BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Michael Richards is not a racist

I will argue against my opponent's claim that Michael Richards, the actor famous for playing Cosmo Kramer on "Seinfeld," is not a racist and instead put forth the case that he is indeed a racist. I base this position primarily on Richards's infamous outburst at a comedy club in 2006, at which time he repeatedly shouted slang terms offensive to African-Americans in the audience in an entirely unironic and unfunny fashion, made several highly offensive remarks about lynching, and generally took out his frustrations with a few specific people on a much larger group of people based irrationally on the color of their skin, the basic definition of racism. First of all, Richards never said anything about lynching whatsoever. All he said was they were gonna end up with a "---king fork up their ---." The N word thing was wrong, but don't you think it's possible, based on some reports, that the black man was saying "cracker" to his face, too, and making insult. Doesn't excuse the racial slurs, whatsoever, but it could have been provocation.Considering the Ku Klux Klan is itself a racist organization, it follows that any perceived similarity between this group and Richards's beliefs, words and actions could easily suggest that Richards is likewise racist, not the opposite. My opponent's reference to "Friends" appears to be a non sequitur.There are a few problems with this reference. I don't know what Richard's other half is, but I do know he's part-Italian, which would automatically make him hated in the Klan's eyes. Even if Richards was a racist, he wouldn't be able to be part of the Klan, which believes in Nordic supremacy, which he doesn't qualify for. If anything, and this is more a side note, Richards is more eligable for the Nazi party, which is tame in comparison to the Klan. Anyways, the reference to "Friends" is relevant, because I'm establishing a patter of behavior from the heads and people wanting Richards to have resigned, which thankfully, failed. The same people who wanted to call for Richard's resignation, who, by the way, also banned the Puerto Rican day episode of "Seinfeld," did not ban two episodes of "Friends" that were deliberately racist and glorified racism. One episode feature Jennifer Anniston's character as saying she endorsed David Duke, and the audience didn't laugh at it, according to the review, meaning it was serious. Another revolved around mocking black people's hair. So it comes to show that not only is Richards not a racist, but there is also an attempt to persecute Richards.
Michael Richards is not a racist

I will argue against my opponent's claim that Michael Richards, the actor famous for playing Cosmo Kramer on "Seinfeld," is not a racist and instead put forth the case that he is indeed a racist. I base this position primarily on Richards's infamous outburst at a comedy club in 2006, at which time he repeatedly shouted slang terms offensive to African-Americans in the audience in an entirely unironic and unfunny fashion, made several highly offensive remarks about lynching, and generally took out his frustrations with a few specific people on a much larger group of people based irrationally on the color of their skin, the basic definition of racism. Considering the Ku Klux Klan is itself a racist organization, it follows that any perceived similarity between this group and Richards's beliefs, words and actions could easily suggest that Richards is likewise racist, not the opposite. My opponent's reference to "Friends" appears to be a non sequitur.
InVitro Fertilization

1. Adopting a child is just as rewarding as giving birth to your own child. The love and strong bond between parents and children doesn't matter about genetic makeup but about care and devotion people put into a relationship. 93% of people doing private or domestic adoptions say they definitely would do it again. 81% of foster parents, and 87% of international parents say the same thing. (http://aspe.hhs.gov...) 2. The cost of adoption can vary depending on what kind of adoption you choose and where you adopt from. Many agencies also adjust the cost based on the family's income. The cost of adoption can be very minimal but in-vitro is always expensive. Domestic Public agencies and foster care- $0-2,500 Domestic Private Agency- $4,000-30,000 Domestic Independent Agency-$8,000-30,000 International Adoption-$7,000-25,000 (Adoptioninstitute.org) Cost of in-vitro, as a reminder, generally costs a minimum of $12,000, according to your group People also can get adoption tax credit and employer adoption benefits to help pay for adoptions. 3. For couples that have already failed with natural pregnancy then they will be more likely to try in-vitro. These couples by nature will be older because of the years of trials they went through therefore there is less likelihood of the in-vitro process working. 4.Studies have repeatedly proven that there is a significant increase in chance of birth defects for those children born from In-Vitro Fertilization. A 2002 study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that the occurrence of major birth defects more than doubles, from 4 % to about 9% with IVF. In 2003, in the journal Lancet by Dutch researchers reported four- to seven-fold increase in the rate of a rare cancer of the eye -- known as retinoblastoma -- in children conceived via assisted reproductive technology. In 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found In-vitro babies are two to three times as likely to be born with cardiac defects involving a hole in the heart. These babies also are also twice as likely to be born with a cleft lip and four times as likely to be born with some gastrointestinal defects. These statistics make it clear that in-vitro fertilization is more likely to lead to birth defects in the children.
InVitro Fertilization

The main point of their argument is to adopt rather than to go through InVitro Fertilization. However, people who go through InVitro don't only undergo the procedure for a child, but for the experience of pregnancy itself. Having a child of your own versus adoption both are options for people who want children in general, however, InVitro accommodates those who are seeking the connection of pregnancy as well. Also, you say "People who adopt not only are having children without a costly procedure…" however adoption is more expensive than InVitro fertilization. InVitro costs anywhere between $12,000-$17,000 whereas adoption "can range from $5,000 to $40,000 or more depending on a variety of factors including services provided, travel expenses, birthmother expenses, requirements in the state, and other factors" according to Adoption.com. There are many more costly factors resulting in a procedure most likely to be more expensive. You also claim that InVitro takes "excessive amounts of money and time on a procedure" and "that with adoption, the woman would receive the immediate satisfaction". However, adoption costs more and can take up to an average of 9 months for the adoption process to be complete according to actionadoption.org. Therefore there is no "immediate satisfaction".
InVitro Fertilization

To rebut each of your points about couples or individuals who are homosexual, individuals who are unmarried, women who are infertile, and men who have a low sperm count the simple answer is one can easily adopt. As of November 2006, there were an estimated 500,000 orphans of LIVING parents in the United States. The number of parentless children has also increased from 3.7% in 1980 to 4.1% (www.theorphansociety.org/thefact-sheet.htm). The total global orphan estimates for 2008 were 168 million (Christianallianceblog.org). People who adopt not only are having children without a costly procedure, but they also are also helping with the issue of overpopulation and giving children homes that they would not have gotten otherwise. To go into the rebuttal specifics of each argument: 1. In-Vitro doesn’t affect male couples because they can’t get pregnant since they are both male. Even if they do want a child they have the options of surrogate mothers or adoption. Female couples also have these choices. 2. For an individual who wishes to have a child then they also have the options of adoption or surrogate mothers. There would be no reason for the single parent to spend excessive amounts of money and time on a procedure which may not yield results with these viable options. Also, adoption doesn’t only apply to single women, but can be done by single men as well. 3. Infertility is also seen as a serious issue for women. In-vitro has been shown to cause problems in relationships, hurt feelings, and ultimately depression. Between 20 and 30% of women who undergo in-vitro fertilization procedures suffer significant symptoms of depression. This is especially true when In-vitro is another failed attempt at pregnancy. However, with adoption, the woman would receive the immediate satisfaction. 4. For couples where the male has fertility problems then often issues in their relationship occur where the male feels emasculated and broken. Again, adoption would allow for men to avoid this feeling.
InVitro Fertilization

1. There are many orphans in the world, however, InVitro allows you to go through the steps of pregnancy on your own and there is a different emotional connection. If InVitro is considered playing god, adoption should not be considered any different since you are still choosing to have a child for the rest of your life. 2. The cost of InVitro is anywhere between $12,000 and $17,000. Previously you suggested adoption be a different option. However, adoption can be as expensive as $40,000. Also, the process of InVitro is enabling individuals to have the experience of giving birth which is something that is hard to put a price on and the actual cost of the process should not make it unethical. 3. When InVitro fails, it is not because of the actual process, it is because of dysfunctions between the partners such as age, quality of eggs, or quality of sperm. Therefore the emotions that come after failure of the pregnancy should not be blamed on the process of InVitro 4. Even with natural pregnancy, there are many risks and potential birth defects associated with the birth of the child. According to researchers, even with increased risk, the defects are extremely rare among InVitro babies; there is no difference in risks between natural pregnancy versus InVitro.
InVitro Fertilization

Ethical Question: Is In-Vitro Fertilization an ethical way to have a child? Definition: fertilization of an egg in a laboratory dish or test tube; specifically: fertilization by mixing sperm with eggs surgically removed from an ovary followed by uterine implantation of one or more of the resulting fertilized eggs -Pro group has said they agree with the definition and ethical question Arguments: 1. “Playing God” a. Some people believe that if you can’t have children, then you shouldn’t because God has a path for you. In addition, there are millions of orphans in the world who can be the child any parent, single or a couple, is seeking. To adopt a child would not only be going along with the body you were given, but would also help to counteract the effects of overpopulation while giving the parent the experience of having their own child. 2. Cost a. In-Vitro Fertilization is incredibly expensive and to pay for it is not possible for many Americans. This means that In-Vitro favors the wealthy and ignores the needs of those without insurance. It is not the American way ot give more opportunites to people simply because of their financial situation. Some insurance companies wont cover the procedure because of the amount of loopholes in laws that let them off and hurt the public. 3. Emotions a. Most women who try In-Vitro already have had many emotionally draining failed pregnancy attempts in the past. The pain of continually learning of a failed try to get pregnant over and over again takes a toll on both parents. This causes many women who get IVF to already suffer depression or be emotionally hurt. With the stress and anxiety of IVF studies have shown depression to increase and hurt the parties involved. 4. Birth Defects a. Many scientific studies prove there are more birth defects in children who are born from IVF than from natural reproduction. These birth defects range from cardiac defects, to cleft lip to gastrointestinal defects to cancer of the eye.
InVitro Fertilization

Pro 1: InVitro Fertilization has given homosexual couples a chance to have their own children. Since they are unable to reproduce as a couple, many choose InVitro so that they are able to go through the same process of having children, just with some help from science. Without InVitro fertilization, homosexual couples never have been able to experience the beauty of pregnancy. Pro 2: Many individuals who are unmarried choose InVitro in order to have their own children. Recently, many women are putting “getting ahead” in the workforce over marriage and starting a family. This results in women being ready to have children too late and remaining unmarried. It is also very common for this to happen among men as well. Without InVitro Fertilization, these unmarried individuals would be unable to have their own children. Pro 3: InVitro allows couples who are infertile a chance to have their own child. “We had begun to lose hope – after nine IUI cycles, three miscarriages and almost four years of heartache, we were scared of failing again… I got pregnant on the first IVF cycle. Thank you for our miracles – two healthy beautiful boys.” This testimonial was given by a woman named Laura who had her treatment done at Northern California Fertility Medical Center and was successful on the first try. She had been infertile and tried Infertility Treatment (IUI) prior to InVitro 9 times. Without the process of InVitro Fertilization, she would have been unable to have children on her own. Pro 4: Sometimes there are male factor associated with not having children. There are issues such as low sperm count, where the male is unable to get the woman pregnant. InVitro helps the man by extracting his sperm and putting it inside the woman. InVitro is the same as a naturally caused pregnancy; it just helps those couples who are unable to on their own.
Conditional Election

I do not agree with you about God "looking down the corridors of time". He didn't have to look, He already knew. Also I am a bit undecided about my beliefs on faith. I know that it is a free gift given by God and that it is the substance of things hoped for, The evidence of things not seen. I am not sure when God gives it to someone or who He gives it to. I have not studied this quite yet and will do my best to study as much as possible on this topic and that of condition and unconditional election (which neither one can exist without faith). I want you to know that I will make mistakes and may claim things I assume but have not studied, Please accept my apologies now. I will debate based on knowledge that I have gained from wise elders and also knowledge I hope to obtain.
A just society

I will be using communitarianism as my philosophy and as the foundation of my 'just society' C1 - Communitarianism - People are born savage, but can become virtuous. They are born ith human potential, but they must be made human. infants are born physically human but they are psychologically, socially and morally animal like. Human beings thus have the potential to become moral and virtuous, but have no innate values. It is through the community that human potential is developed. Human beings do not exist outside particular social contexts. it is erroneous to depict individuals as free agents. We are all social animals, members in one another. Children raised outside of culture, by animals or people who provided them with little more than food become beings who are fundamentally animal-like, not human. They are aggressive, snarling creatures unable to speak. Humanness is achieved through socialization. Communities like the family, schools, and churches instruct the child in vales and tradition o a particular culture. The child grows into an adult who internalizes these values - that is, people bond with parents, peers, and people they respect in the community. C2 - Just- A just society is one which is balanced between individual autonomy and community standards of morality. A just society seeks equilibrium between individual autonomy and society's standard of morality. A just society requires an order that is aligned with the moral commitments of its members. Standards of morality are necessary for societal order. Individual liberty and freedom is morally justified and critical for self-development. Society becomes unbalanced and undesirable when there is either excessive individual liberty or there is excessive/oppressive order. C3 - excessive - An excessive emphasis on individual freedom undermines and endangers the morality and values of the community. If one has the right to pursue any action only on the condition of mutual consent, morality is lost and order is diminished Excessive order clearly undermines indvidual freedom, and government control can mean virtual slavery. A just society will follow a new golden rule: " Respect and uphold society's moral order as you would have society uphold your autonomy. The desired balance is achieved not by laws which may result in tyranny of the majority bu by voluntary compliance with the norms of society. The order of a just society relies heavily on normative means; education, leadership,consensus, peer pressure, pointing out role models, exhortation, and above all, the moral voices of the community. A just society thus relies on persuasion and education to establish values, not law. thank you.
anything is sufficient to define existence

A non existent thing does not exist, I have said why before. Thing does not necessarily mean existence. Unicorns are a 'thing' but does not exist. Your second argument: "so your neighbours are alive and didnt just die in some accident before you began reading this.. and if you go tjeck and you come back, is it then possible that they didnt just die after you left and came back trying to tell me they are alive?" This is a problem of time. But as I said before, if an observer can sense them, indirectly of directly, they exist. Lets say your neighbor was wearing a micky mouse hat that was just designed and came in the stores and was locked in isolation (For whatever reason). They would know that they are wearing the hat. If it were the case that your neighbor was unconscious as well, any observer in the room would know. However, there is no way anyone would know because there is no such observer. Therefore, we don't know if such thing exists, but it does.
anything is sufficient to define existence

does a non existent thing exist? thing=existence might exist does not exist because it might also not exist.. my neighbour might be wearing a micky mouse hat that was just designed and came in the stores to buy, but is he? so your neighbours are alive and didnt just die in some accident before you began reading this.. and if you go tjeck and you come back, is it then possible that they didnt just die after you left and came back trying to tell me they are alive? :)
anything is sufficient to define existence

Of course something that exists exist. But that is not your argument, You said ANYTHING. Def: 'used to refer to a thing, no matter what.' Meaning it may or may not exist. For example, anything can refer to unicorns and dragons, which don't exist (Now don't argue with me... burden of proof/definitive existence proves that they don't exist) For the neighbor point... sure, I can't sense them, but they sure can sense themselves, therefore they exist. The sensory function does not limit to the observer. This, as I have said before, is secondary sensing. Anyhow, I could go check if I wanted to.
anything is sufficient to define existence

Simply 'anything' cannot be enough to define existence. I do not understand your logic in 'how could existence be real when we have fingers'. Existence is defined by objective reality. This can be confirmed not just by sensory information, but secondary sensory as well. (I'm sure some have heard of the 'God doesn't exist because we can't see or sense him? Well your brain doesn't exist because we can't see or sense it'. This is disproved because varnish scans can show that my brain exists and etc.) To quote: 'Belief continues in the claims of mystics, fortune tellers, palm readers, astrologists, people with extra sensory perception and (I must mention the notion of god here) so on, as if the claims were part of the objective reality, but none of these things survive objective testing.' And... fingers exist because you can sense it and do stuff with it. (Such as use it to get high, which you probably are now)
1 gapping should be federal law or at least a social norm.

FINAL ROUNDMy opponent has still failed to rebut my solution of placing the toilets further from each other when constructing toilets.Far-away toilets in fact are already being constructed in some particular areas. Furthermore there are already normally "walls" separating toilets in many different areas, showing us that one gapping is completely not needed in these situations, since the splash cannot go anywhere and your job of concentrating on your job is much easier. VOTE ME.BTW Why the heck is the character limit 1,000???
1 gapping should be federal law or at least a social norm.

1 gapping as pointed out in round 2 doesn't apply to crowded bathrooms. Individuals needing to relieve themselves would file in by 1 gapping, but as the bathroom got more crowded they would start filling in the gaps. This is the most ethical and efficient means for peeing in urinals. It reduces the chance of splashing back on the next guys legs, helps shy bladders and stops strange urinal convo's before they start. This is a huge problem. I can't tell you how many times I've had to face these awkward social situations. My opponent proposes solutions such as psychotherapy and stalls which cost money. 1 gapping is free. Obviously 1 gapping should at least be a social norm. When giving the choice of 1 gapping and standing at a urinal directly beside another man, why would you not 1 gap? Just because my opponent doesn't mind how close other men stand to him while whiping his schlong out to urinate doesn't mean others don't, and I'd appreciate if he respected urinators a little more.
1 gapping should be federal law or at least a social norm.

I don't know what to say to my opponent's arguments. He's either trolling me or he's masterfully manipulating around the laws of science.The splash back is so less, nobody cares. Nobody complains. It is not a big enough problem for Obama to even remotely care about, because he has his own private bathroom. See: http://www.ilaxstudio.com....As for the shy bladder syndrome, that can be easily treated by Relaxation techniques, Psychotherapy, Cognitive behaviour therapy, and Graduated exposure therapy, as noted by my opponent's source. Finally, 1 gapping is stupid--it wastes toilets and ultimately a crowded bathroom would not let this law/norm work out. A better solution would be putting toilets further apart, or having stalls that separate the toilets. If the girls can do it, so can the guys. In conclusion I have upheld my part of the resolution and suggested a better and more efficient alternative that let people zero gap.Also, why not two gap?