BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black and White controversy

IntroductionThanks Commen_Knowledge_97 for this debate. I only have thirty minutes to post my argument so I would ask the voters to be a little more forgiving of any grammatical errors -- I simply do not have the time to thoroughly spell check given the tight parameters. Does Race Matter?The answer, by some many indicators seems to be yes. I'd like to call my opponent's attention to the fact that Black Americans (the case could likely be made for other nationalities, but most of the evidence I found deals specifically with the United States) seem to have very different interactions with the country's law enforcement. I would likely you to consider this statistic from a 2008 report authored by an organization linked to the US Justice Department: Black drivers (12.3%) were about three times as likely as white drivers (3.9%) and about two times as likely as Hispanic drivers (5.8%) to be searched during a traffic stop in 2008. This seems to be a part of a large pattern of occurrences when as concerns black people and law enforcement. In Ferguson, Missouri, a town that has caught national attention, the primarily white police force in 2013 was considerably more likely to stop black drivers (86% of stops involved black individuals) and search black individuals (92% of searches were on black people). While these statistics are quite extreme, they seem to be mostly amenable all across the United States.Relevance?Does the evidence I presented necessarily mean that race is a problem? Not necessarily. However, given this evidence is it ludicrous to suggest that race is a problem in America and that racism negatively affects black people (as con seems to suggest it is)? No.
Black and White controversy

I swear all I hear is black and White. Why does the skin color matter. We are all equal. White cop shoots and kills black teenager. Lable it Racist! NO! If a black cop shoots and kills a white cop it is not labled racist! If a white kills a white! Not seriotyplical at all! Why cant people just forget that we are diffrent colors. Everytime something happens between and black and white and the black is harmed it is not racist. Plus starting a riot to hurt and kill other people is worng! People could make that racist! Like oh they used that as a reason to attack whites. My school has a black out day I was going to wear balck and white. When they were to ask why I wanted to say why did it have to be just black, is that not racist! I dont care about skin color! That does not make up a person!
Zelda is a Better Franchise than Mario

I will accept your challenge and argue in favour of Mario as the better franchise. For my first argument, I will list reasons that demonstrate Mario as a better franchise in a bulleted format for simplicity. -The Mario franchise has had many widely successful spinoffs, each offering drastically different gameplay experiences. This Includes Super Mario RPG, The Paper Mario games, Mario and Luigi, Luigi's Mansion, M. Kart, M. Party, et cetera. Clearly, the franchise has excellent game designers. On the contrary, Hyrule Warriors was not very good or very creative. -The Core Mario games offer very simple and intuitive controls, but a wide range of levels, with various gimmicks (Bouncy Mushrooms) and different levels of challenge (World 1 vs Bowser's Castle). -Unlike the Legend of Zelda, Mario's supporting characters are beloved and marketable, compare Yoshi and Impa or Toad and the Goron King. There are, of course, more points to make but my writing space is limited.
Zelda is a Better Franchise than Mario

The debate of if Zelda or Mario is a better franchise has been fought by Nintendo fans for over 30 years. While both franchise are different I think Zelda is by far the better franchise. Look at all of the Mario games. You'll notice that they are all incredibly similar. The Zelda games have things that are similar, but never exactly the same. Zelda, Ganon, and Link may be in every game, but each version of them has different traits that make that games version unique. Peach, Bowser, and Mario are almost exactly the same in every game. Mario was great in the past when people wanted simple, quick games, but now people want longer, more exciting experiences. Breath of the Wild gives an experience like that, and it is as revolutionary as Super Mario Bros. Zelda didn't just become revolutionary though, the original Legend of Zelda paved the path for all open world games. Those are just some of the reasons why Zelda is by far a better franchise than Mario.
Private law enforcement is an appropriate response to corrupt or ineffective public law enforcment.

I accept your debate and will be arguing against Private Law Enforcement as a viable solution to any perceived ineffectiveness of Public Law Enforcement. I will begin by responding to the three contentions you put forth in the first round and then put forth my own. 1."It is the right of the people to have effective law enforcement." I fully agree but this isn't the point either of us are arguing in this debate. 2."At times, in some nations there is a lack of effective law enforcement." There is no denying that due to your non-specificity with the use of "some nations" as it is a known fact that some impoverished nations of the world simply lack the funding to provide their citizenry with effective Law Enforcement. 3." The only available remedy at that point is for the citizens themselves to enforce the law." First off, Private Law enforcement isn't the citizenry organizing itself to enforce the law, which would be more akin to a neighborhood watch. A Private Police are law enforcement bodies that are owned and/or controlled by non-governmental entities, and in a nation where the very government can't even afford effective Law Enforcement, how do you expect the citizens to be willing or even able to pay for Privatized Police? My first point for why I don't think it is a viable alternative to Public Law Enforcement has to do with its very application. If a group of citizens are pushing for a Private Police force to be implemented in their region or county, what is the motivation of the rest of the populace to chip in for the steep cost when a system is already in place that proves adequate for most of the populace? With a police force already in place do you really think that infrastructure can be so easily removed? They won"t let themselves be expunged and could be motivated to do something about it. How do you think most people would react if someone was trying to take your work? It already is a common occurrence for there to be strained relations between Private and Public law enforcement. And since working for a private security firm takes much of the same skills as Public Law enforcement, most of the eligible professionals within a given area probably make up much of the current establishment anyways so you will have the very same supposedly corrupt people enforcing the law. It would be unlikely for Private and Public Law Enforcement to simply coexist so in the possibility that Private Police does gain traction in an area, will they only serve the citizens capable of paying them? What about the rest of the populace? Will they simply left to their own devices if their lives are threatened?
BSL to be taught in all British Primary and Secondary Schools

In the UK there are 24, 372 schools, 8. 2 milion kids learning at these schools and as you pointed out there are 23, 000 deaf children. This means that there is less than one deaf children per schools, I know that some schools might have more children with hearing problems but as statistics show this is not likely the case. We're also talkig about 0. 28% born deaf children out of all children age 0-15. This concludes that most people will not even meet or less likely need to have a conversation with a deaf person so teaching them BSL from an early age is not going to be usefull to the kid as learning a new language like spanish wich is spoken by many milions of people in many countries.
BSL to be taught in all British Primary and Secondary Schools

According to the British Deaf Association there are a total of 151, 000 people who use BSL. Your first argument is invalid as I"m arguing for children that use BSL, Not adults. Currently there are 23, 000 deaf children in the UK, 90% of these children (20, 700 children) are born to Hearing parents. So tell me this, How come If 90% of deaf children are born to Hearing parents and there is 23, 000 deaf children in the UK how is it not a good idea to teach BSL in schools?
BSL to be taught in all British Primary and Secondary Schools

While it's true that 9 million people in the UK have a hearing impairment only 0. 07 of the UK population uses BSL as their preferred language. Another 6. 5 million of those people are older than 60 years and we know that hearing loss increases with age, So this phenomenon is perfectly normal, Also most of the people who have acquired deafness don't use BSL. I also agree that people should be aware of and understand the problems of someone with a hearing impairment but teaching deaf culture in schools when only 0. 07 of the population uses BSL is unrealistic and almost useless.
BSL to be taught in all British Primary and Secondary Schools

Like the other Language"s such as Spanish, German & French, Sign Langauge is also just as important. Deaf people should not be singled out just because people cannot communicate with them. According to the British Deaf Association there are approximately 9 million Deaf or Hard of Hearing people in the UK, This is 2250 million people in each UK country. The deaf community grows bigger every year with more hearing parents having profoundly deaf children. It"s not just sign language that should be taught there should deaf culture as well. This gives the pupils a great sense of understanding and they will be willing to help their peers more if they have a hearing impairment.
Accept the truth

Laughter is a sign of the dark lord Satan possessing your body. Feelings such as happiness or joy are also sins that are just as evil as murder, rape, homosexuality, atheism, theft, etc. I am going to give you another prayer to recite to his majesty the Lord God every single day. I suggest you recite this to Him every hour for the rest of your days. "My Lord and savior God, my love and only true source of life, Jesus Christ, I beseech unto both of thee to grant me forgiveness. Your holiness transcends my dark, wretched soul. I beg you to remove the dark influence of Satan from my heart. I am nothing before You. Amen."
Marijuana legalization

I stand in favor for marijuana legalization for three main reasons first the liberty, the cost, and the facts. If the United States legalizes marijuana liberty would increase. Why should the United State government control with what the American citizens does with their body. The government shouldn't say what is good for us or not and at the very lest not control what he do. If marijuana becomes legal with opens liberty to everyone who wants to smoke it. It is the principle of it becoming legal which is the most important. The principle of liberty. I ask is marijuana being illegal worth the cost and more specifically the cost of money and lives. The war on drugs or more like the War on Marijuana has estimated to cost the United States 1 trillion dollars, I thought the United States was in a 16 trillion dollar debt and people call for cuts in the budget I think I have found one. The lives that have lost are incredible in the last 5 years 45,000 people have died in the War on Marijuana, while not one case as shown that directly smoking Marijuana has never killed anyone. While death is one way to end a life prison can do the same. The United States population is 5% of the world's population, while this is a small number the United State's prison population is 25% of the World's prison population, and one of the main reasons that people are in prison are for Marijuana charges and to be more specifically 12.7% of all prisoners are in prison for Marijuana. Is that fair to keep letting people go to prison and let their families suffer without their mom or dad or just letting people keep on dieing in war to keep something harmless illegal I think not. Time to end the misconception of Marijuana. It is not addictive physically unlike Nicotine or Alcohol it is addictive mentally much like if someone wanted to eat something unhealthy all it takes is will power to stop using Marijuana. Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the United States which means that the laws are doing nothing to stop it if it was legal it could have a retail tax put on it giving money back to the United States instead of it going prevent it. Tobacco killed 445,000people per year and alcohol has killed 75,000 people per year in the United States while Marijuana has never proven to kill anyone. Marijuana should be legal just for the principle at hand and it will help America. Sources http://www.drugscience.org... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://norml.org... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... http://www.lung.org...
The U.S. should have used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in Japan.

The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was by far the most effective way of bringing World War II to an end. Japan's history and their actions in the war have shown that Japan and its people would fight to the very end. The only other real alternative to bringing the war to an end in Japan was a mass invasion of Japan that would most likely have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives. The U. S. brought the war to a quick end by using the atomic bomb against Japan. The atomic bomb eliminated the need for America to invade the Japanese mainland most likely saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. President Harry Truman's military advisors put the estimates at American lives lost between 50,000 and 100,000 in only the first 30 days. Later, Truman himself estimated about 500,000 would be lost. And Winston Churchill estimated that the atomic bomb saved 1 million Allied troops. After the atomic bomb was dropped, Truman stated, "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. " (1) (2) The death toll of the Japanese civilians and soldiers would have been higher as well if the U. S. decided to invade the Japanese mainland instead of dropping the atomic bomb. The firebombings already being used by the U. S. were causing a great amount of damage. There were already 600,000 Germans and 200,000 Japanese dead due to Allied air raids. The naval blockade of Japan was also causing starvation. If the U. S. then invaded Japan, hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of Japanese lives would have been lost knowing that they would fight to the last man. The atomic bombing of Japan also brought quicker release to the unjust imprisonment of the Japanese in internment camps in America. (3) The atomic bombing was also important because of the need to stop the growing influence that the Soviet Union was gaining in the region. If the US had invaded Japan instead dropping the atomic bomb, the Soviet Union would have became much more involved in the war. They had already Manchuria. And since the Soviet Union had joined in on the war against Japan, they would have had a large say in the partitioning of Japan's defeated territories, which would have increased the Soviet's sphere of influence even more. Truman wrote in his diary, "I was not willing to hand over to the Russians the fruits of a long and bitter and courageous fight, a fight in which they had not participated. " (1) The use of the atomic bomb against Japan also showed the strength of the U. S. to the world, and especially the Soviet Union. (4) ---Sources--- (1) . http://www.trumanlibrary.org... (2) . http://www.carnegieendowment.org... (3) . http://www.freerepublic.com... (4) . http://worldwariihistory.info...
The U.S. should have used atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in Japan.

I am for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I will have to prove that the atomic bombings were the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan to win the debate. My opponent will be against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and will have to prove that the atomic bombings were not the most viable option to ending WWII in Japan, and will have to prove a more viable option to win the debate. ---Definitions--- should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency http://www.merriam-webster.com... atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki - were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively. http://en.wikipedia.org... end World War II in Japan - The surrender of Japan in August 1945 brought World War II to a close. http://en.wikipedia.org... World War II - was a global military conflict which involved a majority of the world's nations, including all of the great powers, organized into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. http://en.wikipedia.org... To my opponent: just accept the debate in the first round. Do not make any arguments until the second round. Please accept or offer new definitions before starting the debate. Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate.
The Increase of Minimum Wage

Minimum wage earners only represent 4% of the US workforce, and that's mostly comprised of teenagers. One might not suppose that adjusting the wage for this small sector would significantly impact the economy, but min. wage increases ripple up into middle class salaries as employers retain wage hierarchies. This has the effect of pushing unused capital at the top of the pyramid down to the bottom where it is quickly spent, improving consumption and economic demand, which leads to higher employment. Minimum wage increases drive employers to improve efficiency. Rather than relying on a pool of cheap labor to take up the slack, employers seek out tech improvements, working smarter not harder. The higher the bottom rung is set, the more people prefer employment to criminal alternatives, boosting the market. Minimum wage laws improve work ethics, reduce absenteeism, and reduce turnover. In tandem, these effects result in significant improvements in efficiency across the economy.
The Increase of Minimum Wage

"According to a poll of 500 small business owners conducted on behalf of Small Business Majority, 67 percent of these firms favor boosting the minimum wage from the current rate of $7.25 an hour and adjusting it annually as the cost of living rises" [1] Why? Because savvy small businesses understand that min. wage hikes improve the economy, stabilize turnover, and contribute little to inflation. Small bus. in Australia accounts for 95% of GDP [2] compared to 46% U.S. GDP and Australia's min. wage is twice that of U.S. ($15.96 USD) yet maintains unemployment @ 5.4%, 32% lower cost of living and better qual. of life than US (4 largest cities rank in global top ten). Look at Costco vs. Sam's Club. Costco pays 42% better avg salary +better benefits, yet its grocery prices avg 3.6% LESS because Costco employee turnover is 6% vs Sam's 44% turnover[3] Happier, experienced employees provide better cust svc. and bring in $21,805 profit per emp. vs Sam's $11,615. See comments 4 cites
The Increase of Minimum Wage

Thank you for accepting.... You cant sit here and think that what pro is saying will relate to every business... That might work with big business because they can afford too. BUT think about the small family owned businesses, They don't have the money to be spending more money on employees so that causes them to have to raise their prices. You know what they say, Small business are the key to the economy. So here's my question for you: 1. Lets say you work minimum wage at a grocery store, the bill has been passed and you just got a raise. Yay that's all good but wait, your boss cant afford to pay you more, So in order to be legal he has to jack the prices up causeing more people to not shop there. Now he's making no money. you loose you job ( adding to unemployment ) and the Business goes bankrupt. Add those business up and you have a falling economy. So what are your thoughts about that PRO
The Increase of Minimum Wage

I'll accept your challenge. Con's theory is perfectly sound on paper: an increase in the minimum wage should translate into higher prices, contributing to inflation and nullifying the increase. In the real world, however, economic forces are much more complicated. However much theory says it shouldn't, study after study shows that base wage increases have a minimal impact on prices and that base wage increases are strongly correlated to economic improvement. Economists differ strongly on the relative value and importance of the minimum wage, but history shows that economic strength typically improves after minimum wage hikes and that jurisdictions with higher minimum wages enjoy stronger economies than jurisdictions with lower or no minimum wage law. I will try to briefly demonstrate that minimum wage increases have historically resulted in little inflationary effect, but are strongly correlated to economic growth.
The Increase of Minimum Wage

This is a first but I want someone to prove me that the Increase of Minimum wage will help the everyday American... So I will state my opinion first... The increase of Minimum wage put more money in Americans pockets? yes? I agree with this statement. BUT with that increase you are putting more stress on Employers pockets which in the long run with make them increase there cost rate. So yes it puts more money in Americans pocket but in the long run, cause prices to go up and there in summary dosent change a darn thing
Gun Control

I do believe that if gun laws were to be put into effect, it would make history, but banning high capacity ammo and high standard rifles would have no affect on those who wish to cause harm on other humans nontheless. Being so, as there sadly is a black market, a ban would make no difference.Also, it costs money to make a new law, and it does require a lot of the Congress, President's, and Supreme Court's time that would be better used on other subjects.VOTE FOR CON!Dylip
Gun Control

"...more protected"-Despite the fact that military-style weapons are more dangerous, local police do not carry them, nor do they have them at hand. Police officers only carry a handgun and shotgun with them. So, there is no less or more protection on the streets even if military style firearms disappeared from everywhere but the battlefield. "...not have anything to buy anymore" -Even if assault rifles were banned, they'd still be purchaseable in other ways (e.g. black market). Also, if assault rifles no longer existed in the U.S., there's still a wide variety of firearms.
Gun Control

First off, I'll start with a quote from one of my favorite U. S. President's. "It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience. "-Ronald Reagan It is true. No matter what laws are put into place, people who wish to inflict harm on other human-beings will not be fazed by gun controller's. There will always be a way to purchase firearms. I do admit that all tragedies my opponent has listed could have been at least delayed by gun laws, but not stopped. I will now allow my opponent to explain more of his argument so I know exactly what he'd like to highlight in this debate.