BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There will always be racism

My opponent seems to be basing his argument on speculations. To assume that constant interracial fornication will lead to the extinction of all other races, would imply that everyone on earth is not racist, thus allowing themselves to be with others outside of there race. We can assume many things from the "constant movement of humans throughout the planet", even that there will be no heterosexual couples since gay relations is so heavily accepted now. Since there will always be people that are intolerant of other races, I doubt your prediction of a single race will occur. I'm sorry to inform you that in today society, people can so each other for anything and many do. There are cases today where where companies are being sued because of suspected cases of racial and sexual discrimination. So if an official representing a company does openingly, or even discreetly denies employment of another by racial means then a lawsuit will be pending. Having come a long away, does not mean that the war against racism has been won, it simple means that progress has been made and a battle or two won. My opponents states 1."there is NO evidence that says that racism won't be abolished in the next thousand years.." and 2. "racism is clearly not an iherent part of people..." finally 3."can be killed with education". Rebuttal for #1: I can simple argue your statement by saying, there is NO evidence that says that racism WILL be abolished in the next thousands years, or ever. Evidence tends to prove or disprove something, and the belief that the world may one day consist of only one race is just that, a belief not evidence (1.). Rebuttal for #2: I do agree with my opponent that racism is not an inherent part of people, since inherent is existing in someone or something as permanent and inseparable, and evidence from history shows that people can change. However, I will argue again that though it is not inherent, racism can be inherited from the teaching of racist persons and/or organizations. Rebuttal for #3: Again I agree with my opponent, ignorance is the fuel to the flames of hatred, intolerance, and racism. Education is by all means a gateway to understanding and acceptance, that will aid in the abolition of racism. Once again we have to understand that education is a two headed coin, the same way education can be used to eradicate racism, education can be used to nourish racism. This draws back to my previous statement that racism will continue, because it will be taught to the offspring's of previous racist generations. Lastly, always in this debate and what i thought to be obvious is until the end of Earth. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
There will always be racism

We will not always have distinguishable race (necessary for racism) With the constant movement of humans throughout the planet, in the next thousand or so years, the dominant genes that give people dark skin pigmentation will have eliminated all other gene types and races, so we will all be the same race, probably a nice mahogony hue.We will not always have racism (necessary for racism) So let me get this straight, in literally the past hundred years we have gone from slavery, to an asian man being allowed to sue the a billion dollar company if he isn't employed because his eyes are to small. For this argument I extroplate. We are progressing towards eliminating racism at such a high speed, that there is NO evidence that says that racism won't be abolished in the next thousand years. Not today, not tommorow, but racism is clearly not an iherent part of people and can be killed with education. There is no reason to believe that racism will always exist if it possesses these qualities.We will not always have humans (necessary for racism)The sun has two million years left to sustain life. After that all humans freeze to death seven minutes afer it collapses into itself. So at max Racism will exist for two million years at most. Not "always". Plus, at the rate we are going humans will be extinguished long before two million years....
There will always be racism

Though the Civil Right Act was passed forty eight years ago, there is clearly still racial discrimination, and racism not only within the United States of America but in the world. Some may argue we have come a long way, and I concur. However, even though there are not public lynching of Black men, segregation of public places, and crosses burning on "colored" yards, racism is far from over and never will be. In 1964 the Public Law Bill, forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing (1). Over four decades later a study by labor economists and human resource specialists, found that black women are less likely to be promoted than males and white women (2). The word racism is not only defined as a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others, but also as hatred or intolerance of another race or other races (3). This is to say that racism doesn't only boil down to violent acts against one race by another, but even the intolerance of another is a act of racism. The fact of the matter is that there are still many people in our very own society that are racist. Though it can be agreed upon that said persons may not openly admit there racist ties, the fact that hatred organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan still exist and operate are proof of there existence. We live in a society where the average American watches almost 30 hours of television a week. Our media depicts African-Americans as violent, sexual driven, criminals more times than any other race. The Entman-Rojecki Index has found that it is four times more likely that an African-Americans mug shot will be featured in a crime story than a white person's mug shot. Stories about African-American suspects are also twice as likely to show the suspect restrained than stories about white suspects (4). With this daily showcase of blacks (and Hispanics) in this manner, it is not hard to understand why many Caucasians, and other races, associate evils with blacks. We do not know that striking a match can cause a fire, that Millard Fillmore was the thirteenth President of the United States, that Jesus died on the cross for you and me or simply that red+yellow=orange until we learn so. People that are not mean to others, are not disrespectful to others, and do not discriminate against others do so because at some point in time, in some way or fashion they were schooled that it is not right. It is only natural that a person, group, or organization that believes in something will attempt to preserve their belief by spreading it, and cultivate it by passing it on. This is why racism will never end, and intolerance of another will never cease, one believer will always breed more. 1. http://www.archives.gov... 2. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://theworldofdavid.wordpress.com...
Who has it worse? Men (For) or Women (Against)

Firstly I have to state that my opponent copied most of his points from Dr. Shaym with only leaving out the swear words in the video. Secondly Dr. Shaym is extremely biased and puts Laci Greens words out of context and makes it seem that Laci implied something else. As for the law, no people don't take the law seriously. If they did, they wouldn't murder, nor would they rape, nor would they steal. Obviously this isn't just the perpetrator fault, the justice system is in the wrong also. Then my opponent tries to state that the 2 minute stat could actually be longer. Let me remind everybody that just because a report about rape is not proven does not mean it's false. Dr. Shaym has a way of twisting words. He is not always right. Let me also remind everyone that a women gets raped every 2 minutes in America. Just in America. Not in other parts of the world, just in America. That's where the stat came from. So actually the stat is a lot lower than that. It could be "a women in the world gets raped every second." Let me give you some facts about America. -1 in 6 women will experience a complete or attempted rape. -1 in 33 men will experience a complete or attempted rape. Now lets do the simple math. 2 in 66 men will experience a complete or attempted rape. 11 in 66 women will experience a complete or attempted rape. So the ratio is 2:11 for men to women experiencing rape. Which is worse? By simple math, its obvious that the situation is much more worse for women than it is for men. [1] Here's another stat about America. -1 in 10 rape victims are male. That means, 9 in 10 rape victims are women. Lets do the simple math, 1:9. For every 1 male rape victim, there is 9 female rape victims. Which is worse? Obviously the females have it worse. [1] As for the wage gap, it is a stat that is too general for what we are speaking about. It is a myth so technically speaking, men and women in America are paid equally. That does not make men worse off than women. Then my opponent asks me a question which is not a point. My opponent still has not addressed women in different parts of the world so I will. Here are some stats. -3 million girls a year risk genital mutilation. -5000 women are victims of honour killings annually. -500,000 to 2 million people are trafficked annually. 80% are females. This proves that women have it worse. Are men trafficked as much as women? No. [2] Some women get killed just because their families can't provide enough dowry to the husbands family. That's women getting killed because their families can't provide dowry, not men being killed. Women in Africa are denied education. Did you know that millions upon millions of girls in china have either been aborted or killed because of the one child policy? And do you know why? Because they would not be given the same chances as a boy and therefore would not be as successful as a boy. The average ratio of boys to girls is 105:100. It got so bad in China that at one point it was 300:100. A generation of girls were killed in China just because women have it worse off than men. [1] https://www.rainn.org... [2] http://www.un.org...
Who has it worse? Men (For) or Women (Against)

My opponent has copied most of his argument from a YouTube video. YouTube is not exactly a reliable source of information. The YouTube video is at the bottom of my opponents argument on round 1 and it is narrated by a very biased man. Listen to the man and you will hear the underlying tones. Secondly, it is against the law to rape a woman because rape is against the law. I think that's pretty obvious. Then my opponent throws around three points that have little relevance to the fact that a woman in America gets raped every two minutes. [1] 1. Not all rapes get reported. 2. Not all rapes reported are proven to be true. 3. Rape could mean touching a woman inappropriately. I am pretty sure by now that this is just some dumb idea you got off of Dr. Shaym. Firstly not all rapes do get reported which means that actually, the 2 minute time lapse should actually be shorter. Not all rapes reported are proven to be true. Most rapes that are reported are are hard to prove. I know what rape is, I am not an extremist feminist. So all in all, the 2 minute stat should be shorter. In fact according to my citation only 26-37% of rapes are reported. So actually only about one third of raped are reported. Most rapes that are reported are too late. The evidence is destroyed and there is no way to prove it. That doesn't mean that the convicted never did it. Nor does it mean the convicted were guilty. It's hard to determine. And I know what rape is as does every justice system in America. Then my opponent practically quotes what Dr. Shaym said leaving out all swearing and insults towards Laci. The FBI report was not valid as Dr. Shaym reported. Then my opponent refuted me with a rhetoric question and some stats. 1 in 6 men get abused. 1 in 3 women are abused. I think by simple math you can tell which one is worse. My opponent states the wage gap is a myth all because Dr. Shaym probably said that without actually proving it. And the only citation my opponent gives is a YouTube video. So all in all my opponent practically copied most of his argument from a random guy on YouTube who was bashing a feminist. And my opponent only addressed women in America. Women in China, The Middle Easy, Africa and many other countries have it much worse than men. [1] http://www.paralumun.com...
Trump ought to be impeached

If you wish to debate, note: I am willing to take either side of the debate. I have no real stake in the matter of Trump presidency, and only wish to intelligently debate the divisive topic. Leave a comment, if interested, telling me which side you would like to take. If I think you're up for it, I'll be happy to invite you. No half-clever semantics, no side-stepping of burden of proof (both sides have burden of proof to their claims). Just a substantive debate about current affairs, such as a political analyst might be convinced by. Thank you for your interest. Edit: Thank you to JohnSmythe for taking up the debate. I will argue that Trump ought to be impeached on ethical and legal grounds. We will posit our initial arguments in Round 2.
The KLINGTONGS show their stripes by trying to DISENFRANCHISE Obama Voters 6 days before NV Caucus !

Clearly Solarman1969 has no response or cannot come up with a credited response in this debate. WRONG Clearly the Clintons are smearing Obama left and right,and trying everything to get their power back All you have to do is watch the day to day news and you democrat types will become DISGUSTED with the way the Clinton machine treats Obama GO OBAMA! Slay the Evil KLINGTONGS!
The KLINGTONGS show their stripes by trying to DISENFRANCHISE Obama Voters 6 days before NV Caucus !

Clearly Solarman1969 has no response or cannot come up with a credited response in this debate. I don't know if he is afraid to debate this issue knowing that he is wrong in every way possible? and knowing that he does actually not know what he is talking about? I believe what he talks about is just some crazy information that he might be getting from his neighbors or his family?
The KLINGTONGS show their stripes by trying to DISENFRANCHISE Obama Voters 6 days before NV Caucus !

Ahh Mr. Solarman another great time to debate with you! so you believe Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Clinton are "the most corrupt, most power hungry, most stalinistic, scariest, most evil people ever to hold the office of president" and who do you refer to when you say "I actually like the guy, even though he is a hopless liberal marxist" ? please learn to spell first. Stalinist is the word you are looking for, hopeless is the other word, and Marxist, not marxist. Do you know the difference between Stalin and Marx in the first place? Secondly, the most corrupt, power hungry, scariest, evil people to have ever hold the office of the president probably is the Bush family, or the Kennedy family. The Bush family is highly corrupt, and stupid. Kennedy family is fairly corrupt and go deep into our nation's history. I would worry more about Huckabee being crazy, scary, and evil.. He is a replicate of current president Bush. There really is no difference between him and Bush. Clinton has actually helped a lot of people in NY and AR. Get your facts straight before you try to come down on the hammer :)
The KLINGTONGS show their stripes by trying to DISENFRANCHISE Obama Voters 6 days before NV Caucus !

I have repeatedly said that the Clintions are the most corrupt, most power hungry, most stalinistic, scariest, most evil people ever to hold the office of president they will STOP AT NOTHING and SAY ANYTHING to get elected and get POWER So EVIL is Hildebeest that she tried straight up STALINIST tactics to try and DENY Obama votes She, through her TEACHER UNION THUGS, tried to SUE to overturn election rules JUST MADE by the national dumbocrap party last summer, which allows the POOR MINORITY WORKERS in the casinos to VOTE in the primary Obama recently received the support of the powerful 60000 member employees union ,which encompasses the workers in the casinos SHE LOST THE RULING TODAY! YEAH ! GO OBAMA! Slay the EVIL KLINGOTNG MACHINE! SEND THEM BACK TO ARKANSAS FORVEVER! (SEND HUCKABEE BACK THERE TOO ! ) BOTTOM LINE THIS SHOWS THE EVIL BACK STABBING LYING POWER MONGER NATURE OF THE KLINGTONGS I may even vote for him if he can beat the evil Klingtongs I actually like the guy, even though he is a hopless liberal marxist It is just REFRESHING to see SOMEONE take on the KLINGTONG MACHINE with GUTS question is WHAT WILL THE CLINTON MACHINE DO NEXT ? What evil will they do? Remember Obama- DONT GO TOO NEAR FT MARCY PARK ! OR GET IN ANY SMALL PLANES
Logan Paul's dead body video should not have been uploaded to YouTube and put in "trending"

Rebuttal:The "there's alot of suicidal video in social media" argument.The con person's argument is very flawed. This argument presented by him does not show that it should have been uploaded, this argument is not relevant to this topic/subject, so this is useless.My point:Videos, as clearly made by YouTube's community rules, should not be uploaded if they contain content that is violent, gory, sexual, abusive, threatening, targeting protected minorities or groups, or support for terrorism. Videos showing corpses should most certainly not be uploaded. As there are younger audiences who can view the videos without paying attention to the warnings. YouTube was designed to be a very friendly platform for sharing music, news, sports, personal, entertainment, and other subcategories. Being that there was a corpse in his video, he should have not uploaded the video to YouTube because it clearly violated the terms of service, and community guidelines/rules.Second Rebuttal to other points mentioned:There is nothing to excuse him from what he did. He clearly knew what he was doing, and still took action to upload the video to YouTube. How did he make a mistake despite knowing that there was a body, and still uploaded the video? He should have simply deleted the video, then keep it as it is. He intentionally uploaded the video, faced severe criticism, and then he deleted the video. There was no mistake, he intentionally uploaded the video, despite knowing what his viewers were about to witness. Conclusion:The Con person has failed to present a good argument.
Logan Paul's dead body video should not have been uploaded to YouTube and put in "trending"

there's alot of suicidal video in social media, but the top of it is someone that to a LIVE Record of their own suicide in social media and everybody who seen and heard the news about live recorded suicidal give the their condolences and didn't give any sh*t about it. logan paul looks like he was just an innocent on his own video. i know what he does is closing up the camera to show us the hanging death body on the tree and upload it. but the point of video he just shocked and his friend try to call the police too!. if we just being crazy on his video because he uploaded it, we should think. logan is actually shocked but he wasn't that long to think, what he supposed to do. he wants everyone to know that he is shocked and he also gave some advice to not do suicide. i do belief it was just an accident, he doesn't mean to record the dead body, all he wants is just exploring the forest and... something went wrong. there's alot of gore videos in the internet but the victim and the suspect weren't famous as logan. logan has reputation on himself, he is a public figure, alot of people know him, and here he is. at the very least he already say sorry and deleted his video. it shouldn't be in trending page of youtube but you know who just make it?? the viewers man!! *i actually want to be the pros of this debate, but i want to train my critical thinking here... thanks :D (ignore this)
Logan Paul's dead body video should not have been uploaded to YouTube and put in "trending"

I will argue that Logan's stupid video should have not been uploaded to YouTube, and it shouldn't have been place in the "trending" category. (second video is re upload with clips.) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...The rules: 1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossRound 1 is to accept.2 for debate/rebuttals.3 for conclusion.
This house would open a kindergarten in geriatric hospitals

What do you think will happen if we open a kindergarten in the asylum for the elderly? The age gap between these little kids and the elderly is copious. However these two groups can help each other just by having conversations and doing activities together. Kindergarten children are like pure water. However the elderly are like well-saturated beer, who experienced the bright side of life as well as the bitter taste of life. I am a firm believer that these two groups can affect each other in a positive way.
This house would open a kindergarten in geriatric hospitals

Rebuttal1. Pro said that they might get diseases. It is the same thing, if we put a 10 year old child with 100 people with MERS. Right now Pro is saying that they won't get a disease. Also there are some diseases so it will get pasted on.2. This is plain nonsense. Of course they might be happy and energetic, but then they might no remember their memories.Also you did not rebutWhy I should win1. I rebut his points, saying that children can get diseases2. Made good arguments3. Pro did not write a rebuttalVote for Con!!!
This house would open a kindergarten in geriatric hospitals

It is true that young children might get disease from elderly who are ill. However, the elderly often gets small diseases because of their weak immune system. On the other hand, young children has an immune system that is spirited, so there shouldn't be any cases that young children gets disease from the elderly, Moreover, most of the eldery is sent to a geriatric hospital because they are too old to do physiological activities like going to a toliet, making food and eating with a spoon. So, there aren't many elderly who has diseases in geriatric hospital. My second argument, Not only the children gains benefits from this policy. The elderly are physically aged human, but they are like 99celsius water who are waiting to boil. They are willing to do outdoor activities but in reality they are stuck in an uncomfortably narrow elderly hospital, with no sunlight illuminating in. Inside the suffocating hospital, the energetic little children are bright little bright suns, that will shine the elderly. In this case, children makes the elderly energetic and makes them happy. By looking at the little children's pure little faces, the elderly can flashback their memories.