BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everyone is racist

It has indeed been proved that everyone is at least a bit discriminative, but does discrimination and racism mean the same thing? Let's look at the definition of racism. Definition of racism: noun 1. 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. 2. a policy, system of government, etc. , based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Now let's look at the definition of discriminate. Verb 1. To make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives. As you see, racism and discrimination are not the same thing, because racism always involves another race, while discrimination can be against anyone. Therefore, even if it has been proved that everyone is a bit discriminative, it does not mean they are racist, so not everyone is racist. Sources: . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://www.euvolution.com...
Everyone is racist

Hello, in a previous debate, someone argued that "everyone is racist". I will argue against this statement. Definition of racism: noun 1. 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. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.I will wait for FourTrouble to accept. I will wait for someone to accept this. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Transgender people perpetuate gender stereotypes.

"Can we agree that for the sake of our debate the terms male/female will refer to Sex while woman/man will refer to Gender?" Sex and gender are the same thing. "I don't believe..." Yet you assert no evidence for it. Have you ever met a women that asserts herself to be someone that doesn't listen to society, but has long hair? I have quite a few times. As far as objective evidence goes, when one compares how many women have hair that goes at or below their shoulder and those that feel the need to conform to society, we find that 86% of women out of a poll of 136 women had long hair, while only 38% of people (this includes both men and women) would do something that the majority of others would do [1][2]. This means that (if we make the assumption that there was a 1:1 ratio of men to women regarding the statistic of conformity) only 19% of women were those that conform to the majority while 86% have long hair, which means that 67% of women have long hair, and won't conform to the majority. "They aren't asserting..." Since you agree with my point here, I will refute the last sentence. You are assuming that in changing genders, they want to perform different tasks. There are cases where children simply think that they are the wrong gender. Not for any role purpose, but they just don't feel like they should have the anatomy that they do [3][4][5]. "The statement 'women..." Yet you assert no objective evidence (unlike me, who cited the military) to make your point. You are once again assuming that transgendered people perpetuate stereotypes, which I have refuted. 1. http://postyour.info... 2. http://webspace.ship.edu... 3. http://katiecouric.com... 4. http://katiecouric.com...# 5. http://www.transgenderchild.net...
Transgender people perpetuate gender stereotypes.

Can we agree that for the sake of our debate the terms male/female will refer to Sex while woman/man will refer to Gender?"This does no harm to society, as it is what women want. Most men wouldn't want to wear a dress or a bra"I don't believe this is necessarily what women want. I think this is what women are told to want. If you grow up in a society with parents friends and strangers telling you: "wear this, look like that" the majority will follow those rules and go on to pass them on to children, friends and strangers. It is not what women "want" or what men "want" it is what they do to try to fit into a society's rules and feel most comfortable."Wouldn't transgender people be asserting the exact opposite, as in the fact of being male, and wearing skirts or makeup, they are making the point that men can do these things?"They aren't asserting that men can do these things because of the fact that they consider themselves women not men. They may be saying that males can wear skirts or dresses but that isn't the issue at hand here. I am trying to discuss the implications transgender people make when they change the social gender and begin to wear different things and perform different tasks according to their GENDER. Doesn't that very fact implicate that there are rules that a certain gender must follow?"For instance, men are not allowed to wear skirts or makeup? Women cannot perform "manly tasks"? By changing their lifestyle, aren't they defining different genders and creating or conforming to standards held strict for women and men for centuries."The statement "women cannot perform manly tasks" was a continuation of the previous point that these are some of the stereotypes perpetuated by transgender people because they change their attitude and lifestyles. This is along with "men are not allowed to wear skirts or makeup". Treating transgender people equally doesn't directly promote gender equality because transgender people are not a their own separate gender.
Transgender people perpetuate gender stereotypes.

I accept and will use the definition of a transgendered person that you have asserted. "Usually people who are trangender change the types of clothes they wear, their hairstyles or other things about these lifestyles." You assert no sources to prove that point. Secondly, why should this matter? Women tend to wear different clothes and wear different hair styles than men do. This does no harm to society, as it is what women want. Most men wouldn't want to wear a dress or a bra, because if they did, then more men would wear them, and they would be advertised towards men. "However by changing these things, are they saying that, for instance, men are not allowed to wear skirts or make up?" Wouldn't transgendered people be asserting the exact opposite, as in the fact of being male, and wearing skirts or makeup, they are making the point that men can do these things? "Women cannot perform "manly tasks". By changing their lifestyle, aren't the defining different genders and creating or conforming to standards held strict for women and men for centuries." There are women that can perform "manly" (to which I will assume you mean tasks that require much physical labor) duties. For example, in the Israeli military women constitute 25% of Officers, and 20% of Career Soldiers [1]. I cannot understand the second sentence. "...aren't we right now trying to work towards a society that doesn't judge people by [their gender]?" Yes, we as a society are working towards no gender discrimination, and transgendered people can be a good example of that. If a transgendered person is treated equally in society relative to men and women, then it can be asserted that all genders are treated equally. This is what society should strive for. 1. http://www.idfblog.com...
Transgender people perpetuate gender stereotypes.

Being transgender means that although physically or genetically you are male or female but you choose to be a woman or a man. However what does choosing to be a man or woman mean? Usually people who are trangender change the types of clothes they wear, their hairstyles or other things about these lifestyles. However by changing these things, are they saying that, for instance, men are not allowed to wear skirts or make up? Women cannot perform "manly tasks". By changing their lifestyle, aren't the defining different genders and creating or conforming to standards held strict for women and men for centuries. And aren't we right now trying to work towards a society that doesn't judge people by those standards? Are we trying to build a society where everyone feels free to do anything they want (as long as it harms no-one)? I'm just think about it. Tell me what you think or find my blog, Unkarmafied, and discuss it with me.
Medical Marijuana

Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana helps cure cancer so why stop it. Im not saying that marijuana is a good thing in this world, but it helps cure the ill. there is some types of marijuana that are good and some types that are bad. Marijuana has been around for centuries and helped cured lots of people through that period of time.Cancer kills people so why stop that? Medical marijuana can help with alot of types of cancer. There was over 658,000 arrest alone for having the usage of marijuana, that would cost the court a lot of time and money, so why spend more money when the united states is already in debt. There is a lot of people in this world that should use medical marijuana for their sickness/illness. Marijuana is a lot safer than alcohol. that not to say that it is completely risk free, it much less addictive and does not cause nearly as much physical damage. Some people do become psychologically dependent on marijuana, and it doesn't mean that its a cure for substance abuse problems. But, from a harm reduction standpoint, it can help. Marijuana can be used to treat and prevent the eye disease known as ""glaucoma"" which increases pressure in the eye, damaging the eyeball, causing loss of vision. Some people would agree with my claim, and some people wouldnt. For example people would say that more people get arrested, then get treated with marijuana on glaucoma. It helps with cancer, so why stop, Do you want people to die?
co -ed is better than sinle sex ed

Hi , I'm Shanaya ..I'm new here but I will try my best to win .. Firstly, debate doesn't mean to copy from Internet ,as my companion has done ..but it means to look deeply into our brains and then answer . I think co ed does allow us to understand other gender ,but still it is not good. Studies have shown that most students fail due to distraction from other gender..most say that every single guy in the class has a girlfriend and each girl, a boyfriend....these things distract us from studies...it is bad that we are afraid from public if we go in single sex schools but if we go in co ed, the situation is worse,the children are distracted and they will not even reach that respect that they will get if they are educated ... Single sex school =no distraction......so friends if you think this is a good speech for a beginner,pls vote for me!!!
co -ed is better than sinle sex ed

Co Ed is better because 1- it is more of a representation of the real world around us..which has both girls and boys..and the purpose of schooling is to educate us so that we can be ready for the world as adults..now if the school was single gender based..we'll go off to the world acting all nervous around the other gender as we do when puberty hits us as 14 years old 2-single education system sends the wrong message..it makes the other gender looks like they are bad for you and that's why you are isolated from them 3-co-Ed helps people get through the puberty better..as puberty hits you..you are naturally more curious about the other gender..and that curiosity is completely healthy ..co-Ed lets you get to know about the other gender better than single Ed
Attending elementary school should not be mandatory in the USA.

First off, I am terribly sorry that I was unable to post an argument earlier. I was out of town and was away from a computer for an extended period of time. Now to my arguement. I am just going to refute his arguments by the numbers that he ordered them in to get rid of any confusion there might be. 1) That may be so, but you do not have to attend school to recieve an education. Even if you do not have home-schooling, there are a host of ways that your parents or you can utilize to give yourself an education. i.e. the Internet, books, Rosetta Stone software (foreign languages), etc. There are many different ways that one can learn, and if it is more effective than school, then there should be no reason that one cannot use them and must go to school. 2) Again, look to my previous rebuttal. Also, you do not have to go to school to create a business. You do not have to have an education to get a job. Even if you don't have an education, you can help the economy. 3) Yes, the children have rights, but if they do not want to follow through on those rights, should the government, the very institution that gives them that right, force them to go to school? 4) Even if education is a right, it is a right, not a duty, to get an education. You are contradicting yourself right here. 5) Again, look at my rebuttal for 3) and 4) 6) Getting an education does not guarantee that you will be successful either. Not getting one does not guarantee what you will fall into poverty. 7) Here is an example. A child has no interest in school subjects like english and social studies, but has a great interest in nature. The school that the child goes to does not offer any classes in nature, nor does schools in his area. This child would much prefer to go and live somewhere where he can study nature to his hearts content, but doing so would involve leaving school. He will not be able to get a formal education in the wild, and he is therefore not allowed to go to live elsewhere because the government would put him in jail. That was an example. I am not saying that it will happen, I am just saying that this is a possible scenario. 8) Please give me a scenario where someone would pull a child out of school just so that they could do illegal things to them. Note the illegal part of this. For my argument, I would like to say that the core of my argument is that it should not be the government's job to force children to go to school. If the child does not want to recieve a traditional education, and the parents agree, then the child should not be forced into getting a formal education. The government should not be taking children's lives into their own hands, especially since it is not the government's children. Thank you
Attending elementary school should not be mandatory in the USA.

As my opponent has failed to post an argument, and had very few points in his first post, I have very little to say here, but to further iterate that, while he claimed that parents might have reasons for wishing to deny their children an education-- and, therefore, a shot at life-- he never stated what those reasons could possibly be, and how those could be more important than the child's right to a chance in life, preventing crime, or our economy. However, I would like to bring up a point that I passed over in my previous argument-- not only does education decrease the crime rate in the long term by creating a more educated populace, it has a similar short term benefit by keeping kids of the streets. I don't have much more to add, because, as I said, my opponent has not posted an argument of his own.
Attending elementary school should not be mandatory in the USA.

My opponent had a wish to debate me on this topic, so here we go. The following argument is the same argument in another debate. Before I begin my argument, I would like to thank everyone will is participating is this debate, from the people who comment in it, the people who read it, the people who vote in it, and the person who is debating me. I would also like to ask everyone who will vote in this debate to vote based upon the debate itself, and not your own opinions. Thank you Also before I start my argument, I would like to spell out what I mean by the topic so that there is no confusion as to what we are debating about. Attending: Going to Elementary School: Grades K-6 Should not be: Self explanatory Mandatory: required, and you have to In the USA: Self Explanatory Hopefully this will alleviate any confusion that ultimatley comes from different people reading this debate and thinking completley different things about the topic. Now to my actual argument. First off, I am in no way against education. I just believe that it should not be against the law not to go to school. The government has no business in telling children what to do. It should be the parent's choice whether or not they want their children to go to school. The parents should have the ability to say, I don't want my kid to go to school, and I don't want to teach him/her at home because... There are many reasons parents might not want this, and it should be the parent's choice, not the governments law. I will leave my opponent with this.
Man is not responsible for the recent warming trends

There is much to discuss on this subject so I will try to keep my arguments to a minimum: Perhaps the most convincing claim I have found disproving man made Global Warming is the absence of a troposphere hotspot and of any overall atmospheric warming in the last 20 years. If Co2 has caused the recent warming trends, then why is there no hotspot. In addition to this, why is the atmosphere not warming? By the IPCC's climate theory, the atmosphere was supposed to warm first yet this is not what is happening. No atmospheric warming: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... No hotspot: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Another claim disproving Co2 driven climate change is that, in the past, Co2 has no correlation to temperature whatsoever. No correlation: http://www.paulmacrae.com... More evidence against man made climate change is that almost all the computer models have been wrong. This suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with the models. Computer Models 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Computer Models 2: http://c3headlines.typepad.com... Another flaw in climate theory is that, in the 1940s-1970s, temperature decreased despite the Co2 emmisions increasing dramatically. Temp decrease: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net... Co2 rise: http://static.skepticalscience.com... Finally, even in the past hundred thousand years, Co2 has lagged temperature, not the other way around. In the past Co2 has never caused temperature rise. Lag: http://www.stallinga.org...
Man is not responsible for the recent warming trends

I am not arguing that the world isn't warming. Also, please don't cite any consensus or use the argument that "97% of scientists agree" because I don't care what other scientists think. This is a debate between you and me, not me and the random scientist you are citing. If you have any questions put them in the comments, I will be happy to answer them. Please don't put arguments in the comments, if you forget to post anything just ask in the comments if you can post it as part of your next argument and I will probably say yes. One last thing, try to summarize your arguments because I don't want to end up reading an essay.
Act polite

Tell that to these groups of people:1) Extremist Thiests: These guys hate athiests, and often argue against them. Since extremist thiests have no evidence for God, they're usually the first ones to insult in a debate.2) Internet Trolls: They're the opposite of nice. They normally act rude, either spamming in chat, acting wierd, or somthing else that ticks off other people.3) Some people: This is just my personal experience. Quite a bit, I see people talking about, or making jokes about, sex or other related topics. They also use "sentence enhancers" (swears) more often than they seriously need to.This is 2017. Donald Trump is our president, Africa has no food or water compared to most other places (not counting Antarctica), and Syrian refugees are denied. Well, those aren't exactly on topic, but our world's awful. "Polite" is hardly a thing, especially on the internet.
The Federal Reserve should be abolished.

The Federal Reserve is a cartel. It was organized in secret by people who worked under J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Rothchilds. It was created in secret and pushed through using bribed senators in an effort to benefit the bankers such as J.P. Morgan.This system causes the hidden tax of inflation and causes most of our major debt today. The debate will be over the question of "Should the Federal Reserve be abolished" I will be for abolishing the Federal Reserve. Hope someone will challenge.
The Federal Reserve should be abolished.

My opponent believes that i am a conspiracy theorist and therfore wants nothing to do with me. I am in fact not a conspiracy theorist. I actually oppose most conspiracy theories myself. My opponent uses other conspiracies which i never included in any of my arguments. He goes off topic to talk about a one world government conspiracy. I too have heard of this conspiracy, and have seen the flaws within it, which is why i didnt include it. I included nothing about the FED controlling the world, for my opponent is pulling these ideas out of his... Behind. But first, lets see the flaws in his argument. 1. Yes, they operate against the public interest. As i stated above, when the FED was created, they gave the FED a high degree of independence because they make "unpopular decisions." That is operating against the public interest. 2. The FED has not accomplished stabilizing prices. If you notice, since 1913, the value of the dollar has declined and inflation has risen at a steady rate since then. " The FED is a very powerful institution,and the people whorun the worlds large banks are a very powerful group of people. No one would claim otherwise. Also,the bankers have common interests, and, like any other group of people with common interests, theydowhat theycan to bring about governmentpolicies that favor those interests. Because the FED as the centralbank ofthe United States,implements policies that most directly affect the bankers, they of course are quite concerned with what the Fed does, how it is structured, andwhorunsit. And, like otherelite groups, bankers certainly meet in private to figure out how best to get what they want. " Why, con! Thank you for supporting my argument. My opponent has almost directly recited the definition of cartel. And he tries to use this to support his argument. So far, all my opponent has done has gone around the fact that the FED does not stabilize the economy by just describing its goals. Goals it has failed to accomplish. All of my previous points still remain intact. My opponent has done nothing to debunk them. If my opponent wishes to keep arguing and win this debate, con will have to give a good reason why the FED should be kept which my opponent hasnt. YOU CAN TAKE OUT THE ONE CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT I MENTIONED (I ONLY MENTIONED ONE, I DID NOT EVEN INCLUDE A WORLD GOVERNMENT, OR A THEORY ABOUT THE FED CONTROLLING EVERYTHING) AND MY ARGUMENT STILL HOLDS MORE WATER THAN MY OPPONENTS. WHICH BTW, WHAT I MENTIONED WAS NOT A CONSPIRACY. ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN PROVED IN HISTORY. GO TO THE JEKYLL ISLAND CLUB AND THERE'S A PLAQUE ON THE DOOR THAT SAYS "THE FEDERAL RESERVE WAS CREATED IN THIS ROOM." P.S. i did this from my phone. I apologize if they're any errors. And i apologize for the CAPS LOCK. I can't use the bold for some reason on my phone.