BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
White privilege exists

I'm speaking in the third person because it's a debate tradition[1]. It keeps things from getting personal, and ensures that my arguments are for the judges rather than for my opponent. My job in this debate is not to change your opinion, it is to maintain the burden of proof the resolution establishes, which I do. No matter how much evidence I provide, or how many warrants I offer, con is going to say it doesn't apply to everyone. This is a failure to engage the argument and a reason to vote pro. To say that a Black person has natural hair means that their hair has not been chemically treated to make it emulate white hair. Black hair can still be styled; it can be made into twists, cornrows or kept neat as an Afro. The fact that black hair is policed in the way that it is in comparison to white hair is white privilege. White women don't get told a braid is unprofessional, but black women get told that cornrows are. On names, Con does not engage the argument in good faith. A person of color can have a 'white' name. Having one actually helps a lot in the hiring process as they are not subject to the biases that exist against their names. However people who do have nonwhite names have lower rates of callbacks when applying to jobs. See the evidence in round 1. The distinction Con attempts to make between race and culture is an arbitrary one. Not all culture is white culture, preferring white culture is still white privilege. When someone with a name like Ashanti has to change their name to Ashley to be recognize for their skills, it's white Privilege. Finally on Conduct, this debate is set to 'Select Winner'. Judges are asked only to vote on the arguments in the debate itself. There is nothing wrong with my conduct, it's not my fault Con isn't doing the work to engage this debate in good faith. [1] https://uofadebate.files.wordpress.com...
White privilege exists

I see you're one of those people who refers to me in the third person for some reason. Anyway, telling me to do my own research is not an argument; it just shifts the burden of proof. It is not my job to back up your claims, it is yours. Alright cool, four total examples of hair being policed. Again, that does not represent society as a whole. Also, natural hair is different than a hairstyle; natural hair is natural hair, but a hairstyle is a preference, and that has nothing to do with race. For the second time, race is different than culture; people in Scandinavia are white, but they have a different culture than we have in America, for example. If a minority has what you call a "white name," then they would be preferred in hiring, also according to you. So it's not about race then is it? Because race is not a factor here, just the name. By the way, your attitude is kind of poor, you're clearly just trying (key word: trying) to make me look dumb instead of having a civil discussion. You can get marked down for poor conduct, FYI.
White privilege exists

Not understanding an argument is not an answer to an argument. If you don't know what the argument is saying, read the link or do your own research. Con claims that evidence for the policing of black hair is weak because Pro only provides one example. Well, here's another[1], and another[2], and another[3]. I can't help that Con has failed to test these claims or do their own research. If Con cannot be bothered to engage the Pro's arguments in good faith, then they concede the argument. Con admits that 'in the US we tend to favor certain cultures over others' - that is the textbook definition of privilege; refer to link one in round 1. White people have done nothing to earn their culture being preferred over other cultures. Further, preference of white cultures isn't unique to the United States. See the second link provided in this round; Even in Africa, Black Students are having to fight white administrators in order to maintain their natural hair types. Yes, people can have 'white' names without being white, but that doesn't respond to the argument being made. The fact that people who have nonwhite names have such overwhelming pressure to change their names in order to get callbacks for jobs is a problem. If Maria won't get a call back, but Mary will, it's white privilege. Finally, con bites into the criticism this debate makes when he refers to white names as 'conventional American names'. White, European culture is not the standard. The assumption that it is, is a glaring instance of white privilege; the expectation for white culture to be everyone's baseline is an invisible and unearned benefit - white privilege. Con does not put in the work for a good faith debate, vote Pro. [1] https://www.npr.org... [2] https://www.dailydot.com... [3] http://www.ebony.com...
White privilege exists

I'll give it a shot. So obviously I don't think white privilege (let's call it WP for short) exists. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the term "systematically," are you talking in public policy or just societal views? Same with "power," again would that apply to governmental rules or just societal advantage? You cited the example of a London woman having to wear a weave and linked it to traditional black styles of hair being viewed as unprofessional. I noticed two issues: that is just one woman and it wouldn't quite represent society. Another issue is this, along with the name example, conflate race with culture. Yea I'll agree here in the US we tend to favor certain cultures over others, but that is not the same is favoring race. Plenty of minorities have conventional American names, and I don't think names are racialized (i.e. names do not have a race). What do you think?
White privilege exists

White privilege is defined by scholar Peggy McIntosh[1] as "unearned power conferred systematically [on the basis of being white]" exists. Privilege is not a personal system of benefits, rather, it is institutional endorsement and protection granted to members of dominant groups based on the control or influence of the larger system by those groups. This is largely why many forms of privilege become invisible to those who experience them. To say that someone has white privilege does not mean that they suddenly have the magical ability to call upon their whiteness in times of need, but that they don't face the same kind of discrimination that people of color may face in similar circumstances. One example of white privilege is how Black hair is policed in professional environments. in 2016 a London woman was told by her employer to wear a weave to work as her natural hair was unprofessional[2]. On another occasion she came to work wearing cornrows, and was asked when her hair 'would be back to normal'. The idea that traditional styles of black hair are inherently unprofessional stems from western standards of beauty that have historically governed professional jobs. If a white woman decided to wear her hair in a bun, or french braid, she wouldn't be sent home or told her hair was unprofessional. Another instance of white privilege is the way that 'whitened' names increase a job applicant's chance at getting a callback for a job interview[3] (think Jose to Joe, or Lei to Luke). Applicants who changed their name to keep from disclosing their ethnicity become more than twice as likely to receive an interview than those who applied with their birth name. In coming round I will expand up these warrants and offer more as appropriate. [1] https://www.cpt.org... [2] http://www.bbc.com... [3] https://hbswk.hbs.edu...
Boba Fett is better than Jango Fett

Well i am a science person and yes you are correct but, science has been broken. Jango is a good bounty hunter but Boba is the better bounty hunter because he is more put together and has better weaponry. Jango got his head cut off by a bad jedi, while Boba was able to get put of the Sarlac pit. What does that say?
Christians should not practice gay marriage

You have asked me to provide times when Jesus says anything about going to Hell. I will oblige. Mark 9:43-48 Matthew 23:33 Matthew 5:22 Matthew 5:29 Matthew 5:30 Matthew 7:13 Matthew 10:28 Matthew 18:9 Matthew 23:15 Luke 12:5 James 3:6 In addition to Jesus speaking about Hell, we also see it in these verses. Jude 1:23 2 Peter 2:4 2 Thessalonians 2:3 So, even in just the New Testament, there is quite a bit about Hell. Now, you bring up the point that it is harsh for someone to go into eternal hell because they don't believe in Jesus. The thing is, it is not because they are bad people but because Jesus is the only way to repent of sins. One cannot achieve heaven by their own works, but must accept the gift. Back on track, I apologize for my bad wording. What I mean by that is that one can't be a hypocrite and still expect the reward. It's all about the mindset. The mindset of "I can do whatever I want and Jesus will forgive me" is wrong. The correct mindset is "I'm not perfect, I will fall. But when I do, Jesus will be there to catch me." So yes, a person who commits a homosexual act can go to heaven. But only if he or she has the right mindset and corrects his or herself, and repents.
Christians should not practice gay marriage

You say that my first argument is slightly flawed. I understand that Jesus said alot of of the things that the old testament said. But that still doesn't say anything. Jesus as you admitted eliminated alot of things in the old testament. Name one place in the new testament in where Jesus said anything about gays going to hell. Name one place in the new testament in where Jesus himself said if you do not accept me as your savior you will go to Hell(Doesn't that seem harsh. Your basically saying that anyone that disagrees with you will be sent into internal hell. I doubt Jesus ever taught that) 2. Here is where I am a bit confused. You clarify that being gay is not sin but engaging in homosexual acts is and if gay christains do repent there okay. Clarify this, because gay Christians can technically with what you have just said still be ingage in homosexual acts and repent and still be Christian.
Christians should not practice gay marriage

1. You have said in your first argument that the New Testament and the Old do not go together. However, that is slightly flawed: the Old Testament outlines many laws that Jesus practiced and taught. In one of the verses in the Bible (forgive me, I do not have the exact verse) the Pharisees challenged Jesus, asking which of the Ten Commandments was most important. Jesus responded by saying that the first commandment (to love God) was the most important, but that the second (love your neighbor) was next in line. Case in point, the Ten Commandments and some other teachings are still relevant despite the New Testament eliminating many. Jesus did die for all of our sins- but in order for a gift to be valid you must accept and use it, right? If you got a gift card for your birthday, you would most likely use it how it was intended- to spend. In this case, to get to heaven you must accept Jesus and strive to be like Him. I would also like to clarify that I was not citing simply being gay as a sin, but rather engaging in homosexual acts and/or marriage. Jesus most definitely died for gay Christians but in order for them to be saved they must repent of any sin, just like the rest of us.
Christians should not practice gay marriage

I am an atheist, though I have been a Christian before and I still admire the religion and the teachings of Jesus. First, I would like to focus this debate on the person that Christianity is based off of, Jesus. I will focus on Jesus's teachings and how Christians should completely forget about the old testament because it is not what Christianity was supposed to be. 1. The New Testament and Old Testament don't go together- If you have ever read the Bible you would know that the God in the old testament and the new testament don't go together. In the old testament it teaches of a God that punishes the evil and the rules you should follow. Noah and the ark is a story of how God wipes out the evil on the Earth. It stresses the idea of God being an all-powerful all-knowing being. In the New Testament, we see a different God. The loving father. Jesus teaches man to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus taught a forgiving God. Jesus also died for our sins. But, take this sentence very seriously if you are a Christian. If Jesus died for all our so sins, than that would mean everybody would go to heaven. At first, I would be startled that the "bad guys" would not go to hell. But now I understand it clearly. Every human thinks that they are doing the right thing. Every human commits self-righteous acts. Hitler justified his acts in the name of Christianity. Criminals who steal justify what they do in saying that they were just trying to improve their livelihood. If Jesus died for our sins, than that would mean that there would be no Hell. New Testament and Old Testament don't mix. New Testament-The New Testament is Christianity. If you focus on the old testament than your a Jew. The Torah is the old testament. Christianity was created to bring the love part of the Bible, not the hell part. If Jesus died for our sins, than he also died for the gay Christians.
Christians should not practice gay marriage

Before I start going into rules, good luck to whoever accepts. I'd first of all ask that no hate speech be posted either in the debate or comments. Second, I'd like to ask not to debate on the validity of gay marriage in a secular society but rather pertaining to Christian teachings. I would prefer to debate a Christian for a more in-depth point of view, however it does not matter that much to me. Opening and closing statements don't have to stand in themselves, evidence can be presented in any of the 5 sections. Romans 1:26-28 says: 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. Leviticus 18:22 reads: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 1 Timothy 1:10 The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, Jude 1:7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. These are all of the Bible verses DIRECTLY relating to homosexuality. In addition to this, many others talk about how Adam and Eve were made for each other, and also that a man should marry a woman and vice versa to stop sexual immorality. So quite clearly, Christians are prohibited from practicing gay marriage.
Starbucks Coffee is burnt and overpriced.

R1: Acceptance R2: Opening Argument R3: Free Debate R4:Rebuttle R5: Closing arguments Starbucks as a company's advertising is based upon the ideals of having a great coffee. Marketing strategies over the last several years has moved towards "A better coffee for a better you" and "We Craft Passion you can taste. " They even put their baristas through a training program so that when they create a latte it does not "burn the beans. " In terms of pricing Starbucks creates expensive Latte's that taste good not because of the coffee but because of the flavorings they use. This debate is meant to be around the idea of what good coffee is and how you define quality as well as the manner in which quality should be priced. I will argue for the side that Starbucks is overpriced burnt low quality coffee. Have Fun!
Animals should be slaughtered to provide people with food.

This was a message I sent earlier: Hey Wylted! Unfortunately I may not have time to write my arguments, because I'm traveling all weekend starting tomorrow. I really hate to ask this, but would it be possible that we skip over the next argument so can have time to respond to your argument with the attention it deserves? Judging by the high quality of the debate so far, and I mean that sincerely, I think we'll be able to both fit in the good arguments within the three remaining rounds, but that's totally up to you. There is absolutely no written or unwritten requirement that says that you should feel obligated agree to this, so I absolutely understand if you don't want to do so. Thanks for listening and your patience! Please don't feel obligated. --kbub Wylted graciously agreed. Thanks so much! Can't wait to get back for some more debating!
Legalizing marijuana

Also, I'd like to ask that my opponent please not just copy and paste his rebuttals and responses from websites. CON C1 Rebuttal The impacts that my opponent draws from his rebuttal are similar to those with the legalization of alcohol for the same age. If you compare alcohol and marijuana, a "long-term regular user" of alcohol will face even more serious problems. Furthermore, unlike alcohol, marijuana doesn't kill and isn't a gateway drug. When examining a bright line of what can and cannot be legal or illegal, if alcohol is legal, marijuana should be legal due to less serious health effects. CON C2/C3 Rebuttal First, there would be no illegal drug vendors for marijuana if it were legalized. Look at alcohol as an example. We don't have alcohol dealers because it's regulated at stores. Furthermore, the legalization of marijuana would create a regulatory agency [1][2]. My opponent cites alcohol as an example of how marijuana would easily obtained by asking around with 83% adults saying that they bought alcohol for a minor when they asked for it, but in the status quo, like I cited earlier, the number is 86% for illegally buying marijuana without a regulatory agency and any regulation in stores. If my opponent would like to empirically compare the two, legalization would prove beneficial; the number of minors obtaining marijuana would decrease, even if the "Hey Mister" ways that my opponent cites of obtaining it arose. PRO Arguments PRO C1. Marijuana would provide economic benefits. Harvard University professorDr. Jeffrey Miron states that placing a tax on marijuana, if legalized, would produce between $10 and $14 billion dollars in revenue for our government per year [3]. In our economic "great recession," any source of revenue would prove immensely beneficial. PRO C1. Marijuana legalization would benefit out courts. Last year alone, 858,408 marijuana related arrests were made [4]. Furthermore, Jon Gettman of the George Mason School of Public Policy found that annually, these arrests cost taxpayers $7.6 billion. It also concluded that prohibition of marijuana fails to produce intended results. [1] . http://query.nytimes.com... res=950DE6D91038F930A25751C0A962958260 [2] . http://seattletimes.nwsource.com... [3] . http://www.prohibitioncosts.org... [4] . http://stopthedrugwar.org... [5] . http://www.norml.org...
Legalizing marijuana

defense for CON C1 : "Marijuana isn't an addictive. It doesn't cause physical dependence, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that claims that marijuana causes permanent psychological damage or mental illness in both teens and adults [1]." Objection!!! Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives. --http://www.well.com...-- Defense for CON C2 L: "Even today, teens can easily get their hands on marijuana. In a 2009 survey, 7 percent of 8th-graders, 16 percent of 10th-graders, and 21 percent of 12th-graders had used marijuana in the month before the survey [2]. This shows illegal use on a repetitive level. Furthermore, prohibition allows illegal drugs to be more easily accessed to minors, whereas tobacco and alcohol are more difficult to obtain. A NIDA shows that 86% of high school students viewed marijuana as "easy" or "very easy" to obtain [3]. By legalizing marijuana for those over 21, stricter regulations would be in place. " This is a false statement, seeing how the do get alcohol and cigarette's easily by asking their older friends and etc. Making the availability of marijuana wider will increase underage marijuana use. As well my opponent assumes there will be no more illegal drug vendors who sells drugs to anyone. Here's some proof on youths getting alcohol; One of the common ways that adolescents get alcohol is by shoulder tapping or "hey mister." Visit the 2005 "Hey Mister" Campaign here (insert pdf of Hey Mister) Shoulder tapping is when an underage youth stands outside of a location that sells liquor and asks someone going in to purchase alcohol for them. In Massachusetts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) found that 83 of 100 adults asked to buy minors alcohol did so.http://www.msapc.org... Defense for CON C3: Please cross-apply my rebuttal for contention 2. Well please cross apply my defense for 2 and 1 and my entire case with how they effect teens.
Legalizing marijuana

I'm pretty much doing this debate so I'll have 3 to vote. Moving on, I'd like to thank CON for instigating this debate. I'd pretty apparent that this is a speech for a congress bill, so I'm going to safely assume this bill sets marijuana legalization at the age of 21 from what my opponent has said. Rebuttal For this, I'm going to summarize my opponent's main points into a topic sentence. CON C1. Marijuana is addictive and causes short term problems. Marijuana isn't an addictive. It doesn't cause physical dependence, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that claims that marijuana causes permanent psychological damage or mental illness in both teens and adults [1]. CON C2. Marijuana would cause harm to teenagers. Even today, teens can easily ge their hands on marijuana. In a 2009 survey, 7 percent of 8th-graders, 16 percent of 10th-graders, and 21 percent of 12th-graders had used marijuana in the month before the survey [2]. This shows illegal use on a repetitive level. Furthermore, prohibition allows illegal drugs to be more easily accessed to minors, whereas tobacco and alcohol are more difficult to obtain. A NIDA shows that 86% of high school students viewed marijuana as “easy” or “very easy” to obtain [3]. By legalizing marijuana for those over 21, stricter regulations would be in place. CON C3. Marijuana would cause harm to teens in school. Please cross-apply my rebuttal for contention 2. [1] http://www.drugpolicy.org... [2] http://teens.drugabuse.gov... [3] http://tokerville.com...