BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Battle Of the Racists: I'm more racist than you..

Right Right cos Russia are soo superior? Apart the eastern bloc, how many colonies do u have? Even the french, Dutch n Portuguese have more overseas colonies than Russia. Anyway allow me to expand on why Indians are so racist, india ain't even a country, it's like 32 States pretending to get along, much like America. Il dip in to the caste system quickly, so you get the jist. U have my clan, the Jatts, now we a bunch of rowdy egotistical mofos, ancestorly farmers that somehow got to control the Indian music industry. Then there are the Turkhans [Carpenters], they rich snobs. Also the brahmins, who are priestly con artists. So you say you hate black people, Indians grew up around blacks, esp. in the 70s, so we close to them in a way, but we still discriminate anyman. Id say Indians are racist because we r hardwired for competition, that's why we have so many lawyers n doctors, our parents aren't really accommodating. Now that that's out the way, let's talk smack! White people are so dirty that your sister is probably your baby momma. Muslims so cheap, no wander u see them driving out dated pre-rented 7 seater cars all the time. Russia so backwards it needs to return to the ice age erry year. Black people so fast, cos they always running from the feds. Far eastern folk got nothing better to do than eat animal feces.
Battle Of the Racists: I'm more racist than you..

In a recent debate, I saw my opponent criticise Indians for being stereotypically smelly, however he doesn't know what he has gotten himself into. I mentioned that India is the no. 1 racist country, eg Indians have their own social hierarchy. So if anyone is gonna be racist, chances are they're Indian. Disclaimer: My grandparents came from India in the 70s so I'm a 2nd generation brit. The intention of this debate is not offend anyone, its purely for entertainment purposes to find out who can deal the best racial blows. Let's not make it personal, because science says Racists have insecurity problems, and one quick look at my main account (MRAAJ) you'd know im a volatile personality. R1-acceptance then go from there. I'll start by saying I'm naturally racist, for i was suspended twice in primary school for being racist, n i didn't even know what i said was offensive. You say indians stink, but i say yawl just alcoholics wanting to cause fist fights at the local polski sklep.
The idea and or concept of a higher power is essential for human growth and development

I agree to what my opponent has clarified and now I shall tell you why it is the case. Humans are very simple creatures, and from the beginning of our lives, until the very end, we want to survive and live comfortable. Example: Whether it be god or government these forms of a "higher power" unify us for the common but hard to reach goal of a happy and liveable life. Without the concept of something greater then ourselves how would the human race aspire to even reach the heights we have obtained?
The idea and or concept of a higher power is essential for human growth and development

I accept.The resolution my opponent will be trying to affirm is this: "The idea and/or concept of a higher power is essential for human growth and development." Or, in other words, it is necessary for human beings to believe in some higher power in order to come together for a common purpose, that common purpose being the progression of their species/civilizations (inadvertedly or otherwise).Looking forward to a succinct yet fruitful debate. Ball's in your court now, SinSyto; don't let it be a return ace.
your own baby

Yes, but that is with all. In life, everything can be good, until people start to abuse. Now, we still are human beings.. We make mistakes, but we have the ability to recognize that, and make a better choice next time. I don"t see where scientists can benefit from abusing with that kind of technology. They, as humans, wouldn"t make something to abuse their own specie. But even if they do, there are laws, and other people wouldn"t shut up when they start to go the wrong way..
your own baby

Either you like it or not, civilization is moving towards an era where we will not be humans anymore. And that can have very good side effects.. If we can choose those small details, imagine what else can we make. Will could me imunes to diseases, live more, be more smart, the posibilities are unlimited. And if we can do that, no one will be concerned about the colour of the eyes, or the air, because besides everything, the human race still don"t like to know everything, because its boring.
The law Intellectual Property is the mean of monopoly for big companies

In caveman times there was no government or law. Only the strongest survived and could not only mimic but kill those who mimicked them (far more severe than IP laws). So really that example was rubbish.When you speak of essential things like logs were to the cavemen, the essentials of life are not able to be IP protected. Someone can IP protect a method of getting water but never I protect water itself being used (only being used in a certain MANNER in an industrial process perhaps). Also you raised a completely new point by doing this and raising a new point in the last round of the debate is very poor conduct.The following contentions went 100% unaddressed for your entire debate.C#1: If the patenting law was not present then smaller companies would get copied from as their way of doing things is not their intellectual property and if anything monopolies would rise far more brutally and rapidly by mimicking their competitors' ingenuity.C#2: Large corporations would undeniably profit more, financially, from a lack of IP protection.C#3: There would have been absolutely no motivation for newly arising Pepsi to ever make a different recipe for Coke if it was legal to mimic it.C#4: There would also have been no reason for Coke to not begin making Pepsi recipe as well (which would have been ridiculously easy for they were millions richer than Pepsi when it began and could have advertised the recipe as their own much faster as well as made exclusive deals with other companies).You seem to be fixated on the fact that large corporations profit from it without realising how much more they'd profit without it and in fact how much easier it is for monopolies to form with an absence of IPRs.I conclude that Intellectual Property Rights are undeniably more beneficial to everyone except large corporations and they effectively prevent monopolies from arising.
The law Intellectual Property is the mean of monopoly for big companies

Imagine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy"let's call him Peter" decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Peter, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights. Furthermore, the ethical problems brought up by IP rights are most pertinent when it is socially valuable goods like life-saving medicines and genetically modified seeds that are given IP protection. For example, pharmaceutical companies that produce, apply IP rights in order to prevent other companies from manufacturing their product without the additional cost of research and development. The application of IP rights allows companies to charge higher than the marginal cost of production in order to recoup the costs of research and development. However, this immediately excludes from the market anyone who cannot afford the cost of the product, in this case a life saving drug. The availability problem is a consequence of the fact that the incentiving mechanism for innovation constituted by IPRs establishes a direct link between the incentive to innovate and the price of the innovative product. Under an IPR driven regime, profits are generated exclusively from sales. This means that the higher a price a product can command on the market, the higher is the incentive to invest resources into the R&D process of it. An IPR driven regime is therefore not a regime that is conductive to the investment of R&D of products that are socially valuable to predominately poor populations.
The law Intellectual Property is the mean of monopoly for big companies

Let me get this straight... The IP protection law is erroneous and unfair due to the fact that it requires the spending of money to large companies? The irony is that the repugnant ignorance of the fact that large companies would undeniably profit more, financially, from a lack of IP protection is so very present throughout my opponent's case.Why do we have the wonderful drinks of Pepsi and Coke? I say wonderful based on the multi-million dollar income per annum of the corporations. Well, the reason is simple due to IP laws. There would have been absolutely no motivation for newly arising Pepsi to ever make a different recipe for Coke if it was legal to mimic it and no reason for Coke to not begin making Pepsi recipe as well (which would have been ridiculously easy for they were millions richer than Pepsi when it began and could have advertised the recipe as their own much faster as well as made exclusive deals with other companies. They would simply make a bottle named Cocavolution or something indicate an evolved version of Coke and use Pepsi's exact recipe (not too hard since all they'd have to do was to get a bottle of Pepsi take it to their labs and use their high tech equipment to determine the recipe which would hardly be too different from coke. Thus Pepsi would never have arisen and the quality of the drink would never have improved since there'd be no reason for coke to care as they would have thwarted Pepsi undeniably from the competitive market.What's so wrong with Microsoft's copyright protection? Is Apple any better? No. It simply makes it fair.
The law Intellectual Property is the mean of monopoly for big companies

My opponent argues that IP law makes market more diverse and fair to compete. However, I strongly believe that IP law makes market more unfair. Fiirst, The stated objective of most IP law is to "promote progress", which implies by exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and creative works society and the patentee/copyright owner "Mutually Benefit". However, the public interests are harmed by ever expansive monopolies in the form of copyright extensions, software patents, and business method patents. Also, many of scientists and engineers are expressing concern that patent tickets are undermining technological developments even in high-tech fields. For example, Microsoft Corporation is frequently criticized as most of the people know. Like my opponent says, it might be beneficial for small companies to have IP. However, for those who don't have enough technological level to make their own IP and have to derive big companies' IP to earn money, they have no choice but paying huge money, which means unbalance of market.
The law Intellectual Property is the mean of monopoly for big companies

Le me amend the resolution so it makes perfectly clear sense:The Law of Intellectual Property (also known as Patenting) is the means by which monopolies are forming as large corporations.I disagree with this because if a smaller company patented their way of doing something then the large corporation couldn't so it's a wonderful way of allowing diverse competition. If the patenting law was not present then smaller companies would get copied from as their way of doing things is not their intellectual property and if anything monopolies would rise far more brutally and rapidly by mimicking their competitors ingenuity.
Same-sex marriage (USA ONLY)

A word about burden of proof. In a debate Pro has the burden of proof. This is intensified when Pro is also the instigator. This debate is no different. As such, my opponent has the burden of proof to show beyond reasonable doubt that what they are asserting is true. In this case my opponent has made two assertions, which lead to a conclusion. In order to affirm the resolution my opponent is required to prove that1) Marriage is a fundamental right2) All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights. Which leads to his conclusion that same-sex couples should have that right. RefutationThis may seem strange, but I do not disagree with my opponent's syllogism. Marriage is indeed a fundamental right, as has been shown by my opponent's quotation. Furthermore, all citizens in good legal standing are entitled to that fundamental right. Where I disagree with this assertion however, is the conclusion. Let us observe the defintion of marriage. According to the United States Legal Code, Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 7, titled "Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse,'" marriage is defined as follows:"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. " [A]To summarize that, the fundamental right to marriage is refering to a legal union between one man and one woman. Therefore, when we flesh out the syllogism to include this defintion we ge the following.1) The right for a man to be legally united to a woman (or a woman to be legally united to a man) is a fundamental right2) All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights3) Therefore, same-sex couples have the right to be legally wed to a woman (if a man) or man (if a woman). My opponent concludes by saying "marriage is a fundamental right, I have shown that all people are entitled to that right, and I have shown constitutional proof that it cannot be taken away. " My opponent is correct in his assertion that the legal right to be unified to a member of the opposite gender is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away. However, SSM does not fit this mold. My opponent ends with a series of questions. There is one common thread, it presupposes that SSM is already entitled to the afformentioned rights. This debate is not about protecting existing rights, as Pro has framed it to be. It is about redefining an existing legal standing. My opponent has burden of proof to show beyond a resonable doubt that this legal definition is substandard and should be changed. [A] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Same-sex marriage (USA ONLY)

Thank you to whoever accepts this. This is my opening argument.Please note that this debate is just referring to the USA.Opening syllogism1. Marriage is a fundamental right2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights3. Therefore, same-sex couples should have that right.Contention 1: I contend that SSM should be legal because marriage is a fundamental right.What is a fundamental right?Fundamental rights are the most basic of all rights. They cannot be with-held based on race, gender, sexual orientation or any other factor. They are rights that cannot be taken away.Evidence 1: Loving v. VirginiaMarriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.-Supreme court decision, Loving v. Virginiahttp://en.wikipedia.org......http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com......The supreme court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental right, therefore, to take away SSM is to deny the same-sex couples the right to a fundamental right. I ask you, if there is a ban on SSM, what is marriage then?I am aware that this Loving v. Virginia case is referring to interracial marriage, but the US supreme court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental right, therefore it cannot be taken away.Contention 2All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."-Section 1, Admendment 14In other words, anyone who is a citizen of the US have entitlements to life, liberty and property. No state can make or enforce any law that takes away those rights. Therefore, any attempt at a SSM ban, is unconstitutional. Because marriage is a fundamental right, it cannot be taken away.ConclusionIn this round, I have shown evidence that marriage is a fundamental right, I have shown that all people are entitled to that right, and I have shown contitutional proof that it cannot be taken away. Final questions1. Why should SSM be illegal?2. What secular reasons do you have for the illegalisation of SSM?3. Where in the constitution does it say SSM is illegal?4. Why shouldn't it be legal?I ask my opponent to forgive me for this seemingly lousy opening arguments, I am relativiley new to the site and am not the best writer.
The Holocaust actually happened

Abusive and unarguable mean kind of the same thing Abusive meaning there is obviously a side in which the resolution favors making it very hard or impossible to win on the other side hence my dilemma. The reason I jumped to unarguable is because that's essentially what this topic is because everyone involved agrees it happened there is physical evidence proving it and the naysayers are unquotable and unreliable. The reason this argument doesn't work is because the aff (my opponent) is so heavily stacked with info and sources that I the Negative have no choice but to agree hence the abusive and unarguable Kritik. The reason I did this was so that people might stop posting these topics that are useless to argue about because then they aren't even fun. P.S. just to win this debate- My opponent didn't attack any of my points with any support while I defeated all of his.
The Holocaust actually happened

I totally see your dilemma, but I have met a few holocaust deniers, and debated them before on other websites. They are more widespread than you think, but I must admit, there aren't too many. I don't quite see the"abusive" point you're making. Is it because you think my topic is unarguable? Believe me, it's definitely arguable. Also, I don't see how you jump from unarguable to abusive. That's a very big leap! for the past week or so I've been debating the same topic. I expected to find a holocaust denier but as that will not happen, I guess we can just call this thing quits.P.S. I guess I faiiled my "cold and logical" rule in my first argument. oops.
The Holocaust actually happened

I will prove why it is impossible to debate on this subject Look this is something that .000009 percent of the population agree with so I am going to call your argument and the topic abusive because this is something that is accepted as truth by all people and the only ones who claim not to know of such events are lying to promote public outbursts. So I am going to run a Kritik on the Resolution (saying why the resolution is bad and/or illegitimate) Firstly I would like to state it is the affirmative burden to prove why the resolution (topic) is not unfair to the Neg if he can do this he wins. Secondly I will prove why it is impossible to debate on this subject but in order to understand my position we must first dissect the word debate. Debate- (defined by merriam webster) a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something The definition clearly states to a discussion of two people expressing different opinions but when we live in a world in which that is impossible the topic is called abusive and the side showing that should win. Further proof is the fact that my opponent admitted to the aggressors of the holocaust confessed to the act and one may argue they lied but why? They weren't pressured to say so and my opponent and I agree to it therefore it is fact in the realms of the debate and must be treated as so and if my opponent is to go back on any of his words he is to be disqualified and lose immediately.
The Holocaust actually happened

Hello there! Three things I'd like to point out.1-I think Germans systematically killed Jews2-The Commandant of Auschwitz admits it3-I will endeavour to prove this. Emphasis on endeavour. E is for endeavour. Whatever. I would like to keep this as cold and logical as possible, so please, PLEASE don't turn this to ashouting match. Ok, my argument. Let me think about that.....I'm BACK!!! Say hello to my little friend! I mean argument.1. The Germans Admit it"It" being the systematic killing of Jews, Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz admitted to gassing and cremating Jews specifically. This was DURING the aftermath, not after it. They were not "pressured into" that decision because most people thought that. At the time, the news of all of this happening wasn't widespread, so it is against the odds for him to admit it without having the risk of being branded a liar.2. It isn't Possible to Cremate People on that Timeframe with that Many Crematoriums FoolishnessThey had 52 crematoriums in Auschwits, 1 person crematoriums. Gassing thousands of people a day and cremating them 2 hours per body with 52 crematoriums doesn't add up. ASSUMING that they didn't have bodies lying around waiting to be burned, took breaks from gassing people, and cremating them in other ways in a mass attempt to expose of evidence,like for instance, piling bodies in heaps and torching them without crematoriums. Which kind of proves my point about how they had waiting rooms to be cremated. Besides that, there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the horrors that happened.3. There aren't Documented Orders for Jew Extermination TangentYes, according to my info, there aren't. (Sobs.) It would make this a one-round match debate if I could prove it. But the holocaust-deniers fail to mention one key point, they can burn a few sheefs of paper, just like they can burn a few thousand bodies. (Not very well.The bodies were not very well-burned during the mass-cremation attempt. See point 2.)Well, that was interesting. If you can disprove me and prove your point, please do! Then I'llbe quite enlightened!P.S. Please don't shout at me. I mean shout at your computer. Cyber-shout. Whatever.