BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
blacks probably = lower intelligece, at least as measured by IQ & brain size, than whites and asians

"A study by Jelte M Wicharts et al concluded that "race differences in brain size, even if these were entirely of genetic origin, leave unexplained 91–95% of the black-white IQ gap . . . National IQs cannot be viewed solely in evolutionary terms but should be considered in light of global differences in socio-economic development." [4]" i concede this is an important point in favor of blacks not being as unintelligent as it might initially seem. brain size correlates very very strongly with intelligence, not just in humans. this does, however, prove pros assertion that whites are smarter than blacks, even if it's by say that 10% difference that this quote admits is explained by the brain size. also, i've never tried to prove that whites are more intelligent over all, without regard to IQ or brain size... so i do not have the burden of prove that they are as con asserts. my title of my argument itself says that i am basing the measurements on IQ and brain size. as a technical matter, i would have won that debate, because even most of cons arguments show that IQ is usually in the white favor. i concede that wealth might have some affect on IQ etc... but i never said we were measuring by anything than IQ, which seems to be in my favor, even if not completely accurate.
Halo has a more expanded mythos than any other science-fiction game franchise

********************BEGIN ENTRY********************INTRODUCTION: Greetings! I am 16807 Zealous Client. I am the Monitor of Installation 06. I have instigated this debate to test the effective mythos levels of the science-fiction gaming franchise designated Halo. To do this, I propose that, the mythos of Halo is more expanded upon than any other science-fiction gaming franchise. (Example: Mass Effect.)I hope to complete a relaxed, polite debate. DEFINITIONS: I am relying on Reclaimer wisdom to interpret all the words correctly and, to apply context. However, I feel that, I must clarify upon two points.Mythos is the total sum of information that can be gathered about a franchise from trusted sources and publications. This includes, but is not limited to, books, comic books, soundtracks, games, etc...Second, "expanded" does not mean "more mythos"; it means the level of developed content. RULES: (Standard debate.org rules on conduct apply, including hacking into unacceptable debates, vote bombing from fake accounts, etc...) O You must only choose one gaming franchise and cannot switch between franchises.O The gaming franchise must be, primarily, a game. Dynasty Warriors: Gundam, for example, is not allowed, as that is primarily a series of T.V. shows.O All definitions must come from oxforddictionaries.com, if possible.O The comments section cannot harbour extended arguments or sources. O Reclaimer Opponent, designate CON, must use Round One for acceptance and for opening arguments.b) CON must put - and only put - "No Round posted here as agreed." in Round Four. O Sources must be cited for every major claim made. Any minor claim made can go without sources.b) However, upon request from myself or CON, sources must be cited, for minor-claims-clarification and proof. c) Reclaimer Voters will judge which claims were major and whether sources were appropriately given.O CON must have completed one three-Round (or higher) debate before requesting permission to access this Debating Terminal. b) Said debate must have been completed on debate.org.NOTES: Please, post a comment for any questions or objections. Also, should you wish to take the designate, CON for this debate, you must submit a request, that includes the franchise you intend to do, in the comments section.Thank you.[[06-16807]]********************END ENTRY********************
Clinton is a criminal

Thank you Republican101, for this debate. I am sure this will not only be substantive, but fun for both sides. I will commence my arguments by saying this: Hillary Clinton is not a criminal. She should not be sent to prison, because she hasn't committed any crimes. I have many reasons for this, the first of which is that the United States' two most eminent legal organizations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Justice Department, cleared her of all charges. She doesn't "keep getting away with things", because there is absolutely no reason why these unbiased and impartial organizations would be ruling in her interest, rather than in the interest of the country. There is absolutely no "evidence to put her away for life", and would love, throughout the length of this debate, to see my opponent attempt to show me some. To discuss the sole point my opponent made in Round 1, the "[o]ne person [who] committed suicide by a bullet wound to the back of the head" was depressed at the time of his suicide. (http://www.nytimes.com...) He shot himself in the back of the head, because doing that would kill oneself. If one would want to commit suicide, that is something that one would do. So when my opponent said "I mean really! Who does that," I don't think they grasped the full context of the situation.
Socialism has proven to fail, and Capitalism has proven Successful

Additionally, we cannot ignore the change in elements as the population, starkly, rises. "Communism" among 300 people is a different animal than "Communism"...300,000 or 3,000,000. Buoying specialists requires big numbers and a complex eco-system. If any "Capitalists" misbehave in a numerically-small population, the situation is, significantly, different. AND, STILL, humans, in groups, tend toward: picking a leader, sharing things AND selling each other things. MOST LIKELY, a group of humans WILL BE *royal/capitol/sharing* no matter how we argue. I state, firmly, that it will always be all three and that all three always need regulation.
Socialism has proven to fail, and Capitalism has proven Successful

Humans started out with socialism/communism. Then, quickly, they used "monarchy" mixed with socialism/communism as in: "I'm the boss because I can hurt you. The rest of you can share what ever I leave". Capitalism, and, the middle class are new. Capitalism is VERY far from perfect. My, personal, recommendation is: REGULATED capitalism with a lot of socialistic fire stations, street lights, garbage management, schools and, not only health care but a group-effort to the eff be sure that we don't worship doctors.
Socialism has proven to fail, and Capitalism has proven Successful

"Pro The 'cruelty' of capitalistic bosses can be avoided however," (i type in caps, only, because it's quicker.) WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF GOOD BOSSES TO BAD BOSSES THAT CAN BE ENFORCED? " if you think a five-day work-week is unacceptable then you and try to find a job with a four-day work-week. " THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION AND NO WHERE NEAR MY POINT THAT BOSSES ABUSE WITHOUT OVER-SIGHT "With Capitalism you have the freedom to choose what do do with yourself. " I, AND MANY, PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO CHOOSE WHAT TO DO WITH MYSELF. I CAN ONLY TO WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR. IT BEARS ME SCRUBBING TOILETS. - NOT KIDDING. "However, in a Socialist nation you don't have such options, if you decide you never want to work, the government will force you to work." POVERTY FORCES PEOPLE TO WORK. MOST 'ISMS' ARE DIFFERENT WITHOUT BLOSSOMING TSUNAMIS OF OVER-POPULATION OVERLOOKING THAT MATH OF POPULATION DOESN'T MAKE IT GO AWAY. In a Socialist State, the 'Capitalist Bosses' are simply government officials, and they have the right to force you to work. EITHER WAY, HUMANS ARE PACK ANIMALS AND SOMEBODY will BARK "ALPHA". "You also quote a filthy river, but that could just as easily in a socialist state. " I TAKE YOUR POINT. "Capitalism doesn't ban government from regulations to protect public resources, " SQUEEZES INSTEAD. "and the government should not be required to clean it up with tax dollars, but rather the man who made the mess should have to clean it up. " AGREED That is not socialism, and it doesn't impede capitalism. CAPITALISTS STATE THAT IT HURTS THEIR STOCK-REPORT THAT IT DOES HURT CAPITALISM TO CLEAN UP AFTER THEMSELVES. I HEARD SOMEONE SAY THAT PART OF CAPITALISM IS TO LET A DYING THING DIE. WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT, IF IT HURTS HIM TO CLEAN IT, HE NEEDS TO TAKE AND LIVE, OR DIE, WITH THAT HURT, HIMSELF. HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS, FOR INSTANCE, THE USA AUTO MAKER'S INDUSTRY, WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO NOT LET IT DIE. SO, THE WE END UP AT: NEEDED TO ADD SOME MEASURE OF POPULATION IN TO THIS MIX AND - REGULATED CAPITALISM, EH?
Socialism has proven to fail, and Capitalism has proven Successful

The 'cruelty' of capitalistic bosses can be avoided however, if you think a five-day work-week is unacceptable then you and try to find a job with a four-day work-week. With Capitalism you have the freedom to choose what do do with yourself. However, in a Socialist nation you don't have such options, if you decide you never want to work, the government will force you to work. In a Socialist State, the 'Capitalist Bosses' are simply government officials, and they have the right to force you to work. You also quote a filthy river, but that could just as easily in a socialist state. Capitalism doesn't ban government from regulations to protect public resources, and the government should not be required to clean it up with tax dollars, but rather the man who made the mess should have to clean it up. That is not socialism, and it doesn't impede capitalism.
Socialism has proven to fail, and Capitalism has proven Successful

Most, "isms" are "born", grow and die. Capitalism did not invent the five-day work-week. The five-day work-week was invented because of the cruelty of the capitalistic bosses. See also: "The bobtail paycheck" Capitalism has the, real, ability to become like the demon plant in"Little Shop of Horrors" if it doesn't have a trim. See also: filthy river that rich guy who filthed it expects the government to clean up At some point, the word "Ferengi" is applicable
Socialism has proven to fail, and Capitalism has proven Successful

Capitalism has proven itself to work when ever it is implemented. During the age of Classical Liberalism Humanity experienced the industrial revolution, Peoples all around the world were freed from slavery and the standard of living increased in all social classes. Socialism has failed in all instances were it was implemented. People in nations such as the Soviet Union, China and North Korea were brought to an equal level of wealth, that of squalor. Human rights have deteriorated in these nations and they experienced economic depression until they implemented system more similar to State-Capitalism.
Morality can be determined objectively and scientifically

You also didn't deny it. I was hoping to answer your question using your answer to my question, but since you have not answered my question, I will try to answer it for you. I can think of a few reasons why you might find torture/murder to be immoral: 1. You dislike torture/murder (personal preference) 2. There is some reason why torture/murder is bad or has negative consequences 3. God said so If the answer is (1), that is merely your preference and therefore apparently suffers from "the ad populum fallacy." If the answer is (2), that is objective and I am right. If (3), that is also objective and I am right. If I have missed the real reason, I implore you to share. Anyway, we can both agree that we have a lot of oughts lying around and I'm curious where they all came from, if not from ises.
Morality can be determined objectively and scientifically

You need to learn to read, dude, for I never said I was my preference that you be tortured and murdered. And I not interested in your red herring. Answer this inquiry: Now, show us how one can go from an "is" (the realm of science) to an "ought" (the realm of morality). Show it to us this way, applying the scientific law known as ______________, we can induce that one should not rape, murder and eat their own child? Good luck.
Morality can be determined objectively and scientifically

Morality does not concern greater or lesser preferences, but obligations as to conduct. It could be the greatest preference is that you be slowly tortured to death, but that would still be immoral. Now, show us how one can go from an "is" (the realm of science) to an "ought" (the realm of morality). Show it to us this way, applying the scientific law known as ______________, we can induce that one should not rape, murder and eat their own child? Good luck. BTW, your reasoning is fallacious because it is a non-sequitur and because it relies on the ad populum fallacy. Just because people think something is better does not make it so or the doing of the opposite immoral. Keep trying.
Morality can be determined objectively and scientifically

Okay, here we go.Let's imagine two (purely hypothetical) scenarios. The first scenario is, to borrow a term from Sam Harris, the worst possible misery for everyone, which I will call "W". The second scenario is any other situation, so let's say the actual current state of affairs in your society, or "C".Because W is the worst possible misery for everyone, every single individual will, if given a choice, prefer C to W. It does no good to say that some people might be masochists and prefer misery, because "misery" would cause such masochists to be satisfied, and thus not be in misery. Therefore by definition, everyone, even masochists, would prefer C to W. If every individual prefers C to W, then by any reasonable definition of "better," C is better than W.Now let's imagine an individual actor who must choose between two alternatives. The first alternative will bring about W. The second will bring about C. If C is better than W, it follows that the second alternative is the morally superior choice.If you can accept this, you must accept that there is some kind of objective basis for morality.
Morality can be determined objectively and scientifically

DefinitionsMorality: a set of guidelines for how people ought to behave in a given social environment in order to maximize human well-beingWell-being: a fuzzy concept, like physical health but extended to all aspects of the human being (no one can agree on a precise definition of health, but that doesn't stop us from having meaningful, mutually intelligible discussions about how to improve it)Scientifically: using the tools of the Scientific Method, i.e. observation, independent verification, and reproducibility, in order to achieve objective, non-biased resultsThesisThe optimal code of morality for a given society can be determined scientifically in theory. This is not to say it can be determined, as there are practical limitations. By analogy, it is theoretically possible to predict the weather scientifically, but for now we can only predict with moderate accuracy and only a short time into the future. With better instruments, better theory, and better algorithms, we could predict the weather better. I believe that the optimal moral code is something that exists out there, and we can theoretically find it.
The idea of god and the teachings of religion are superstitious and show discrimination and cruelty

"without god, we would be without hope, life and love" I'm an atheist. I live my life as if there is no god yet I am full of hope for the future. I try to live my life to the fullest and I give out a lot of love to my brothers and sisters. I did not adopt these traits from religion I learned them from experiencing life. To say that there would be none of this without god is saying that humans on their own are incapable of such actions. What a horrible religious based idea that is. To say that we are merely just puppets who are controlled and owned by an almighty figure who can do what he pleases with us. If what your saying is true then could it be argued that without God there'd be no pain, suffering and hardship to? "He loved us so much he gave his only son Jesus" Before Jesus's time man existed for millions of years but does that mean that God didn't love those? One day he decided to plant a seed in the middle east instead of at the dawn of man? How cruel and unjust is that towards the men before that time. If God loved us so much then surely HE would have died for us. Imagine sacrificing your own son, making him do your dirty work, instead of honourably taking the heat himself. We would scorn at that type of thing today but it's suddenly ok because god can do what he wants? "He gave us a way of life and rules so we can find him in paradise" And what would this way of life and rules be? Killing homosexuals, hating your family and stoning people for petty crimes? These are all bible based notions which is supposedly the word of God. I don't think I'd want to follow such scandalous rules. And for the small chance that God is real and I meet him in "paradise" I will have strong words with him, I tell you that much
According to the Bible God sent two female bears to kill 42 children.

Pro stated God sent the bears although his reference does not say this. He argues that God did it without providing further reference to support his statement. Saying that God sent the bears are a misinterpretation because that implies that God initiated the act. It is clear this is not the case because it was Elisha who initiated the act. Pro seems to assume the children referred too are very young. This makes the situation look very unreasonable that young innocent children would be killed. The text he refers to does not state how young they were and the facts are that children are not always that innocent. But let me entertain Pro"s conclusions and make some of my own. As stated before, there are many details that were left out. The sending of the bears would suggest that the children were out to kill Elisha. Killing in self defense is not considered wrong or evil. So let"s take it in that perspective, you have 42 children out to mock and kill one man for no apparent reason, a man who just helped a village and were just trying to go about his own business. Considering this the 42 children do not look as innocent and undeserving of punishment as you would think now do they? While I was doing my service in the army we were shown footage of events that took place as a part of our Riot training. I remember 3 young children, aged between 6 " 9 years old, taking turns to throw a rock against an elderly persons head until the man eventually died. This took about 30 to 50 minutes before the person passed away. Do you think these youths deserve to be eaten by a bear?
According to the Bible God sent two female bears to kill 42 children.

My opponent attacks on two fronts. First that the Prophet Elisha was the person who sent the bears after the children. Second, that children could be used in a different context. First, to the best of my knowledge all miracles that prophet perform are through God. That God is the one responsible for the miracles, in this case the bears. Second the Bible uses the word children, so therefore children are children. Impact, I have shown that God sent the bears, and that children are children. Thus fulfilled my burden of proof.
The pen is mightier than the sword.

I disagree. The written or spoken insult is not pathetic compared to the sword. Think of the power of the media. How "gossip," and lies, or indeed the truth can destroy a person's reputation. Something many people would consider to be of the highest importance. The Pen is everything BUT pathetic. Without the pen society would be nothing that it is today. The Laws and theories of scientists such as Newton and Darwin would not exist. Our outlook and knowledge on life, would be entirely different and the work of other scientists, could not have evolved or advanced in the way it has, if it all, without the influence of it's predecessors and the pen. Furthermore, Religion would be entirely different without the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah or any other holy book you care to name. How different would the lives of millions of religious people be today, without the pen. It is often said, that the root of all wars, is religious. In which case, if our view of religion was altered, as indeed it would be without the religious texts, then perhaps war would not ensue. Then, there would be no need for swords to be drawn. In this way, the pen begins war and provides an opportunity for the use of the sword. Likewise, it ends war, in the form of treaties and so removes the opportunity for the use of the sword. In this sense, the pen has the ultimate power over the sword, dictating it's use. Surely "Mein Kampf" the book Hitler wrote whilst in prison, is indicative of the pen's power. He managed to change the mindsets of millions. Something a sword could not do. How do we know all of this? ! How was it that you were able to recount the story of how the middle finger was invented during the hundred year war? How was it that you were able tell of the Iraq war, Korea's nuclear weapon stockpiling and of the war in Palestine? ! I presume it was because you have read of this or been taught this? In this way you have lost your ignorance through the written word. How was it that you were even able to put forward your argument? Through the pen. It is the pen, that enables a city, a country, a generation, a world to access knowledge that would not be otherwise available to them. A sword does not reap such benefits. Whilst it is the sword that may drive a person to their grave. It is the pen, that enables them to live on, through statistics and history. Even the pen, has the power to defeat death a sword does not.
The pen is mightier than the sword.

I negate the resolution: The pen is mightier than the sword. Intelligent humans probably would agree that if you took into perspective what written or spoken insult is, that is quite pathetic compared to the sword. Any intelligent human would also realize that others opinions really shouldn't affect them if they are of stable mind and personality. Any insult spoken or written is just a product of human behavior developed over centuries. For instance the middle finger was invented during the Hundred Years War. When a French bowman was captured by the British, they would cut off his middle finger, so that even if he did escape, he could not use a bow anymore. When French bowman escaped with there fingers intact, they would flick the British off in a "you didn't get my finger" retaliation. Somehow, today's society converted this into the phrase "f*** off". This is just one example of how insults communicated in a non-physical manner are just misinterpreted trinkets of history. Insults come and go as well, almost in a cyclic process, deeming them inconstant. This is opposed to physical abuse or contact as a result of anger, which is evident all over the animal kingdom, including human society. "The sword" has always been apart of history. It is clearly more effective in warfare, as demonstrated with Korea's nuclear weapon stockpiling, the Iraq war, and the war in Palestine. You don't see soldiers screaming "your mom" at the enemy do you? I therefore continue to negate the resolution because of "the pen's" inconstancy, inertness, and pathetic stature when compare to the sword.
Homework is necessary

I am glad to see I have a open and fair minded opponent. I understand that school is usually an important part of a student's life. Here is what I propose. When students are in Kindergarten through fifth grade, they are given normal homework. But when students reach middle school, home work should be optional, and should not be included in their grades. Kids that do the work are interested in their education, and think the stuff they are learning is important. Kids that don't do the work may not for multiple reasons. I know some kids will be to lazy or immature to do anything, but that will be their choice. Parents and teachers often know what's best for their kids or students, but at one point kids know what's best for themselves more than anyone else. The reason we wait until middle school to give kids the power to control their own education is because before that age most kids have not matured enough to know what's going to be best for them down the road.