BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Confederate Flag is not racist and it should be seen as a proud symbol of a proud people.

Hi and thanks for this interesting topic to be discussed. I will prove two things: The Confederate flag is racist and fascist. The Flag, It represents not only a band of states into one nation but is a proud emblem of one untied people by a common religion, culture, and moral system. Most southerns that rep this flag are normally from English or Scottish background. Most people from the Appalachian region are one the earliest arrivals to America. So being the first wave of Europeans they are closest ones being to referred to as 'American'. Of course we know the Natives own this land for thousands of years before but since you all invaded the territory and slaughtered everything in it, it's yours now. Most of you are light skinned and light complexions along with a strong common bond from the Protestant religion. Most are Christians who do not pledge alliance to the Pope but rather God and God alone. You all have similar culture like hunting, fishing, camping, drinking beer, having family BBQ's and so on. You guys practice a strong family-based society and probably would want a ruler/leader likewise. What I have known from History (I live in Michigan) and from the common wages from the South or people from the States that previously tried to leave are the closest thing to an actual ethnic stronghold that can be one nation. Certainly still today for the mixing of negro and white are forbidden because the exchanging of genes of different races messes up sperm pools and so on. It reminds me of a untied proud people who are one, like a Franco controlled Espana or a Mussolini controlled Italia. Most people in the south under this symbol of confederation are right-winged and conservative just like fascists of Europe. You guys can not stand to look at a foreign large far away bureaucracy ruled by people not of nationality nor your religion nor your culture. They force to give to those are not of you and it ticks your nation off. You guys should honestly get a supreme leader and call him Pap's or something and let you guys rule yourselves. Honestly I wish the south won and got its freedom and watch it run back by the 50's because from slave labor and no manufacturing they would be third world. No why is the flag racist, because the flag represents the goals and aims of the past confederacy and probably some portions of the southern populations would still support African slavery. Slavery is racist, I await for arguments.
The Confederate Flag is not racist and it should be seen as a proud symbol of a proud people.

Thanks for accepting, and let's get this started! The BOP falls on both of us, as I have to prove that the rebel flag isn't racist, and you have to prove that it is. So firstly, I am going to debunk the most major argument against the rebel flag: The flag is flown by the KKK, or Ku Klux Klan, so this makes the flag racist. It is indeed true that the KKK flies rebel flags sometimes at their rallys. However, the KKK that flies it today is not in fact the original KKK. The original KKK that started as a vigilante group after the Civil War flew the Confederate Flag, not as a symbol of hatred or racism necessarily, but as simply a symbol of The South itself. They also considered themselves to be "at war" with the Radical Republicans, and since the Confederate Flag was a battle flag of the South, they decided that the flag would be a good symbol for their cause. Plus, back then the KKK was not a racist organization. They killed "Yankees", Republicans, and Blacks that they considered "uppity", meaning that they used their new found rights to harass and anger ex-Confederates. And, the second KKK, the one that started attacking Blacks simply for being Black, actually flew the American Flag much more then the rebel flag. http://flashbak.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Confederate Flag is not racist and it should be seen as a proud symbol of a proud people.

No anti-Southern slurs such as redneck, hillbilly, white trash, cracker, honky, traitor, and extremist. Round 1 is for acceptance opening statements only. I believe that The Confederate Flag, or the rebel flag, "racist" flag, and etc, is not a racist symbol. Lets define racism: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Praying in school

"unnatural way of gaining hope" So you're telling me the "natural" way of gaining hope is saying "I'll do better next time"? Not much of an argument. I think you're veering off-topic when you refer to nature in a religious debate. You keep attempting to justify your ignorance of faith by your own preference of belief which is biased. If your argument is that people get the same outcome whether they include God or not, it's pretty damn futile because there would be no real reason not to include God if that was the case.
Praying in school

Ok, that joke may have not been the best example. However if someone prays to god about becoming a better person,and then they become that better person. I feel that is an unnatural way of gaining hope because how come you cannot just say: "Man, ill do better on the next test." Then you study, and ace the upcoming test. Why do you have to include god? I believe that you will get the exact same outcome both ways. So what is the sense of including something that has less evidence than the people who survived the sinking of the Titanic. Sounds more like a false hope to me. I think that the final question is: Should children rely on themselves or god? Sorry for not being "realistic" enough for you. Once again, I apologize for any grammatical errors.
Praying in school

All of the major religions regard prayer as righteous, so how would I be singling out a religion? Secondly, you mentioned "what about all of the theistic religions". What about them? They can pray too can't they?And who says that everyone will be like this person in your "joke" and decline being saved by multiple different rescue teams? Conclusion:You refuse to accept prayer in schools simply because you're an atheist. You believe it is not logical to teach children faith because of your biased belief that prayer doesn't resolve anything. You refer to your joke throughout your argument believing that everyone who prays is like the person in your "joke", which isn't even a real situation.Therefore, you reasoning is pointless; fallacy is the only thing I'm able to deduce from it.
Praying in school

Let me refute your previous argument. I feel that your opening statement is biased, simply because it singles out on one religion, which is what I'm assuming to be Christianity. But what about other religions like Buddhism, or any other theistic religion for that matter? You cannot just infer that all of religion and prayer is equivalent to god and righteousness, that would be absurd! You need a better understanding of how broad prayer is. [1] My father has this amazing joke he use to tell me. Conveniently, it goes perfectly with this matter. Anyway, this man is trying to survive a hurricane. He's a diligent catholic who hasn't missed a Sunday mass in his life. So what does he do during all of this? He prays to his savior that he will live through this of course. But the water has gotten to his knees, and is still rising steadily. Persistently, the man continues to pray, because he KNOWS his god will save him. Thirty minutes have roughly passed and the man has now been forced up onto his own roof. Shortly after, he is greeted by a rescue crew that were taking people to safety. The man was offered to go with them, yet he declined because he KNEW that his god will save him. So the man continued to pray. That man was asked to be rescued countless times that day. Yet, all were declined for the same reason. The flooding had now gotten so bad, only a very small section of the man's roof remained. Then, the man was unpleasantly greeted by a rope. Looking up, the man saw that the rope was connected to a Coast-Guard helicopter, and was most likely there to save him. But of course the man said no and pushed the rope aside for his religion. The man drowned that day. So when he got to heaven, he asked god "How come you didn't save me god?" God said in reply, "What are you talking about? I sent 6 rescue crews and a helicopter." This joke is very crucial to my first argument. The dictionary definition of "prayer" states: "An earnest request or wish." As an atheist, I do not believe that this wish will be granted, simply because it has never been proved before. Therefore it is not logical to teach children to rely on faith, because it is simply not a fact. Yes, that is a very absolute thing to say, but what if it was a life-or-death situation? would it be logical to pray for somebody or do CPR on them first? Yes, you could say that praying promotes god and righteousness, but Americans do not live in a theocracy. *Ps: I apologize for any grammatical errors.
Praying in school

"If your argument is that people get the same outcome whether they include God or not, it's pretty damn futile because there would be no real reason not to include God if that was the case." THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. You will get the exact same outcome if you don't include God. SO WHY RELY ON PRAYER TO GAIN HOPE? As an Atheist this is something I do not understand, please explain. "So you're telling me the "natural" way of gaining hope is saying "I'll do better next time"? Not much of an argument." When you say: "I'll do better next time." You create hope in the sense of generating a greater, or a "better" outcome because you are aware of the previous consequences. It's funny how you seem to force yourself not to understand this incredibly simple concept. Another thing, how do not expect this not to biased or opinionated? its a religious debate, not a debate about how 2+2=4. I agree that I'm a one-sided person, but cant you respect my argument? I am a human being you know.
sports cars are dangerous

In reality, everything that humans acquire is put on them, meaning that if accidents happen it should be blamed on them however it should not be completely blamed on them. Sports cars are meant to be fast, agile, and luxuries but those same things could be the reason why they become so dangerous, for example, many dogs were bred to fight making them dangerous however most people have them just because they wanted a dog like that, but when the dog becomes aggressive and attacks people is it completely the owner's fault? the same thing with guns, most people have them for protection but at the same time, it could cause that individual or someone else harm. Sports cars are meant to be fast but sometimes that goes against them, even with experienced drivers, According to Maria Bailey, a New York daily news journalist wrote in an article created on February 15, 2015, that " Britain's Princess Diana tragically died after suffering massive internal injuries in a high-speed car crash in Paris on Aug. 31, 1997. The Princess of Wales, 36, was fleeing the paparazzi when her chauffeur crashed into a concrete pillar head-on in the Place D'Alma underpass " the driver and her boyfriend, Harrods heir Dodi Fayed, also died at the crash scene." Chauffeurs are usually excellent drivers but when in a sports car that is going at high-speed anyone could fall victim to fatal car crashes. Sometimes the luxury of these type of cars could be what makes them dangerous, according to Nassim Benchaabane, a senior journalist of St. Louis today news on November 5, 2016, " Three Kansas City area teens were in custody Friday night after they and two other suspects allegedly stole four new sports cars from a St. Peters auto dealer." This could have turned violent if someone tried to stop them because apparently one of them was armed, not only this happened but they end up crashing the cars as well," The three attempted to flee in the cars they stole but made it less than a mile before they lost control of each of their vehicles and crashed, police say." This proves my argument because it shows how the luxury of having these cars made teens steal them and also could have been injured by the cars. Benchaabane, N. (2016, November 05). Two Kansas City teens charged with stealing sports cars from St. Peters auto dealer. Retrieved from http://www.stltoday.com...
sports cars are dangerous

Though sports cars may be dangerous, that is just the car itself. The ability for a sports car to drive 200 mph is in control of the person actually driving the car. It is their choice to drive that fast and it is their choice as to if they want to drive a sports car. There are plenty of other cars that are not sports cars. Sports cars are not dangerous, they are simply a car that can become dangerous depending on the drive and their decisions/actions. While most people think that driving a sports car is inherently dangerous, they are often the platform for which new safety technology is developed. According to protocars, an online newsletter by Jack Schmidt on July 28, 2016, this technology then makes its way into consumer vehicles. High tech suspension systems which allow a car"s wheels to move independently come from racing where it is imperative that all four wheels remain on the ground. New tire technology and better braking systems are also developed for fast cars first. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the roll cage, a system of metal tubing designed to protect race car drivers from being crushed in the case of an accident, has been modified in order to strengthen the structure of consumer cars. This evidence supports that sports cars are not dangerous because high tech technology is being produced specifically for sports cars to ensure that accidents do not happen as often if a driver gets into an accident. Schmidt, Jack. "7 "Facts" About Sports Cars Everyone Thinks Are True." Proctor Cars Magazine, 28 July 2016, www.proctorcars.com/7-facts-about-sports-cars-everyone-thinks-are-true/.
sports cars are dangerous

Yes, each time sports cars are being enhanced with extra protection to further improve the driver's experience however sometimes you could have a sports car that is said to have an amazing rating in safety and be in a track that is meant to give the driver an incredible moment to remember and all that could fail. According to Jack Baruth, a former professional BMX racer, cycling instructor, and cycling/auto journalist, perhaps best known for writing the "One Racer's Perspective" and "BMX Basics" columns wrote in an article for R/T (Road and Track) on February 15, 2017, SpeedVegas is "had spent the time and money to create a purpose-built track for the "supercar experiences," one that was specifically optimized to reduce risk for drivers and instructors. I haven't driven the SpeedVegas track, but I've done an endurance race at the EXR facility and I have to say that I was very impressed. It would be hard to have a serious crash there; the track surface is surrounded with deep pea gravel. My race partner (and brother) Mark went off backwards into that gravel at maybe 90mph during our race; he came to a halt thirty feet off the track surface with nothing injured but his pride." but this did not change the fact that two people lost their lives driving a sports cars," a customer at "SpeedVegas" lost control and crashed the supercar he was driving. In the fire that followed the impact, both the customer and the SpeedVegas instructor in the right seat lost their lives. The name of the customer has not been released. The instructor was Gil Ben-Kely, a double cancer survivor who had made a career and a life coaching supercar renters in Las Vegas.". This evidence showed that no matter how much improvement are implemented in sports cars or in the track that it may be driven in, it will not change the fact that people will attempt to drive at 200 mph and end up with injuries that may lead to death. Baruth, J. (2017, October 06). That "Supercar Experience" Could Be More Dangerous than You Think. Retrieved from https://www.roadandtrack.com...
sports cars are dangerous

While it is true that a sports car has the potential to be dangerous, this fact holds true for any vehicle traveling at extremely high speeds. Sports cars are not dangerous because throughout the years there have been hundreds of tests for sports cars to be safe and continue to run more and more tests to make every single sports car as safe as it can be. According to an article on February 18, 2014, found on a website about cars which is a leading two-sided digital automotive marketplace, said that sports cars include features that help with control, like antilock brakes and electronic stability systems. These features allow sports cars to make sharp turns without falling over or falling off the side of the road as a truck or SUV would. This evidence supports my claim because it shows that sports cars have extra precautions and safety due to the amount of speed that these cars can reach. Also found on this website, there are now front, side, side curtain and knee airbags. Sports cars are becoming more equipped with extra safety, Instead of just one airbag for the driver and the passenger, in these cars, there are added airbags to ensure more safety to more parts of your body. http://www.cars.com...
sports cars are dangerous

sports cars are dangerous and should be driven with extreme caution, especially teenagers because not only are teenagers unexperienced at driving but when they do drive they tend to show off. According to many studies done by the IIHS HLDL (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute),"No matter what they drive, teenagers are more likely than drivers their parents' age to crash. The extra risk is amplified for teens on motorcycles and in sports cars, a new analysis shows." In an article by Motorlogy, a newspaper website for cars, on November 17, 2011, it is stated that "When you're riding a motorcycle or driving a sports car, there's a greater temptation to go fast and show off," says Kim Hazelbaker, senior vice president of HLDI, an Institute affiliate. "Teenagers are probably more susceptible to that than experienced drivers." By saying this they explain that not only would a teenager want to show off driving a car at high speeds but they would more do so with those that are sports cars which is dangerous because many sports cars surpass 160 mph and an inexperienced teenager would find it difficult to control a car at that speed. In the same article, it is also stated that "Midsize sports cars have the third-highest ratio of teen to prime-age-driver claim rates and the highest among automobiles. Their teen claim frequency of 14.9 is 2.5 times the rate for prime-age drivers". This shows that since again, teenagers are amateurs at driving they will find driving a sports car more complicated than a prime-aged driver. Sports cars increase teen drivers' risk. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iihs.org...
sports cars are dangerous

To conclude, sports cars are not dangerous but the driver of theses vehicles are the main cause of the "danger", and many tests and studies are take place to ensure that these sports cars are safe as possible when being driven. Drivers are in control and they can choose to drive another car if they feel that sports car are to dangerous, but in reality the same exact thing will happen in another car, a car crash is a car crash, it does not matter what type of car you are in. According to Personal Injury News & Developments, published August 14, 2017 by Jonathan Rosenfeld, Michonne Proulx, Ethan Armstrong, having a "fast car" or a "traditional" car, the four factors that contribute to the vast majority of collisions are the following: Driver behavior, Poor roadway maintenance, Roadway design, Equipment failure. They found that more than 95% of car accidents are related to driver behavior in some way, related to the three factors previously stated. Even though drivers are quick to blame other drivers, equipment failure, and road conditions for possible accidents, and the primary cause is usually the behavior of the implicated driver. Aggressive driver behavior or excessive speed is always going to be more of a factor than the vehicle you are doing it in. This evidence supports my side of the argument because it provides elements and statistics as to why sports cars are not dangerous but the driver is the reason for dangerous activities to happen. Rosenfeld, Jonathan, et al. "Does Driving a 'Fast' Car Put You at Risk For an Accident?" Personal Injury News & Developments, 14 Aug. 2017, https://www.rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com...
Manditory prayer in public schools

I have become angered recently after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that some right wing politicians and religious groups have said removing God and prayer from school is what caused the shooting, as well as other shootings in recent years. So I am challenging a Christian who actually thinks having mandatory prayer in schools will prevent school violence to a debate. The debate will be three rounds, I hope we can keep it civil, and I prefer my opponent be a Christian like I said before, as they are the ones who are calling for this measure be implemented.
If your an Atheist bring it on.

This argument is less about the existence of god, and more focused on the concept of whether or not atheists have ethics. To even debate the concept of an existing invisible man, or god, that does not directly intervene in the lives of people would be frivolous. To your credit, IF life had no organization, IF society did not have have general consensus on morality, and IF there was nothing governing our actions making us able to act without consequence to ourselves, then the world would operate as "hell on earth". Luckily, life does have organization and society interacts, debates, and reaches consensus on ethics. Further, there are governing bodies that help facilitate the process of consequences against criminal actions. These are not necessarily God-based, but there are definitely correlations between laws today and religion. As long as society interacts with one another, agreement on laws and morality will occur. Example, if I want to prevent murder, I can reasonably agree with my neighbor that if he doesn't try to kill me, I wont assassinate him in any way. For theft, if I want to maintain possession of all of my belongings, and my neighbor wants to keep his, I can agree with him that we should not take from one another. These don't require a God, or higher being to obtain, it just requires interaction within society. To your points that the Aztecs and Barbarians did not believe that murder was wrong, you are mistaken. Those races were not savage by any means. As an example, the Vikings had complicated laws that made practical requirements for why one would kill another person. Murder was not acceptable unless an individual committed a dishonorable sin. The laws of the Vikings actually turned out to be more complicated than many of the laws of today's governing bodies. For the Aztecs, they were actually a peaceful people, and it was the Christians who treated them as savages by killing, raping, and enslaving them. Thankfully, people who believe in the bible today are more civilized than their predecessors. It only took a 116 year Crusade into the Middle East to kill Muslims and a few instances of enslaving anyone who might have looked or thought differently to calm them down. Alas, I apologize for straying from my point. An Atheist can have practical morality without the need of a book or religion because people are self interested. Someone is, often, not going to act too far out of society's norms because they will feel the reprisal from it. Knowing that there are laws, rules, stringent requirements on people is exactly what causes positive conformity within society. Atheists are not a foolish people by any means, they merely do not believe in the existence of god. That does not, however, mean they are unable to rationalize what treatment they should give others in society. Hopefully this helps you understand the nature of the godless atheist swine. I look forward to your response! :-)