BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Limit of amount of children per couple

Thank you for your next post. You say that the just because the government has power does not mean they will use it. So does that mean we should let the government raid our houses if they want? Or what about letting them put our kids in any school they wish? The government could use it, that is the point. You also said this ‘And if they do violate our freedoms at least we will be better off in the long run.' Excuse me if this sounds rude, but you kind of sound like a citizen of a communist country. Our founding fathers said that if there is one thing to keep in America, it is our freedom. You also did not comment on the ninth amendment. Are you going against that? Over population is not hurting us to the point where we need to limit our families. If you are talking about running out of room, America still has lots and lots of acres. If you are talking about jobs, the more people, the more businesses. More than three children to you may seem unreasonable, but not everyone thinks as you do. So you think that it is better for a child to not have a life at all then risking a life of being poor? Wow. I am the third child of my family and have a brother who is the forth. We had nothing in the bank, but always had food to eat, there are many programs and people out there to help. So just because we hit rock bottom did not make my mother wish that she did not have my little brother. We are doing just fine now, and he is still here. We can not let chances take away our freedom. You claim that people can always (note the always) prevent having a child. There are many reasons why that is not true. Condoms do not guaranty that pregnancies will not happen. Sperm can get through the holes that condoms have. It is the same thing with birth control, it is not a promise. There are many people out there who think that killing a baby is wrong. So they would also be very angry. In China, there are a lot of abortions because people want to have boys. It has been going on for awhile now. But now China faces a problem, there are a lot more boy children then there are girls. If they keep doing this at the rate they are going, it will be hard to get married. There will be a lot more rape crimes in the future. Why would we want to bring that here? Also, what if someone had four, but had to put the last one up for adoption. That kid would grow up sad because he or she was ripped away for his or her family. It would be cruel and unusual. There is so much I can go on about but I will save the rest for later. Sources: (1). http://www.msnbc.msn.com... (2). http://archive.newsmax.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com... (4). http://www.watchblog.com...
Limit of amount of children per couple

I understand that you believe that the government has to much power over what we do. However, they hardly ever use their powers, and if they do violate our freedoms at least we will be better off in the long run. I'm sure if we sit down and realize that overpopulation is harming both us and future generations we will take this into consideration. I'm not saying to limit the amount of children to 1 like in China. I believe that 3 children is enough for a household, anything more than that is unreasonable. Lets say someone has 4 children and loses their jobs the next day. How will they feet their children? In such an unstable economy, things such as this should be taken into consideration by our citizens. Even if this is taking our freedoms away, we will soon realize this was done for the greater good. I mean why do these children have to suffer with starvation, its not their fault. If we sit down and think, we won't be missing out in life by getting this freedom taken away. I'm sure 3 children is more than enough for someone to satisfy their needs of enjoyment of life. Most of us don't know what we're expecting when we have a child, and most of us aren't prepared for things such as job loss. As far as my views on abortion, I never found it fair because you can always prevent having the child in the first place. Just use condoms and birth control during sex. I'm not completely against abortion, if the person was forced into having the child then it is fair to have an abortion. However, the reckless abortions these days are not fair neither to the child of to the mother.
Limit of amount of children per couple

Thank you for starting this debate, you picked hard subject to argue for your first debate. First I would like to state the obvious, the moment we let the government tell us how many children can be in our family is the moment we give up our freedom. Already the Government has so much power. They can start a war, they can raise taxes, they could even legalize meth if they wanted to. Why would someone want to let the government control their families? It is also against the bill of rights to let the government have that power. The ninth amendment says: Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Secondly, I noticed that you are against abortion. If someone has three children and gets pregnant again they will have to either put their own child up for adoption, or terminate their baby. The rate of abortions will hit the roof if there was a limit. I will save the rest for round two. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Limit of amount of children per couple

This is my first debate on this website, so feel free to correct my mistakes. One topic that I have strongly felt about is limiting the amount of children a couple can have. Before getting straight to the point, I would like my opponent to take some things into consideration. In America, we are struggling with a bad economy and limited labor availability. Thousands of people are fired from work daily, and they are left helpless in the world. It is very hard to find a job once you are fired, and if you have a family what will you do? Most people blame illegal immigrants for taking our jobs, but that's not the case. They might be illegal, but they are hard working and they have the jobs that most of us won't even want. If we would want jobs like this, their are tons of them available in local fast food places. Even if we deport all the illegal immigrants, we will only realize that we have ourselves to blame. Today, the world is filled with envy and greed, people just stopped working together. Americas poor relations with other countries has caused the bad economy. We are in debt, and for what? This all brings me to my point. Overpopulation is a big issue in America. I understand that other countries such as China have 3x the population as we do. But we must think about the future generations that will be ahead of us. How will our children survive in such chaos? With so many children being born, just imagine what they will have to deal with when they are grown up. There is always a chance some of them will have no jobs, no food, and their own kids to feed. Most people aren't prepared for job loss, and then it hits them. Companies only fire their employees because they have to cope with this economy as well. If Americans keep on having as many kids as they do now, only God knows what will happen in the future.
We must resist the attempts of gay activists to restrict our freedom of expression

Today, under intense pressure from the House of Lords, the British Government finally backed down and agreed to retain the "freedom of expression" clause in new legislation intended to prevent criticism of homosexuality. It was a very close call though and the only reason the Government did not use the Parliament Act to force the legislation through was because tomorrow marks the end of the current Parliamentary Session. Nevertheless, they intend to impose these new restrictions on our freedom of speech "as soon as possible" and they are supported by peers such as the openly gay Lord Smith who claimed that "free speech could lead to more homophobic attacks". Had the Bill passed and received Royal Assent, I could have been liable to arrest and prosecution under the Coroners and Justice Bill (2009) had I chosen to repeat the debate entitled "A ban on sex between men should be introduced in order to help prevent the spread of AIDS" that I recently posted on this site. Many comedians are also concerned that a law banning jokes involving gays "could stifle creativity and even lead to the threat of people being arrested." Let's be clear about this: militant gay activists and their supporters in Parliament are doing their level best to deny the general public their fundamental right to express their opinions on sexual practices. Even as the law stands, people who question homosexual behaviour face being interrogated by the police and are even liable to prosecution. For example, during the Lords debate, one peer cited the example of a grandmother who was visited by police after writing a letter to Norwich Council to complain about a gay pride march. Do we really want to see our freedom of expression curtailed even further than it already is? I think not and that is why I am calling for the British public to stand up to these gay rights extremists and their apologists in Parliament and protest against their draconian and anti-democratic proposals and I further urge this House to support me in this endeavour. Thank you. Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.debate.org... http://services.parliament.uk...
DA Tournament: The Most Accurate Meta-Ethical Theory. Moral Realism (Pro) vs Moral Relativism (Con)

Full Resolution: "What is the most accurate meta-ethical theory. Moral Realism, or Moral RelativismThis is in fulfilment of the religious devils advocate tournament:. http://www.debate.org...Definitions:Moral Realism: "Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which propositions may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. "[. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Moral Relativism: "Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. .. meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong"[. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Format:8,000 characters, 4 rounds, 48h. Burden of Proof is Shared.
"Price Gouging" (of gasoline) should be limited (or eliminated) by the United States Government*

I INTEND TO NEGATE THE RESOLUTION *Definition: "Price Gouging" in this debate refers to it's legal usage, Price gouging is a pejorative term for a seller pricing much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. In precise, legal usage, it is the name of a felony that applies in some of the United States only during civil emergencies. FOR The scope of this argument, this resolution applies only to gasoline prices during states of emergency in the United States. Furthermore, this resolution may also be interpreted as "Corporations should not have the right to charge above [a certain maximum] during emergency situations" I will hold my arguments for later.
white privilege is a thing

Since most blacks are lower class class based affirmative action would help them right? And it wouldn't create unfair disparities between middle class black people/women and poor whites/men. You don't have to live in a black ghetto to be poor, and plenty of white people live in urban or rural poor areas in similar conditions to poor black people. There are 20 million poor whites in America. Since the beginning of time black people have been mistreated? So for the hundreds of thousands of years humans existed? I think you mean since the beginning of American time. I don't deny that it still hangs over lots of people. When did I say racism only exists in small quantities? I said that most of the disparities between whites and blacks are class based. Not all blacks are poor and not all whites are middle class. In the article you gave this woman is talking about how people didn't like a previous article she wrote where she basically said that all whites who were not fighting racism were part of the problem. She didn't understand that there are whites involved in other causes and whites who have their own problems and can't actively fight racism. Reacting to a stupid article does not mean ignoring racism. BTW white people have experienced racism in history and do today. https://en.wikipedia.org... Most aren't "blind" to racism they just have other problems. There is anti black racism sure. There are lots of backlashes against black lives matter because of the way they act. I am the one who gets to make the call on whether my life is privileged or not. People who don't know me and have no idea what my life is like DO NOT get to tell me what my life is like. I was raised MUSLIM after 9/11 and dealt with terrible discrimination, yet because I'm white I have privilege? You have no idea who I am or what my life has been like so you do not get to tell me I have privilege. White people, if anyone, should be the ones deciding if they are privileged or not. We know what our own lives are like. People who don't know what our lives are like should not be telling us "how great we have it." I did not say that black people who fight against racism are "animals' or "inferior" or "criminals." I said that actual criminals are...criminals and have no excuses to commit violent crimes. I am fine with people fighting racism, but if you block high ways, shut down events and harass people like black lives matter does, than you are morally "inferior." Black lives matter does disgusting things when "fighting against racism." Not appreciating their harassment does not equate to racism .
white privilege is a thing

sure, in the last example you gave the middle class black person would have more privilege, but what I am arguing is that most of the black community is lower class whilst only a small portion of the white community actual lives in these ghettos, or suffers from this staggering poverty. I absolutely do not excuse any violent crimes committed by blacks or other, but history has shown that any group that is being oppressed, or is being provoked ,treated unfairly, discriminated against, and abused is likely to lash out. Usually it is because that group is suffering from segregation, and prosecution. Even the most mundane affiliations today probably suffered prosecution due to adversity. Christians, Jews, Pakistani, Armenians, LGBT community, and blacks. These organizations or groups they all fought to get out from under the thumb of whomever was considered the standard, or superior race. Since the beginning of time black people have been among the under valued under appreciated pariahs of our society. Only for us the torment still has not ended it still looms over us every day like a dark cloud. If you think racism only exist in small quantities then your eyes have yet to be opened to the life in the day of a dark skinned individual http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . Not to say that your opinion is invalid, but white people, and people outside of the problem in general are so blind to the divide that is shattering America. Everyday black people are faced with not only crippling poverty, and the inability to rise up in life without doing the only thing they are taught how to do (being criminals of some sort), but also the staggering racism that I can say confidently still exists, and is not only prevalent but growing. Every time the black community holds a peaceful protest their is back lash from outsider parties. A racist person can say what they are doing or saying is not offensive, but at the end of the day it is not their call whether what they do is offensive or not . You, a privileged white person are not the one who gets to make the call on whether there is such thing as white privilege or not, we do. The people who see it everyday with their own eyes the people who gain animosity towards you every day because nobody is doing anything to make a change it is being passed over and pushed under the rug, and because we wont go down without a fight that makes us animals, criminals...inferior.
white privilege is a thing

Only a small percentage of white people today are genuinely racist. Stop excusing criminals. Does poverty explain why black men are more likely to rape than other demographics? Are you going to excuse rapists? White people who commit non violent crimes do them for the same reasons as black people--they might be desperate or maybe they're just selfish jerks. Most white criminals are not rich. White people played a large role in ending slavery, so don't judge all whites and say they were all racist. That was my point. The pat on the black goes to the actual people who ended slavery not their decedents or anyone else. Black people are being killed disproportionately...by other black people. They are not disproportionately being killed by police. The reason they are more likely to be killed by police is because they are more likely to commit violent crimes. How do you know that the shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota were results of racism? In the MN shooting the cop was Hispanic. Affirmative action harms minorities. If you get into a college based on your race when you were not qualified enough to get in otherwise you are more likely to fail out. It would be much better for those students to go to colleges they are qualified for and wont drop out of. By letting them into places they'll fail out of you are doing them a disservice and not giving them an advantage or a leg up. They might have experienced the real world but they aren't qualified. Also, black students are more likely to have hard times in school due to class. White poor students in trailer parks or urban white ghettos have the same problems as black kids in black ghettos. If black people having more problems in school is why you support affirmative action, and the reason they have more problems is class, than you should support class based affirmative action. Isn't it unfair that a rich black person can be given a spot over a poor white person who didn't have as good an upbringing as them? In that case you wouldn't be evening a playing field you would be creating a bigger disparity. You would be giving the "advantage" to someone who didn't need it. Whose more privileged? The white kid who grew up in a trailer park or a middle class black kid?
white privilege is a thing

your last point is 100% inaccurate 'saying that white people oppressing blacks is like saying that all Muslims are terrorists'. Yes it is generalized but it is not a 1% it is not a small portion of our society it is more like 80% of the black population that is either being brought up in poverty where there only choice is to commit crimes, whereas many white people who commit crimes do it only to make the rich get richer. As to what you said at the beginning of your argument, yes white people did play a big role in ending slavery, who else was going to? It's not like one day the slaves could wake up and say 'you know what today I'm no longer a slave' if they did try to revolt then they would be shot. I mean hey if you want to pat yourselves on the back and say yay us only 1.4% of americans owned slaves then go ahead, but that doesn't change the fact that millions of black people were slaves, and thousands were killed. Moving forward a few decades you're surprised why black people aren't happy that they are still being killed. In your example of a white man being killed by a black cop there is actually no proof that the man posed no threat, and also doesn't seem to have anything to do with racism whereas the recent cases have shown on video a black man being shot SEVERAL times in most of the cases far more than necessary to disarm him and even to kill him http://www.dailymail.co.uk... this video is extremely graphic and horrifying. As for black people having it easier when it comes to getting scholarships and getting into better colleges thats because (again in general) they have more tribulations when trying to go through school they are raised in ghettos and many of their neighbors and friends will grow up to be drug dealers, and instead of taking that route the individual who went through the school system and flourished (it's not like you could have a 3.0 GPA and still get into an ivy just because your black) Colleges want people who will do well in the real world and as a fairly true stereotype black people have proven their resilience and promise by getting as far as they did and doing as well as they did. Also ever think of why colleges started giving black people a little advantage... OMG! I think it's because they need a leg up when they are surrounded by all this WHITE PRIVILEGE ! ;)
white privilege is a thing

White privilege is a generalized term, and no not all whites have it good some are in the same ghettos that black people live in, but as a whole as a society white people are not only privileged but they are oppressing blacks. First we were slaves, then we were separate but "equal" which meant blacks got the worst of everything and were treated like dirt but hey at least we weren't being whipped in fields anymore. it is now 2016 and we are integrated but still not equal. We have less access to education. http://www.usnews.com... we have lost the right to fair trial. http://www.nydailynews.com... . And thats only for those lucky enough to make it to trial. Racist officers are gunning down innocent people purely because of their color. https://www.rt.com... and thats only one of the disturbing cases that have been presented in the last year. Yes one black gunman from a law enforcement hate group did kill five cops, and that is horrible, but this is actually a 1% it would be like calling all people of Arabian decent terrorists. 99% of that population share the main belief of peace and equality for all while like any group they do have a small portion of extremists. Black people have been treated unfairly for too long it's time for us to recognize this cultural divide and start filling the gap.