedians to rappers and organizations like the NAACP all strongly oppose racial profiling.It actually backfires on law enforcement and the real crocks get away.And example in an article by Lisa Wade she explained better the failure of racial profiling There's a chart that goes with my her article and can be viewed in this website: http://thesocietypages.org... Well the first chart showed that Black and Hispanic drivers are more likely to be stopped by Los Angeles Police than White drivers.And the second chart in the article shows that, when stopped, if searched, police are more likely to find weapons and drugs on Whites than on either Blacks or Hispanics.What this proofs is the utter failure and incapability of law enforcement to spot criminal activity regardless of race.I would also like to state that racial profiling clearly is opposed to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution which reads that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Racial profiling is morally wrong: I cannot stress this point enough racial profiling is morally and ethically wrong.It degrades the American psyche by treating its citizens as second class citizens.It generalizes,it paints with broad strokes that minorities are criminals and worthy of profiling.Not to mention that profiling by The United States is Hypocritical a country that promotes liberty,freedom and ideals of justice should not violate it's citizens civil liberties,such as racial profiling does.Now,i will give a now famous example about racial profiling gone bad.Trayvon Martin a normal 17 year old African American teenager was staying at a gated community in Sanford, Fla. when he was killed by George Zimmerman.Zimmerman reportedly before the killing called 911 to report a "a real suspicious guy," a "black male" walking around and continued with his profiling that eventually lead to the death of Trayvon Martin,a defenceless teenager wearing a hoodie and holding a can of ice tea and a bag of Skittles(The case is still pending).if that does not make the case for the wrongness of racial profiling i don't what will.
Racial Profiling

I think I have set this up with a fairly reasonable debate structure. If anyone has any issue with it, do not hesitate to mention it.I have thought for a long time that racial profiling was bad. I now think that it might not be. Since I'm still on the fence on this issue, I thought a good, old-fashioned debate might help settle my mind.Obviously I will argue in FAVOR of racial profiling, and whoever accepts will argue AGAINST. The setting for this debate is the United States of America.Rules:1. No semantics. I know what semantics are, you know what semantics are, and the voters know what semantics are. NO SEMANTICS. Using semantics counts as a forfeit of all seven points.2. Use reasonable grammar/spelling. Again, you, I, and the voters know what this is. A few misspellings are fine, a few grammar mistakes are fine, something that looks like a foreign language isn't. Voters, do not bother voting on this unless someone's grammar was atrocious. If one person's spelling/grammar was better marginally, it doesn't matter.3. A forfeit is not an automatic loss. It IS an automatic forfeit of the conduct point, and it is reasonable to assume that whoever forfeited will lose arguments as well. However, if my opponent forfeits after making a brilliant counterargument while I spend all my rounds posting "herp derp", I should lose. Obviously.4. I will assume the burden of proof. If my defense of my arguments is superior to my opponent's criticisms of them, then I win. Don't vote for my opponent just because you were unconvinced by my arguments. Do vote for my opponent if they defeated my arguments.5. Sources are nice. Please provide them. Voters, like spelling/grammar, disregard if both are nearly equal. If I cite my second cousin and my opponent cites the Oxford English Dictionary though, I assume it would be logical to give sources to my opponent. As a general rule, statistics and studies at the very least should be sourced.Debate Structure:1. Acceptance.2. Constructive for me, Con can make a constructive case if she/he desires, else they merely rebut.3. I defend my argument, my opponent criticizes it. I may introduce new arguments here. My opponent may as well.4. Conclusions. No new arguments from either side.Good luck!
The user known as imabench is a knight

My opponent fails to understand that I am A god, not the only one. Monotheism is a falsehood. It is true that the account he gave is also a God. He is reading this right now, and planning to vote for me. He gives a falsehood, the gospel of imarecliner is indeed thriving, just look in your pants. I am a God, I can do whatever I want. Imabench is knighted.
The user known as imabench is a knight

"I am a God"Oh lord its going to be one of these debates.....Definition of God:"The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."http://dictionary.reference.com...So you need proof before anyone can believe you, I for one dont think you are god because someone else is already God. http://www.debate.org..."The evidence for my mystical Godism is abundant, the Gospel of imarecliner is glorious indeed."Bullsh*t, the gospel of imarecliner was lost when the Romans sacked Egypt and burnt the Library of Alexandria to the ground. Nobody knows anything about what was in the texts and the one person who claims to have wrote the gospel of imarecliner was an ancient Egyptian male prostitute who has been discredited. "Comrade imabench is hereby declared a Knight of the DDO fief, by the power invested in me by virtue of being a god I grant thee knighthood and kinship. May the great ones smile upon you as you bring glory and honor among us. Death to the German invader!"Gods do not knight people, they bless them and grant them saint hood. Kings, Queens, and Monarchs of European countries can grant knighthood but Gods have other means of recognizing individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org..."The resolution is correct, as I, a God, gave imabench knighthood."Gods dont knight people though :)The resolution is negated.
The user known as imabench is a knight

I am a God. As you read this you will think of your mother, then your father, and finally of the opposite sex. The evidence for my mystical Godism is abundant, the Gospel of imarecliner is glorious indeed. Comrade imabench is hereby declared a Knight of the DDO fief, by the power invested in me by virtue of being a god I grant thee knighthood and kinship. May the great ones smile upon you as you bring glory and honor among us. Death to the German invader! The resolution is correct, as I, a God, gave imabench knighthood.
Should Bad Teachers Be Fired

I BELIEVE THAT TEACHERS, who have the rights to be at a school teaching should be responsible and respectful in every way. Otherwise, their is no point of teaching at the first place. If not fired, i believe it could damage many students as well as the schools curricular activities. Teachers who are bad should be fired because students lives are at risk of earning behavioral issues and would ruin their generation. Instead of their fun school life they earn disrespected opportunities which isn't fair if their the ones paying the school for good education. Each teacher should be respectful if want to be respected otherwise their is no point for a student to learn or be able to learn.
The Ontological Argument proves that God exists!

Ave!Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological ArgumentP1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.DefinitionsA maximally great being (MGB) is a being with all great-making properties to their maximal extent.A possible world is any logical state of affairs. It does not mean an alternative universe, multiverse, etcThe actual world is the logical state of affairs we presently live in.An impossible being is a being that cannot exist in any possible world because it has contradictory properties. An example of this would be a being that could do everything but do nothing at the same time, or a square circle.A necessary being is a being that exists because of its own nature and exists in every possible worldVale!
The Ontological Argument proves that God exists!

My opponent takes the position that the Ontological Argument is proof for the existence of God and assumes the burden of proof. You are welcome to present any type of Ontological Argument for God that you like assuming that your definition of God secedes that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. I will assume the Con position. Rounds will work as follows: R1. Acceptance and state Ontological Argument. R2. Arguments and rebuttals. R3. Arguments and rebuttals. R4. Rebuttals and conclusion.
The Ontological Argument proves that God exists!

Ave! I think it's rude to give counter-arguments in the last round, because your opponent never gets to answer them for the debate. So instead of giving a direct point-by point response to the last round, I'm going to advocate for a Pro vote in this debate.Why you should vote ProCon gave several reasons as to why the ontological argument doesn't prove the existence of god. Here is my cumulative list of these reasons.(1) Aquanis's response to Anselm.(2) Hume's criticism of a priori aguments.(3) The 'X, Y, and Z traits' argument(4) God's maximal mercy v.s. God's maximal justice(5) The problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will(6) Gasking's Parody(7) Omniscient v.s creating new information(8) Kant's Objection(9) Hallquist's Objection(10) Solipsism objectionI've bolded the arguments that Con completely dropped during the debate. This leaves us with three objections to the ontological argument, all of which I gave objections to. Let's consider my responses to those arguments.Hume's CriticismI had two objections to Hume.(1) There is a being that entails a contradiction not to exist, contrary to his claims.(2) A being can exist in all possible worlds and yet be such that denying its existence doesn’t entail a contradiction.Con didn't answer these until his last round. Even then, he really didn't answer them. He just made a positive (this is why Hume was right) argument rather than a negative (this is why Pro is wrong) argument. So, my two principle objections to Hume were never satisfactorily answered.Kant's ObjectionI had two objections to Kant.(1) Existence is not assumed to be a property with the modal ontological argument.(2) From 1, Kant's criticism is irrelevant.Con's response to this was to argue that I'm using A priori reasoning, which he showed to be invalid. I think the voters should decide whether Con upheld Hume's criticism. To me, the answer is 'no'.Gasking's ParodyI had three objections to Gasking's parody.(1) P5 is unsound.(2) P6 is unsound.(3) It does not even work as a parody.All three of these went untouched by Con.ConclusionCon gave a myriad of objections to Plantinga's argument. I commend him for bringing up such a large variety of interesting and challenging objections. The problem is that he was too eager to drop the objections after I responded to them. This is why I believe a Pro vote is most justified.Aside from that, I sincerely congratulate Con on an awesome and scintillating discussion. I hope to see him around more!Vale!
I am the soul imaginor of all things.

fallacy 4: the fact you have no sight should be the big factor of this round. the instigator has placed himself in a metaphorical "brain in a vat" which has created everything. the fact "he" cannot see imposes the question of "if he can't see how does he know what it is like to see?" for example: a blind man might know what colors are if he had previously HAD sight but if one has been blind since childhood he would not know what colors are.True a blind man may have a general idea of what something is by what his other senses create. (to feel someone's arm to have a picture of it) The issue here is he does not have sight smell touch taste or hearing. Even if he did have them he has posited himself that he lives in an empty void. This denotes that he is the sole object in this world and as such has not come in contact with images. yeah i think that's all that's needed for this one
I am the soul imaginor of all things.

First Fallacy- You do not know more than the my mind simply because my subconscious created your argument. Second Fallacy- Seeing is a sense that my mind created seeing isn't an understanding its the projections of the creations of my mind. Third Fallacy- The creation of this life allowed me to retain my memories of my true existence and what would happen if I died although all other memories are suppressed by my previous imagined deaths. Fourth Fallacy- I do not have sight because it is a creation of my mind. No it does not because it argues the point that I am subconsciously creating this argument. I only do not know the outcome of the vote because if I knew everything that was going to happen then this life would be no more enjoyable than my last. There is no image until my mind puts your particles together in my mind while you come to exist by my mind in front of me. If I knew what everyone looked like and what they were going to do it would be boring in this life just as it was in my last.
I am the soul imaginor of all things.

First off, I am sorry if the word "god" confused you I am merely implicated your supremacy over this universe just as I am god over the world of my mind. And gods exist in other cultures. FALLACY: how do I, a part of your mind, know more than the mind itself? FALLACY: you mentioned that you were a single cell ed organism so how do you have eyes? If you don't have eyes how do you understand what it is like to see? FALLACY:how do you know of your other "lives?" What do you have to be so confident of your other existence? FALLACY:how do you know of where you roam if you have no sight? Cogito ergo sum: the fact that you are making me argue my existence proves my existence (Descartes) What image do you have to create me in with nopoint of reference (sight)
I am the soul imaginor of all things.

I invented this world because I was to bored with my enviroment and own existence. I did not say I was god the meaning of the word soul as I stated was to show the absoluteness of just one so I think its supposed to be spelled sole? The body is the one I started out with with another person creating me in all a giant paradox. A god as you say would have to imply that the theory of christianity is real. Not at the moment when I create you into my own eyes that is when you truly exist. Your role is to argue with me. Work how? To make up for my meager existence. No just a part of my imagination was created to hate me. (you) To give the illusion of free will. I would theoretically in my imagination I would. No I would wake up in my other existence and start the world anew. No my soul existence is to float through space I use this world as a past time.
I am the soul imaginor of all things.

I will begin with a variety of questions (please answer all of them in this order): if you are God, then why did you invent this world? If you are God for what reason do you have for a body (even a single celled one)? do others exist as gods as you? do I exist? What is my role in the grander scheme of things? Do you work? Why did you create such a world in your mind? I hate you! If I am of your mind does this mean you hate yourself? If not then why do you allow for your creations to hate its creator? If a man were to stab you would you bleed? can you die? Is your soul existence to create a world in your mind?
I am the soul imaginor of all things.

I believe that I am a single celled organisms floating through space. I also believe that I create and imagine everything around me. While I look at something it starts to exist but as soon as I look away it disappears into nonexistence. Dreams are the creation of my mind and it is just as complex. If con can prove that I am not the soul creator of everything around me than he/she wins. If he/she cannot obviously they lose.