BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
90% of Black homocides are done by other Blacks... and Democrats race bate over the 10%

If it were not so deplorable, it would be laughable what Democrats do to keep a strangle hold on the Black vote. They obviously have no problem with the 90% of murdered African Americans because Black on Black murders get Democrats no votes. They should be outraged if they truly cared for Black people but as we all know they seemingly could care less about the actual lives of Black men. They much more care about the Black vote. If they cared about the lives of Black men they would address the gangs, the dead beat fathers who walk out on their children, the dead beat mothers who get pregnant with no husband to get more welfare money(and that includes white mothers), etc. etc. So what we end up with, thanks to a Liberal media that plays the same political games, is a brainwashed electorate who keep voting for these corrupt politicians who keep pushing the lie that it is the GOP White men holding Black people back. For Democrats, they do not want you thinking it has anything to do with despicable fathers who leave their children to a life on the streets. For Democrats it has nothing to do with personal choices and irresponsible behaviors. For Democrat politicians the plight of African Americans is only important as far as the political benefits that can be dirived from their problems. This is why after 50 years of Democrats pandering to the Black vote, it just keeps getting worse for African Americans with record numbers on the welfare roles. They are right where Democrats want them to be, tied to Government and guaranteed votes. Please stop rewarding the race bating in the Democrt party. Please have a little compassion and humanity for those who need to be told the core reasons for the problems in the lives of African Americans. I'm not singling out African Americans as if they are the only ones with problems, I'm speaking to the Democrat party that uses them as political tools.
90% of Black homocides are done by other Blacks... and Democrats race bate over the 10%

I am by no means blaming the rich for the economic state of America. I actually grew up in the home of two one-percenters, both dentists. However, what you suggest about tax cuts for the rich simply makes no logical sense. Even with increased taxes, one-percenters are not going to be homeless! As great as your success story was, it doesn't seem to be happening statistically with a lot of African-American families. If your future plan for the American economy is to widen the economic gap between the upper and lower classes, be my guest. However, I wouldn't want to be on the bottom side of that, and I don't think any African-American with common sense would want to be either. As for your final statement about the African-American community, why is this the Democratic Party's issue? If this was indeed an economy for the rich, maybe the African-American community should start focusing on teaching children to be good businessmen and women? For my closing statement, I will summarize our debate and deliver a conclusion. Pro claims that Democrats are using race to bait voters, Con responds with argument that Democrats are providing more benefits to the middle and lower class, where the majority of African-Americans stand. Pro then refutes this by saying that Democrats are detrimental to the middle class, and beneficial to the lower class. Con then states the fact that African-Americans are the highest demographic in the lower class, and that it would not make any sense for tax cuts should be directed at a class that needs them the least. Pro responds by claiming that socialism is destroying the nation, and that African-Americans should vote to support their white bosses. My final conclusion is simply this. Is it not logical to reduce taxes on the poor and increase taxes on multi-millionaires and billionaires if you were an African-American voter? Why would you elect a party whose socially conservative views would allow illegal immigrants to come and take your job for a lower wage? Why would you support a group of people who shipped off a lot of their factory jobs to countries like China or Indonesia? It isn't a matter of race, it is a matter of making money and living the American Dream.
90% of Black homocides are done by other Blacks... and Democrats race bate over the 10%

You sound like the poster child for the Democrat(Socialist) party. You spew the same old tired rhetoric of class warfare, taking from one group to give to another group rather than addressing the root cuases of poverty. I grew up in what today would be called a poor household and guess what? My parents never asked Government for help because they believed in helping ourselves rather than begging for charity from other tax payers. We never felt poor because we had the love of family and enjoyed our lives without the need for all the toys in life. I stayed in school because I had a Mother and Father home teaching me responsibility. They made me do my homework, they made me stay in school, they had rules that kept me out of trouble and away from the bad elements, and guess what? IT WORKED!!!!!!!!! I graduated from high school, got a job in a factory as a machinist, and never looked back. Never once did I ask for charity from tax payers just as my parents taught me by setting the example. It's all about our upbringing and the values we are taught from our parents. Now you tell me why I didn't need Government to support me, nor need them to take more taxes from those who create our jobs. The Rich created that factory job and I was very thnkful for it. I could care less if the owner of that company got rich. He deserved to get rich, HE GAVE ME A JOB! I was not smart enough nor had the energy or ambition to start a business. Because of those who do take the risks and do the hard work to start busnesses I was able to raise my family, enjoy life and save for retirement. Your Sociaist mindset is what is destroying this nation. It is truly sickening to hear people such as yourself excusng away the core reasons for poverty and as always blaming the Rich. It ALL starts with the family and if you don't get that simple fact, it's unbelievable! The African American community MUST begin the conversation over the importance of personal responsibility, family, and quit alowing those on the Left to blame the White Republicans for their problems in life.
90% of Black homocides are done by other Blacks... and Democrats race bate over the 10%

Not to seem too abstract, but most houses are built from the bottom up. Thus, I don't think it is entirely wrong to build the American Economy back up starting with the lower class. African Americans are the demographic with the highest poverty rate, and Democrats are attempting to address that, unlike most Republicans who think that tax cuts should be directed towards the upper classes. The reason you aren't seeing a drastic change is the stubborn conservative House and Senate. If Democrats could finish work on the bottom of the bottom, I think you could see a larger middle class. Democrats can then deliver on a lot of their promises. However, when liberals in the White House and Congress try to do anything to help the lower classes, it is immediately shot down by the GOP. Meanwhile, the GOP constructs laws requiring Voter IDs, a law that has come under fire from many NAACP members, as well as local citizens. If the Republicans wanted a larger African-American vote, maybe they should think twice about angering their voters. As for your second argument that the struggle of the "Modern Black Community" is addressed by Conservatives, I would have to disagree as well. Your statement that all of this has to do with politics is almost completely false. Most of these troubled African-American families you speak of have been poor for generations. Do you know why? It is something called segregation. Yes, since the 1950s, these families have been kicked over and over by racist conservatives. As for your statement about education, let me respond with some questions. If you are living with a single mother, in a small run-down public housing development in the ghettos of a major city, do you think your main concern would be studying for that Chemistry test? If I was in that situation, I would try and get a job as soon as possible. That may involve me dropping out of school, and finding a minimum wage job. I would be forced to return to public housing, and raise another generation of poor African-Americans. It is a giant cycle, and I think African-Americans can see that Democrats have the ability to change that.
Moral subjectivism is false.

I thank Rational_Thinker for agreeing to debate this topic with me.I will be arguing that moral subjectivism is false or that there are good reasons for supposing that moral subjectivism ought to be rejected as a meta-ethical theory.DefinitionsI take moral subjectivism to mean:The meta-ethical view which claims that: Ethical sentences express propositions. Some such propositions are true. Those propositions are about the attitudes of people. [1]RulesRound 1 is for acceptance and clarification and/or added definitions.Rounds 2 - 4 are for argumentation.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

This should be a CX style debate. Pro will give a plan, Con will refute it. Anything (topicality, theory, k, da, cp, etc.) goes. This (R1 Con) does not have any argumentation, in order to comply with cx standard rounds, pro must skip r3. Here is how the debate should go: R1 Con - n/a Pro - 1AC R2 Con - 1NC Pro - 2AC R3 Con - 2NC Pro - SKIP (don't post anything) R4 Con - 1NR Pro - 1AR R5 Con - 2NR Pro - 2AR Only the tag and cites from the cards are necessary to be posted (author, year, work/url). If the legitimacy of a card is contested, post the card and complaint in the comments and the full text of the card must be uploaded in a timely fashion. Looking forward to a good debate!
religion should be banned

It should be interesting. My opponents first claim of why religion should be banned is that there is no proof of a god(s). Proof defined by Merriam-Webster is "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning" [1] There has been many proofs most commonly Ontological argument, Cosmological argument, and other less common ones such as C. S. Lewis's Argument from Reason and Argument from Morality. These establish the validity of the statement that there is a god, so there actually is proof. Second claim is that there is no benefit of a god(s). Well, according to Nigel Barber, Ph. D. , "Organized religions serve many different functions today from running charities and hospitals to generating laws and providing political organization. " and "According to the security blanket concept of religion, supernatural belief systems provide peace of mind and help believers to cope with the more stressful events in their lives. This is a valuable service because chronic stress increases blood pressure leading to heart disease, clinical depression, and contributing to a number of other health problems ranging from obesity to cancers. " [2] Third claim is that there is no scientific evidence of a god(s). I don't want what I said here to be misleading or misunderstood. I agree you can not prove god(s) existence scientifically, but that is because of limitations of science. Science studies the natural world like cats, planets, humans, etc. However, any god would exist outside of nature, and therefore, could not be studied like we could study Mars. That is the job of Theology. Fourth claim is that there is that religion encourages stupidity in children from a young age by preventing questioning of religious preaching, this prevents growth in the brain and limits their mind's abilities. I must point out that this is a currently a claim lacking proof. Also, if this was true then Christianity would have never been reformed by Calvin or Martian Luther, because they should have taught as children to not question religious preaching, but as we know they did. Also, if this prevents growth in the brain and limits their mind's abilities then people who are brought up as religious should be less intelligent, but almost every person in history such as Einstein, Isaac Newton, the Founding Fathers have been the people we consider smart and set as role models. I would argue that religion benefits society. In 2012 just the Catholic church donated $70 million dollars to charity. [3] Also, as mentioned earlier it is good for individual health. "There has long been a correlation between being a churchgoer and longevity" [4] Also the American Civil Rights movement was heavily influenced by religion and religious leaders such as Reverend Martin Luther King. [5] Concluding, religion should not be banned. Sources [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] . http://www.catholicnewsagency.com... [4] . http://abcnews.go.com... [5] . http://www.gilderlehrman.org...
is roblox or minecraft better? ( con roblox pro minecraft.)

i have to say i hope you will debate... i dont want it to go quickly through. so roblox and minecraft have many things in common. but roblox is better, in minecraft many people say that there are diffrent worlds, well i dont think that is true. in roblox you may call them worlds, but most people call them servers, you can look at roblox.com to see for yourself what i mean. roblox has many exciting and wonderful things as well. you can design, make,create,build,and do almost anything you want to your own world! as well as groups, and forums, minecraft may have forums and groups, but in groups roblox highly outranks minecraft. robloxs group allow users to gain ranks, fight in group wars, and many other things! minecraft may have been a good game, but the makers have changed, it now has drugs,alchohal,etc. the old maker was a good guy and was fun. but the new maker has turned it around and made stuff as i said before. if you are a parent or soon will be do you want your kids thinking it is ok to do that kind of stuff at a young age? this is my debate.
To hold the idea of zero as not sufficient in-itself to be called a number is immoral.

By the definition, every member of the domain of 0 IS a member of the posterity of the 1st term; hence the successor of a member of the domain of 0 must be a member of the posterity of the first term (because the posterity of a term always contains its own successors, by the general definition of posterity), and therefore a member of the domain of 0, because by the definition of posterity of the first term is the same as the domain. All numbers do not have the same successor.
The US has a right to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The United States has thought for too long that we have the right and responsibility to tell other countries what they can and can't do. We are not the world's policeman, we are as imperfect as anyone else, and to those who say that Iran is a security risk I ask who the last country to start a major war was... That would be the United States of America correct? And here we are, with our 27,000 nuclear weapons, worrying about if some backwater Arab nation with no launch capabilities gets ONE? Here's the focus of my argument - We are Not the world's policeman. George Washington warned us against this kind of thing 231 years ago. We cannot drop the 101st Airborne into another Arab nation's capital city without a reasonable cause beyond "We don't trust them." I have a hard time figuring out why some will allow India or Pakistan to have nukes, when those two nations could end up nuking each other by sundown tomorrow. There are other more dangerous nations for us be annoyed with. I wouldn't worry about Israel. We've seen time and again they can take care of themselves thank you very much. And Iran won't nuke any of the other Arab nations because the influx of jihadists to Iran would make Iraq look like a picnic. The rest of the world has a right to advance and better themselves, and also to protect themselves from imperialists who seek to keep the old order of "Europe First" along with America because we're the only ones with nukes.
The US has a right to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

October 26, 2005: IRIB News files a story about a speech given to the "World Without Zionists" conference. In that speech, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad states that Israel should be "wiped off the map". Because of this, and other inflammatory statements made by the Iranian government, and giving the volatile nature of the region, I agree that the United States has a right to stop the Iranian government at all costs from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust

As my opponent has forfeited the third round, I shall finish up with addressing his arguments from the 2nd round. "not if your dog tags are returned home to your parents with blood stains on them." Again, so this means that all the men and women who died in world war 2 was for nothing important? Remember, they were also conscripted during that time as well. "Justice is not something you can buy, it is something that is earned" On the contrary, the quote, "Justice has a price, the price is freedom" has nothing to do with the cost of buying Justice, but rather, the price of UPHOLDING Justice. Justice has already been earned when the founding fathers fought for the right to an independant country. Its not like every baby that is born has to earn its right to justice. "my opponent thinks that giving up a few freedoms to be conscripted is a magic key to acheiving everlasting freedom but that couldnt be further from the truth." Not at all. I think that giving up a few freedoms will give us the ability to PROTECT our current freedoms. Although it is possible to FAIL in protecting our freedoms, the important aspect is that we fought to protect it, and that in many cases, we acheive this goal. I am not deluded as to believe that we can ever acheive everlasting freedom, or everlasting justice. But i do believe that we have the ability to protect our freedoms and justice from outside influences which contradict our current freedoms and justices. "a strict def. of conscription is the only way to provide adequate ground for debate" This is, again, absurd. The strict definition of Conscrpition is extremely vague. Every single recognizable person and dictionary agrees that Drafts and the Selective Service System is a form of conscription. "Compulsory is defined by Webster's online dictionary as required by rule." Yet, websters does not say anything as to what the extent of the rule is. And this is the point. Compulsory means "Required by rule". And if the rule is "People from ages 18 to 25 are to serve in the military for 2 years", that is STILL compulsory, as it is REQUIRED by rule. It doesnt MATTER if people aged 1-17 and 26-100 are exempt. The rule is STILL a rule. It is STILL compulsory. "If you are exempt a rule would no longer matter" We constantly use the term, "Rule of law". Yet, as we are all aware, there are multiple methods of avoiding the law. Does this somehow make the law, not a rule, or compulsory? Of course not.
I believe that Ferrari just released a new car.

My opponent has made a crucial error within the resolution. He has not justified that the resolution isn't what he's talking about. Therefore we must only assume he is trying to prove the resolution: that he believes Ferrari just released a new car.But what does "Believe" mean?As cited from http://dictionary.reference.com..., believe means to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.However, my opponent has absolute true proof. That news cite is only 3 days old. That's definitely "just released". The car is very new, looking quite modern and advanced. There is no way my opponent merely BELIEVES that Ferrari has "just released a new car". He KNOWS that Ferrari has released a new car.VOTE ME.
I believe that Ferrari just released a new car.

Ferrari just unveiled its newest car in america, the Ferrari F60 America. True or false? True, and they have all sold out! I wonder if Jay Leno bought one of the first ones, because he was the first American owner of the McLaren P1. But they are limited to only 10 models, and are based off a previous car's chassis, and engine, but entirely unique body styling. http://blog.caranddriver.com...
Our Sense of Morality Has Evolutionary Origins

DEFINITIONS:Evolution - The descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations. [1]Morality - a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons [2]Sense of Morality - The feelings we have about the morality of our actionsSOURCES:[1] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu......[2] . http://plato.stanford.edu......;
Public schools shuld not give out homework

I will be supporting the idea that homework is essential for a child's academic progress. Should schools be giving less homework? Maybe... but since this topic indulges us to completely abolish homework, I am inclined to defend the position that homework, even in small doses, is required for a proper education. There is no doubt that teachers may go overboard with the amount of homework they assign to their students. On other occasions, however, teachers under-assign homework. The education system is not black and white like my opponents topic presupposes, but a middle ground can be found. If I was asked to fix the education system there are many things I would implement, but none of them would cause abolition of homework, and here's why: 1. Homework allows for parents to guide educational advancement. ---Source: http://www.theallineed.com... - "Teachers need to have parents on their side, not for the teacher's benefit, but for the child's. When a parent gets involved and stays involved on a routine basis, this catapults the child to another level. A parent who reads to a child, models life-long learning, participate in school events and monitors homework time is doing his or her job of setting up the child for success." 2. There needs to be learning going on outside of school since currently established school hours simply do not have enough leniency. -My opponent gets at the idea that if we extend school hours, there would be no need for homework. But not only does this eliminate my first reason for how essential homework is, but it furthers the amount of money that economically suffering school systems have to put into teachers pay. Adding even just one day to the school year would cost America billions of dollars in the long run. ---Source: http://bctf.ca... - Take year-round schooling as an example... "In some cases, year-round schooling has clearly cost more." ... Although my opponent hinted at adding hours at the end of days instead of adding days, the same concept applies. Time is money and adding time to any school system would cost school districts vital money. 3. Homework adds a 2nd way to make sure that students have learned the curriculum. ---Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk... - "Young people are under far too much pressure to do well in exams, says an expert in teenager suicides. For some the pressure is more than they can bear." -If we were to just eliminate homework, it would have a significant impact on how exams effected the grades of students. Increasing this impact, would increase the stress that minors undergo while in the process of studying, and taking, every exam. Homework is a good way to not only learn the material in the class, but to furthermore have a secondary alternative to grading a students performance. I shall further my stance in the next round. Thanks for the opportunity and good luck!