BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Joe Arpaio does not use the media to advocate profiling and specifically racism

Still waiting for you to argue "Joe Arpaio does not use the media to advocate profiling". notice the part about the media which you have still not addressed. You addressed the part about racism very effectively and I give you credit for that, but I'm interested in whether or not Joe Arpaio uses media to carry out racist policies or actions or uses it to create racist cultures as people claim he does.
Joe Arpaio does not use the media to advocate profiling and specifically racism

Failsauce.My opponent has failed to address the topic, and instead he has argued sb1070 is morally wrong as well as consitutionally. And that since we give blacks rights then we should give hispanics rights. Which if you're talking about all spanish speakers (mostly the ones from Spain) then hispanic is the correct term. I'm guessing that you meant Latinos, which refers to most of the people illegaly crossing the border (people from Spain have to come by plane...).The constitutionality of the law is not in question here, the debate is "Joe Arpaio does not use the media to advocate profiling and specifically racism". Without any arguments to disprove, I rest my case, which still has not really been made but I'm waiting for something to debate before I make it.
Joe Arpaio does not use the media to advocate profiling and specifically racism

SB1070 let police officers "lawfully" pull over a person and acost them of being illegal, wow whats next they going to invade all of our homes next? When you look at this law it invades that whole constitutional legal equality thing, ah but who cares about them they are hispanic. Its not like they are black or anything, we did that to a black you'd have people flipping... ya know. Is it cause they are not black the reason we don't give them the rights they deserve? Whats wrong with these illegal immagrents anyway? Because they are not documented? Actually thats quite wrong illegal aliens actually have documents spilling out of their pockets. They get jobs, pay taxes, get cell phone contracts, buy cars, etc. I can hear you now but what about the economy? Job Loss? That is actually not illegal alien's issue, if not for the AFTA or America's free trade agreement. We would have our Mill's which provided a bulk of our jobs. As well as bail outs given to companies which should have been left to crumble so maybe more successful ones or new ones would arise and create more jobs. I could go on but illegal aliens are the least of our economic problems, maybe we should get off our butts and those who dropped out get there education. That might help maybe just a little. When it comes down to it when a person follows an immoral law they themselves become immoral therefore, When you look at this guy allowing the profiling of a race is immoral if we wouldn't do it to blacks or whites then we should not do it to hispanics.
Joe Arpaio does not use the media to advocate profiling and specifically racism

Many people have said that Joe Arpaio uses publicity stunts to gain support for not only re-election, but for promoting racism. They say that his publicity stunts are merely an effort to appeal to extremists, and have polarized many people's political opinions. This is not true he is merely enforcing SB1070, and none of his actions are meant to single out hispanics or latinos.
Quick Debate! Musical Competition: Alternative! #2

This will be a very quick debate! MUSICAL COMPETITION The person who accepts this will post a song (preferably a vid from youtube) in the first round. I will then post a song in my second round, then I kindly ask my opponent to write "no song as asked" in that last round. NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY YOUR SONG IS BETTER! Then, we will both have posted one song. The genre will be.....Alternative music! If you don't know what it is, then search it up! Voters will judge which song has: More flow better Lyrics Catchiness More Awesome! I know the voting is subjective, but OH WELL! This is my second debate like this. Thanks, DDD
A gun ban in the Us

Resolved - A ban on all guns in the US Negative Impact Starting a complete and total ban on guns will not solve anything. The only effective way to actually implement this idea is by having a buy back accompanying it. A buy back or the removal of guns on a compulsory basis, would incite a great deal of harm in the US. People want to have guns, and they think it is their right under the amendments and the constitution. Forcing a removal of those guns, would have long term negative impacts that could lead to another civil war. Countless people have said they would not give back their guns if a buy back happened, and others said they would fight or defend their right to bear arms. The overall negative impact of trying to force people to give up their guns, or stopping their right to defend themselves is a net detriment in the US 0 effect Banning guns would just result into a regression of other weapons. You ban guns, people go to knives. You ban knives they go to their fists. People will always find ways to hurt people and banning a catalyst for the harm will just result into another catalyst forming. More regulation but not a ban The more effective thing would be to issue stronger background checks, limit high capacity magazines, etc. It is something that would have a more positive effect without the fallout of a total ban. More regulation can be a good thing, but a total ban would result in citizens fighting back. Guns reduce Crime If you ban gun from civilians, they lose their self defense. Guns will still be around via under ground purchase. A citizen has the right to defend themselves and allowing guns in homes actually reduces robberies and other types of crime because it acts a deterrent. Allowing criminals to have guns, while removing them from civilians would actually increase the crime and murder rate by a significant margin.
Divinity of the Biblical Jesus Christ Peace be upon Him

It is clear that Con put hard work into this debate and it is obvious that real life must have taken priority for him not to post a final argument. However that being said I would like to quote my first argument: "To secure victory, Pro must do the following: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible A) claims that Jesus was/is God or B) Prove that the passages supplied by Con do not argue against the divinity of Christ. " This definition of what I must do to secure victory was agreed upon by Con (or at the very least, not contended), and you have seen through this argument that I have successfully dismantled Con's argument against the divinity of Christ. I have also provided several verses that assert the divinity of Christ, which Con did not refute. Therefore I have met both points of my burden and should be declared the victor. I would again like to thank my opponent for the rigorous debate, it was enjoyable and stretching. Thank you also to the readers.
Golden Goose create

Tammy did the five days, she expressed discomfort in her plantar fascia, suggesting poor arch support and all round sloppiness. 3D for sure, certainly not 4 or more as some over enthusiasts might exaggerate. Length, width and height and any suitable tool will do. Pen, pencil or any malleable artist's medium. Sneakers, sneaky focus on the basket and the ball and the Zumba too. Flat feet are a myth though, they can no longer exempt you, Rudolph didn't give a damn. He's still burning those calories in Nuremburg, he doesn't expect much in return, just regular feedback. He's to old to bother with virtuality and can't afford a personal one. He's still got his old issue, tough, durable well stitched. The juxtaposition of Tammy and Rudolph is engaging and informative. The old boy is into cost efficiency, out of necessity. Tammy just blows it, cellulite's her bug bear, the fitness gear takes precedence and just disregards the importance of a high end workout shoe. Technical mid sole and ankle support etc. Les and Val are straight walkers and straight talkers, no beating about the bush. Val keeps the bush well trimmed, she wont strip it out completely. Les does quite a bit of pruning himself, he finds a lot of well established and unwanted regrowth these days. Got to keep up appearances, so the highest of high end performance trail runners is all that is acceptable. The feedback on heart rate and calories was minimal, but in the mean time Suunto's expressive format is always well regarded, though as one would expect, Rudolph remained impassive. Les Val nor Tammy could be regarded as spring chickens but like to keep pace with the youngsters. Les and Val guarantee their pace with an all round high end technical approach to both footwear and regime. Timmy on the other hand tends to disregard a strategic approach and always seems preoccupied with the extra curricular socialization. Disrespect for foot support and shock absorbency will almost inevitably let one down in the end. In 1993 Dr. Under pants and support garments. Came up with a clever recognition of clonal ellipsism and rectangular dysfunctionality. The ensuing debate, freehand or insertion techniques was subsequently at the forefront of the discussion. Golden Goose technique and application with no explicit reference to the Goose fat or roast potatoes. Always accompany any high fat content exuberance with greenery and protein balance. Not withstanding the obvious necessity for cardio and stretch. Once again implying close attendance to support, balance and durability.
Golden Goose create

Research regarding the effectiveness of strength shoes is limited and dated. In 1993, Dr. Under the object creation section, application users can create a wide range of objects that include rectangles, ellipses, text, clones, 3D objects and even bitmap images. The main object creations come from using either the Pencil tool or Pen tool, which allows for path creation freehand. Whereas fall can take place from a height or from the same surface. It is caused [b][url=http://www.goldengoose-ggdb.com...]Golden Goose Sneakers[/url][/b] due [b][url=http://www.goldengoose-ggdb.com...]Golden Goose[/url][/b] to the imbalance of the body. They focus primarily on straightening out the walk. Parenting coach Tammy Gold agrees. You can easily find a good pair of Zumba shoes in your nearest stores. To get to the heart of the matter, let me tell you straight off that shoe manufactures do not make basketball shoes for people with flat feet. However, one way to examine shoes for this is to look at how the pieces are put together. If it is through close stitching, then you can guarantee that it is durable. Rudolf served in the army during the war and when he returned, he worked in manufacturing venues near the city of Nuremberg. They can help in running by assisting in forward motion, though not as much as running shoes, but then also at the same time they provide lateral support. Since sessions with a professional trainer can be expensive, Suunto's virtual coach is a costefficient way to get fitness feedback. The t4 not only tracks your workoutsheart rate and calories burnedbut it also makes fiveday training plans for you, indicating how often, how long and how hard you should train based on your progress and feedback.
Mind has a material basis

My opponent asks for a similar study that would use the scientific method. I offer it here: Use a control group Select one group of young people and one group of older people. If the mind is responsible for NDE's (near-death experiences), then the two groups should have similar percentages of people who claim to experience an NDE, since age is not an important factor in this case. However, if DBT (dying brain theory) is correct, then those that are closer to death (the elderly) will experience more NDE's. I actually already cited New Scientist to show that this is exactly what happened: older people were responsible for most of Lommel's NDE's (average age of NDE is 62). This is consistent with DBT but not my opponent's theory of mind. My opponent next claims that there is no evidence that atropine was administered to all the cardiac arrest patients. However, David Gallimore of the School of Health Science at the University of Wales explains that atropine is administered to all cardiac arrest patients because it suppresses the vagus nerve, whose malfunctioning is the most likely cause of a heart attack. [1] Atropine explains both the fixed/dilated pupils, AND it explains the NDE's, since its side-effects are consistent with an NDE. Meditation: My opponent unfairly, I believe, calls my argument here juvenile. You could say that "focusing the mind" is responsible for meditation, just as much as you could say that meditation involves activating the frontal cortex in order to increase concentration. An MRI study at the Unversity of Aarhus proves that meditation is caused by increased prefrontal cortex activity (concentration). [2] Computer analogy: If the mind is entirely incorporeal, then re-incarnated minds should have full memories of their previous lives. My opponent says, "I cannot agree that the ‘death' or permanent damage of his computer would mean that he ceased to exist. " True – this is where the analogy breaks down. The death of the brain means the "mind" ceases to exist; the same is not true of the death of a computer. This proves that the brain is not just a "tool" the mind uses. Animals: I defined "mind" as where our thoughts originate. There is no evidence that low-order animals have high-order thoughts like we do (like abstract reasoning skills). Therefore, their minds are not as complex. Mind complexity is directly related to frontal cortical size, proving the mind has a "basis" in the brain. Round summary: Remember my arguments from R1 that damage to the brain results in a number of deficiencies in the "mind": the inability to recognize emotional states in others (social-emotional agnosia, autism), the inability to feel emotion (23% of stroke patients), and the inability to think and express thoughts (damage to frontal cortex). This proves that the mind has its basis in the brain. I thus believe that my opponent has failed his burden to prove that the mind is completely incorporeal and strongly urge a vote for the pro. I thank my friend SoumyaMitra for what has turned out to be a very interesting and challenging debate. [1] . http://www.nursingtimes.net... [2] . http://yogaterapist.net...
Mind has a material basis

NDE: The fact that we are unable to remember dreams does not prove mind depends on the brain. The memories about the dreams are right there in the mind but we are only unable to retrieve those memories normally. And I have already clarified using the example how our efficiency could get diminished when an instrument is not working properly. That explains why the mind does not work in the same way when we are asleep. My opponent's claims about the drug he mentioned could be true. But there is no proof that all the subjects were administered the drug. Even if they were I don't think that renders the study totally unscientific. My opponent has not replied my question what other scientific method could have been used. MEDITATION: To say that meditation has nothing to do with mind is juvenile argument. Meditation requires concentration of mind as a pre-requisite. COMPUTER ANALOGY: I don't know if my friend (pro) is referring to the term "computer sharing" as a strictly technical term which means sharing computer resources over a network or otherwise. In case of the technical term it will always require another computer to used computer resources shared through a network. If he means like going to his friend's place and share his computer even that would require that his friend is not using it at that time. I cannot agree that the "death" or permanent damage of his computer would mean that he ceased to exist. It would only mean he won't be able to communicate with the world in the same manner as he did with the assistance of his computer. Nevertheless, he can always buy a new one. [I believe that a disembodied mind does the same thing if it wants to come back. It reincarnates and is "reborn" in a new body. But this idea of mine is only a personal speculation, so won't argue on that line. Moreover, that is beyond the scope of the present debate and I don't want to be out of the character limit. ] MIRROR TEST: The mirror test only tells that the animal is not aware of its appearance. I don't think that proves they are not self-aware. FRONTAL CORTEX: My friend in his own words agrees that the frontal cortex is "the part of the brain that is responsible for most of human intelligence". But in his own definition of mind he does not make mind responsible for intelligence. Our intelligence and our ability to reason do make us different from animals which might correlate to the size of the frontal cortex but not the mind. Since this is the last round and I have unfolded all my views, I will now request the readers to vote for me if they find my arguments reasonable enough to convince them.
Mind has a material basis

Regarding study on NDE: 1. My opponent doesn't make it clear why the study is unscientific. There is no way to measure consciousness objectively, so there no other alternative but to rely on subjective experience. My opponent should also describe, what other method could have been used in the study to make it more scientific. 2. The question why only 18% of the subjects remembered the NDE can be answered by referring to our experiences in a dream state. How often do we remember dreams? When we do we hardly remember every single detail of our dream. In most cases we don't remember anything at all. So it is possible that the remaining subjects also had an NDE, but were not able to recall it. 3. & 4. There were symptoms other a than flat-EEG in the subjects such as fixed and dilated pupil on the basis of which any medical practitioner would declare them "Clinically dead". 5. There is no proof that even memories have a material basis. The common notion is that memories are stored in brain just like they are stored in a computer hard disk. But in absence of a comprehension of the exact mechanism by which memories are stored in Brain and retrieved back as well as the knowledge of a precise location in brain where memories are located the idea is no better than a fallacy. 6. I agree that DBT is a prospective theory. But it is by no means a complete theory. There are many questions that are left unanswered by it. And by any means it is a theory of the "dying" brain not the "dead" brain. 7. Our understanding of time depends on our mind and our state of consciousness. We are unable to account for time even when we are dreaming. But then there is no evidence to show that NDEs were not encountered "after" brain death in an altered state of consciousness. Regarding Meditation: My opponent stated "that monks achieve out of body experiences and blurring of consciousness by suppressing the posterior superior parietal lobe of the brain through deep meditation." That itself is a proof that the mind can control neural activity. When the mind breaks the boundaries of the body neural activity decreases. Regarding requirement of Brain transplant: Using my opponent's example, to use another computer in place of his own he would need a computer that he can access and that is not being used by another person. That will not imply he resides in the computer. Regarding the example of Mindless brain: I don't know how my opponent came to the conclusion that mice are not self-aware. What is the proof? Mice do not talk. (Stuart Little and Mickey Mouse being the only exception. But they are self-aware I suppose).
Mind has a material basis

Responding to my opponent's most recent arguments: He says, "I don't agree that is sufficient proof to conclude that mind is not an entity separate from the brain." My opponent has the burden of proof as the instigator. He cannot simply "doubt" my suppositions, but must prove that the mind is contained in some incorporeal entity. I have proven that we have always seen brain damage followed by a loss of mental function. If the mind resides elsewhere besides the brain, we should have observed at least one case of a "brain dead" individual continuing to be able to function normally. Since this has never happened, we can assume that the brain causes the mind to exist, and not the other way around. My opponent's analogy actually works against him. If the person is "the mind" and the computer is "the brain," then when the computer breaks, the person "the mind" should still be able to communicate since he or she does not reside in the computer ("the brain"). If my computer broke, I could still post to this website on a friend's computer. I could still call you and talk to you on the phone. However, when a real brain breaks, the mind is not able to communicate through another medium. If the mind resides elsewhere besides the brain, the impairments of the brain should not prevent it from communicating. It is a strange coincidence that the brain seems to be the only tool that the mind can use. Why can a mind not possess another person's brain? My opponent got it wrong – consciousness is actually a tool that the brain uses. If our brains did not give us the capacity to learn and think, they would have to be many times larger for us to be able to perform the same number of functions. My opponent then talks about causal relations. This is essentially what David Hume called the "problem of causation." It is impossible to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that A causes B. However, Hume had a solution. Hume's theory of induction was that we should rely on repeated observation and assume that the future would continue to be like the past. [1] Until we see a brainless mind, we should continue to believe that the brain creates the mind, not the other way around. If the mind is not dependent on the size of the frontal cortex, then why do animals not possess minds similar to our own? Because we see mindless brains (in some animals), but not brainless minds, the causation is clear. Vote pro [1] http://www.spaceandmotion.com...
Mind has a material basis

My opponent has proposed that as feelings, emotions and thought originate in the brain, Mind has a material basis since brain is material. To support his claim he has come up with example of behaviour of people with brain imparity. But I don't agree that is sufficient proof to conclude that mind is not an entity separate from the brain. The reason for my disagreement I will describe using the following example: - We all use computers/typewriters to write a letter efficiently and also to save time. But the letter is actually being written by us not the computer or the typewriter. Now, suppose for some reason the computer or typewriter gets damaged and doesn't function properly. For example, suppose the computer is affected with a virus that prevents the user from using it efficiently. We can't use the machine efficiently for our purpose, this diminishes our competence. The same thing happens to the mind of a person, who has a disabled brain. The brain is just an instrument of the Mind. When the brain malfunctions, the mind becomes less efficient. But only because of that it can't be said that the Mind has no existence without the brain. It would be like arguing that we don't have an existence without typewriters, computers and all the technology that we use. So my opponent needs to come up with a better supportive evidence for his claim that brain is the basis of mind. In this connection I find it pertinent to mention that research in the field of cognitive neurology has suggested that there are "causal relations" between the neural activity of the brain and "conscious experience" of the mind. But which is the cause and which is the effect has not yet been proven. It could be, as I explained above, that the Mind is responsible for all the neural activity going on in the brain, that we can study, and not the other way round as the common notion is. I contend that thoughts, feelings, emotions "originate" in the mind which is incorporeal unless it is proven otherwise by my opponent.