BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
99% of white people are racist

I would like to ask my opponent and Debate. Org a question. Why was my final argument removed and do you really think I'm going to spend time writing another argument when I haven't broken any of the rules? It's clear which way the wind is blowing. I guess my comment of "99. 9 percent of white people come from racist families" is ringing true as we speak, Which proves my point perfectly. I honestly thought this site was ethical and legit. . . Very disappointed. Of course, I probably won't get a logical reply if any reply at all. If I partake in another debate and it happens again, We can just part ways. Yes, I've already received the email on Feb. 22 stating that the debate has ended.
99% of white people are racist

Look, Man. You accepted this debate, Which means that you are supposed to prove the side of the debate you are on. By accepting this debate, You accepted the pro position. If all you wanted to do was say that you don't think that 99. 9% of all white people are racist, You could have just commented on this debate and said that you didn't mean that. But no, You accepted the debate itself, Which means you must prove your side. If you read the requirements when you accepted, You'd see that it said you were supposed to prove the pro side of this debate. And if you've ever done other debates, You'd know that it is quite fundamental that you must prove your side. So once again, If you do not prove your side, You automatically lose this debate. Next, What you said about me taking a few days is absurd. Just because I wasn't able to check my account for a few days doesn't mean that I committed perjury. I am actually laughing as I write this. I cannot believe that this is your defense for your side. Quite laughable indeed. Next, Just because America had slaves at its founding doesn't mean that it was founded ON racism. Literally every single country had slaves at one point or another. Most had slavery at its founding! Using your logic, 99. 9% of every PERSON regardless of race comes from a racist background. This is simply ludicrous. America was not founded on racism. Next, A percentage is NOT a general estimation! When polls or surveys are taken, The percentage is the exact number of people who voted or acted in a certain way! You used a percentage, So I want you to either PROVE this percentage with hard numbers, Or just admit that this percentage is made up, Fake, And ridiculous. Please stop avoiding your job in this debate and actually start debating honestly. And stop using Ad Hominem logical fallacies by attacking me and not my arguments. Any normal, Honest reader will see that you are obviously avoiding the arguments, And it's really quite pathetic. Please do your job, And start attempting to prove your side. Back to you!
99% of white people are racist

My opponent is trying to get me to argue over a comment that I didn't make. You lose credibility right off the bat by creating a false narrative. Yes, I accepted the challenge, But only to prove that I didn't make the statement. You're so hell bent on trying to win a debate, It took you darn near three days to come up with some kind of bogus excuse. If this was a court of law, You'd be charged with perjury. Unlike yourself, I'm not looking for brownie points. I won't speak on your false statement, But I will absolutely speak on my comment because it's true. . . Since you're more than likely a white American, Then you're a descendent of the white people who founded/colonized America. Was the country not founded on racism? Who practiced the racism against Blacks from day one? As the years passed, New generations of people came into existence & systemic racism continued. . . Who maintained the systemic racism? Years & decades continued to pass, And racism is still thriving until this very day. A percentage is a general estimation and not an absolute, Which is why I never said 100 percent. Any logical-minded white person honestly knows that he/she came from a racist family. . . And I'm speaking in general because every white person (Is Not) racist. That's why Black people fully appreciate these good-hearted individuals. . . Go ahead and try to spin this in a negative way despite the genuine honesty and appreciation.
99% of white people are racist

First off, Whether or not you said that 99% of white people are racist, You still accepted my challenge, So your job in this debate is to prove that 99% of all white people are racist. If you cannot do that, You have already lost this debate. Next, Even if this debate was on the idea of 99. 9% of white people coming from racist families, This is still one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. I would like to see you prove this if you cannot prove your side of the resolution. You said that you just formed this opinion by observing the people around you. Well, You're still making up stats. This is deceptive. If you say that 99. 9% of all white people come from racist families, PROVE IT! Back to you!
99% of white people are racist

Well, I think this debate was projected to myself from a past debate. First things first, I view things in a logical way, Which comes from what I see on a daily basis. I also examine the actions of people and how they conduct themselves from a multitude of issues. Am I speaking for everyone else? Nope, Because I don't have everyone else's life experience. With that being said, I'm 100 percent sure that I didn't make the comment that you're presenting so that's strike one on your behalf. I'm pretty sure that I said "99. 9 percent of all white people come from racist families. " Yes, There's a big difference among the two. Of course, I can't speak on the false statement that you tried to defame me with. On the other hand, "your" 99% statement may not be completely wrong, Especially if we judge people by their actions.
The Democrats scare me.

So, the common voter gets campaigned to death into thinking that the socialist platform that most Democrats, especially tihs batch of candidates, supports is a good one. You merely argue that their platform is good and don't refute the fact that their oratory abilities doop people into voting for an agenda that they wouldn't otherwise support. Capitalism and the American citizen are what got us to the top. Now that we are struggling, do you think it is OK to abandon the very principles that got us here? Some of the stands that Edwards and the rest take are treading in dangerous territory. If the Democrats and their media would let voters open their eyes, they would be in for a big suprise.
The Democrats scare me.

I'm not defending Bush. He isn't a conservative. he ran on the smaller government agenda and we had the opposite. I don't like him as a president, with the exception of a few issues. That said, the Democrats are doing just that. You admit they are big government socialists. The only response is that this is OK. My simple response is HOW? Its OK to take America's fate out of the hands of its citizens? Its OK for the government to defy the constitution and empower itself to astronomical levels? I agree that we ahve major issues and that other countries are outcompeting us. But does this mean we need to fork over control of all our private sectors that have gotten us to the top? We are struggling, but big government only complicates things. Do you honestly trust the government more than yourself? I thought this whole socialism, one wealth concept died in the early 90's. The Democrats are carrying the torch though. They are able to get voters through their fantastic speaking abilities. I listen to Obama speak on CSPAN and would be dooped if I didn't know any better. You don't argue my point at all. You just seem to be OK with it, which, as an American citizen having his liberties stripped away, I can't see how you do. You honestly want higher taxes and garnished wages? You can't label a party based on one crappy president. The values still hold. The things that the democrats stand for are against our consitutional principles. A weak president and a strong legislature, not a powerful executor you commands authority. If the Democrats were even mediocre speakers and campaigners, there proposals would be laughed at. But, because they can cover up the radical nature of their platform, the common voter gets dooped into thinking they are the party of the people.
The Democrats scare me.

You might feel that these Democrats running are just sugar coating socialist ideas and feeding the American public this, and if they are, so be it( I'll discuss that later) but you cannot fear these candidates because I am afraid to tell you, we have lived through the worst. If you have not been afraid of the Nazis, sorry, excuse me, the Neo-cons running the country in the last 7 years, then I applaud you. They have taken away civil liberties through the Patriot Act and other bills. He has gone to war that only benefited his own agenda. The economy is going into recession. We need change and we need it fast. That leads me to socialism. I am not saying we become a socialist country, but look at England. Or France. What the Democrat nominees are saying is how it goes in these countries and right now, 35.9 million live in poverty in the US. 15 percent. In the richest country in the world!? In England, 6 percent live below the poverty line and in England 11 percent. In Sweden, 5 percent and in Germany 6 percent. There is something wrong and if poverty can be slowed down by shrinking the gap between the rich and poor, let it be so.
The Democrats scare me.

The topic isn't my actual position. But, my argument is that the Democratic candidates have to much oratory power, which makes their terribly frightening positions seem acceptable, even great. For instance, in the MLK debate, Edwards proposed withholding paychecks to ensure mandatory healthcare. This was met by thunderous appluase. Clinton has been running on the fact that she wants to run the country and be the strongest executive leader in recent memory. Don't these ideas fly in the face of our constitution? Where did personal liberty go? Watching this debate, the Democrats message was essentially "We don't trust you to control your own life, so we will just take care of everything for you." How can this be met with thunderous applause? I submit that the Democrats are such could speakers, they have persuaded voters to support them, under the guise that they are looking out for their best interest. I recognize that people identify with the Democrats on issues like the war. But, on several issues their message is as I stated above. They dress up their socialist positions with dutiful American rhetoric. For example, Edwards uses terms like "universal mandate" to mean "force everyone". Clinton uses elaborate terms like "create government revenue" to say "raise taxes" without being that direct. In short, I think the Democratic candidates excellent speaking ability and political play allows them to sway voters who would otherwise disagree with their big government agenda.
Trump will make a good president

You claim that Donald Trump has 3 redeeming characteristics: his immigration policy, his foreign policy, and his economic policy. I will counter them in that order. It appears that your only justification for building a border fence is that undocumented immigration is illegal. Therefore, I am obliged to show why it should be legalized. So long as taxpayer dollars do not go to undocumented immigrants, they are not hindering Americans in any way. They are not hindering the economy, as they are working to receive money and are spending it on goods, increasing the flow of money, boosting the economy. Immigrants involved in illegal activities are still prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and often even more so. So Mexican immigrants, so long as they do not receife welfare and take from us, as other Americans currently do, have just as much of a right to freedom as we do. In terms of foreign policy, we definitely need to do something about ISIS. But fighting them alone, as I said before, wlll increase their hatred for us, prolonging the war. We need to get the aid of other countries in order to help them realize that their issue is not America, but themselves, which will decrease ISIS support and shorten the war. Mr. Trump's economic rhetoric is actually somewhat intelligent. Decreasing government involvement in the economy helps it grow. However, his actual opinions are far from that. He plans, as we have already said, to drastically increase military spending, currently the largest part of the US government budget, and to maintain Medicare and Medicaid (http://talkingpointsmemo.com...). In conclusion, Donald Trump's policies on the positions you claim to be his best are actually not very intelligent at all.
Trump will make a good president

Thank you Shrek. There are three main reasons that Donald Trump would be an insufficient president. He falls short in the categories of domestic policy, immigration, and foreign policy. I will address these issues in that order. In terms of domestic policy and social issues, Trump plans to: Limit the civil liberties of LGBT people and communities Maintain the drug war, which, like prohibition, is ineffective and also arguably unnecessary and unconstitutional. Deregulate gun control, which although helpful in places with a large population of self-defense gun owners, would be detrimental to places like New York with a miniscule ratio of legitimate gun owners to criminal gun owners. In terms of immigration, Donald Trump plans to keep and toughen immigration laws, which is a short term solution for a long term problem. His claim that Mexicans do not work but receive welfare, although untrue, mist be addressed. The claim is that Mexicans take money from tax paying Americans without working for it. However, so do other Americans. Keeping out Mexicans may limit the problem to some extent, but doesn't solve anything, and also gives more value to a life based on its birthplace, which is racist and creates a national class system. Removing welfare benefits would not only deplete our debt incurred by allowing Mexicans to enter, but would deplete our debt incurred from Americans refusing to work, promoting the economy. In terms of foreign policy, Donald Trump wants to play into the hands of ISIS officials. The propaganda put out by ISIS displays America as an evil entity that will stop at nothing to destroy the Middle East and Islam. This is not to say that the method of attacking them ourselves should not be considered, but we must note that it will increase their military base and inspire a fervor against us, costing American and Middle Eastern lives. Although it may take more time, it is superior to get the help of the UN, so that they have less internal support.
Trump will make a good president

I feel that trump would make a good president because of his policies on immigration, stances on terrorism and experience with economic management. The first reason Trump would make a good president is the fact that he will be more strict on immigrants. Building a wall is a smart idea because even though people cross over our borders illegally, we still allow some of them to reside here. This is wrong because the U.S. government is rewarding them for breaking laws. When Trump builds a border fence, this will stop because the immigrants will have to cross over legally and the bad ones will be filtered out easily. The second reason Donald Trump would make a good president is his stance on terrorism. ISIS does horrible things and they must be stopped. A temporary restriction on Muslims entering the country is a good idea because, lets face facts, most terrorists are Muslims. If we put a restriction on Muslim's entering the country, it will be much easier to fight against ISIS without having terrorists in our country. Finally, Trump would make a good leader because of his experience with economics. Donald Trump already owns a mufti billion dollar company meaning he has experience with economic crisis's and money management. The debt has gone up 7.7 trillion dollars under Obama's rule. (http://useconomy.about.com...) and having an experienced business man in office is a good idea. These reasons listed above and many others are why Donald trump would make a good president.
Should career choices be only based on academic performance than area of interest

I will agree on the people that became successful that were college drop outs became successful and that is true. Unfortunately you named the people were successful, you didn't talk about the 2/3 Americans that dont graduate. 50% of college dropouts have incomes lower then 35k a year.Your twice as likely to be unemployed then a person who is a college graduate.Most employers wont touch you if you dont have a high school diploma.While on the topic of high school diplomas people with a high school diploma earns 84% less then a average person with a 4 year college degree.How about the 1.2 million people drop out of high school. Your academic performance matters whether you wanna do something or not. Sources & Cites: https://www.dosomething.org... :http://www.collegeatlas.org...
Should career choices be only based on academic performance than area of interest

Its is not necessary to be educated to earn living... As i mentioned before the example of bill gates... He was a collage dropout. There are many peoples like that who are not graduated but extremely successful like - racheal ray, michael dell, david green, dave thomas, steve jobs and many more are there If one have knowledge and skills on particular subject he/she is intrested in he/she can make living by working hard in field of his/her intrest.
Should career choices be only based on academic performance than area of interest

Career Choices should be based on your academic performance.While loving your job is good thing, You need to have great academic performance to even get a chance to be in a job. Lets say you wanna be a doctor, and your very enthusiastic about it. Unfortunately you cant get in a job because your academic performance is bad. At the end of day knowledge,and skill is important.You can try numerous times to be a doctor no matter how enthusiastic you are. You still gotta pass the academic performance.
Should career choices be only based on academic performance than area of interest

According to me career should be selected on the bases of interests !!! As interests make you better in ur work. If one will choose there career on the bases of his/her interest he/she will stay active and energetic while doing their job.....it is obvious that if some chooses their career in a subject of their interests they will perform their best. Academic results are not always important.... for example - bill gates , he was not really good in academics. His interest was computers and technology.... he chose his career on basis of his interest and now he is very successful even though he was a college drop out.
Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad.

Cigars and pipes tied to same risks as cigarettes (Reuters)Cigar and pipe smokers are more likely to develop heart disease, stroke and lung diseases than those who do not smoke. Additionally, cigar and pipe smoking can result in gum disease and tooth loss. Because cigars contain more tobacco than cigarettes, and burn for much longer, they also give off greater amounts of second hand smoke, negatively affecting those around you. (University of Pennsylvania)Association Between Exclusive Pipe Smoking and Mortality From Cancer and Other Diseases (https://academic.oup.com...)Cigar and pipe smoking and cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (International Journal of Cancer)Cigars are dangerous due to the process of aging and fermenting the tobacco, which creates nitrates and nitrites, which are known to be carcinogenic. When a cigar is burned, it produces more cancer-causing compounds, such as nitrosamine, tar, carbon monoxide and ammonia. These are found in higher levels in cigar smoke than in cigarette smoke. One large cigar can contain as much tobacco (up to 20 grams) as an entire pack of cigarettes (1 gram of tobacco per cigarette)! Even though many cigar smokers do not inhale, the amount of nicotine is higher in a cigar (1-2 milligrams in a cigarette versus up to 400 milligrams in a single cigar) and this nicotine is quickly absorbed in the saliva. For this reason, the addiction to cigars is just as strong as to cigarettes. A smoker's saliva contains the chemicals from the tobacco smoke, exposing the mouth, lips, tongue and throat to these carcinogens. (University of Pennsylvania)The harms of cigarette smoking are well-reported, but those of cigar smoking are discussed less often. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) Given the public health harm caused by smoking, we conducted a systematic review of information currently available on the mortality risks of cigar smokers compared to those who had never smoked tobacco or used any form of tobacco. We reviewed 22 studies and found that regular cigar smoking increases the risk of dying from many of the same diseases caused by cigarette smoking, including cancer and heart disease. A 2014 study estimated that regular cigar smoking causes 9,000 premature deaths annually in the U.S. We also found that when cigar smokers reported not inhaling cigar smoke, they were still three to ten times more likely to die from oral, laryngeal, or esophageal cancer than someone who never used tobacco. Research has shown that whether cigar smokers realize it, they are likely to inhale some tobacco smoke. Cigar smokers also absorb nicotine and harmful substances from cigar smoke through their mouths. Our study reinforces the fact that cigar smoking poses significant health risks to users. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)
Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad.

What I mean is that cigars and pipes are 100% tobacco. Most cigarettes are not 100% tobacco and contain 400+ other chemicals. The relevance is that they are all types of tobacco smoking. https://www.rstreet.org... No, we didn't agree that we're only talking about cigarettes, rather pure tobacco as a whole. The old age thing was just a joke, but... https://www.dallasnews.com... A very nice video you should watch:
Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad.

I am a bit perplexed here. "Cigarettes are not really tobacco"Typically a cigarette weighs approximately 1 gram of which the tobacco content can vary between 65-100%"I as an avid cigar/pipe smoker I hate cigertettes."Relevance? I, as an avid bungee jumper and race car driver hate skydiving."There is also a healthy way to smoke."If there is a substance that can be taken in one of two ways, and one of those ways is one of the deadliest processes known to man, perhaps this substance is bad.There is also no documented dichotomy between "breathing" and "eating" smoke like you seem to be talking about, nor any indication that one has a "nil chance of giving you a sickness""I smoked my pipe. After about 2 minutes I vomited an absolutely disgusting bloody, mushy, blob on my table"We're talking about cigarettes, not cigars, but is this really supposed to be a contention in a health debate?"There is also a nil chance of getting addicted if you "eat" the smoke instead of breathing it."Please provide sources. Scientific sources"Notice how most cigar/pipe smokers live to a very average or longer age? I think this is because it makes us more relaxed and actually improves quality of life."What evidence are you basing this on. Cancer.gov says "Cigar smoking causes cancer of the oral cavity, larynx, esophagus, and lung. It may also cause cancer of the pancreas. Moreover, daily cigar smokers, particularly those who inhale, are at increased risk for developing heart disease and other types of lung disease"