BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
trayvon martin over george zimmerman, was more a cause of racism

yes a juror attributed it to a culture thing, but it was not the cracka reference to olden days like con argues. she said it was just the way people talked. i would suppose it's like if someone says "creepy nigga" is followin me, and the nigga is a more generic hood talk, not offensive. even if this is the case, it doesn't mean it wasn't racist, and it is more racist than anything zimmerman said. martin was angry, angry zimmerman was following him. perhaps con is reading too much into this statement. i'm not trying to make it out to be that it was martin who was hot headed instigator etc. either way, thjis point doesn't mean much as to race, other than to say martin was 'upset' which was my only point to begin with, and adds some evidence cracka was mroe negative than con insists. i tend to trust that zimemrman thought it was erratic behavior. even if i'm wrong is not much basis to con's argument. con said zimmerman is racist cause hte thought the behavior was erratic. i just showed that thinking that doesn't ahve to do with race. if he didn't think that, it still has nothing to do with race. all con has is a hoodie poinnt, but again, that's more the preconceived notion of the person arguing it that it's about race. it's actually more racist for the person to think it has to do with hoodies, that person is the one who is clearly making assumptions. con just assumes zimmerman was out looking for black men. he must be saying that if there's nothing to make it racial, why would he go after them? therefore it must be the thing that is racial, that we must assume it was about being black. it's actually not far fetched to be skeptical of someone in a hoodie waliking strange places, or anywhere. this isn't racial though. if zimmerman's brother thought it was similar to the people killed, con hasn't shown that the brother thought it had to do with race. only that it was similar. con is the one instering something that is not thtere, yet again. even if the brother thought whatever, it doesn't necessarily have to do with what zimmerman himself thought. the black caucus thing might be racial, but it might just be him noticing that blacks do and say a lot that whites could never do, per race. and again this isnt zimmerman's thought necessarily. even if zimmerman's family thought blacks brought the area down, it might actually be the case in that situatio. objectively, that can sometimes be estalished, crime, or wahtever. perhaps profiling here could be called racist, but it's really just facing facts. it's an unfortunate thing. and again there's not enough evidence to make it be that zimmerman himself acted out of racial elements.
trayvon martin over george zimmerman, was more a cause of racism

cracker may have a historical usage referring to cowboy types, but nothing about the context made that appear to be the case... martin was being followed and martin was angry, and it's not uncommon phrase that blacks use perjoratively for nonblacks. which fits best? the racist usage. does the witness you cite have much credibility to say what she thought it meant? no, that was martin's friend who most agree seemed to be stretching things for martin. con argues zimmerman racially profiled martin because his alleged erratic behavior and hoodie. are those traits exclusive to blacks? no. are they associated? arguably, but that's more the preconceived notion of the person who wants to argue than what necessarily more likely than not was the case. there are lots of whites who act erratic and wear hoodies. con also argues about of facts about martin, in his list, that don't have anything to do with the issue of race, the point of the debate. these are actually quite a ridiculous arguments by con.
trayvon martin over george zimmerman, was more a cause of racism

it goes against the media's portrayal, but it was martin who was guilty of racism, at least more guilty. while being followed, martin told someone on his phone "... @$$ cracker" is following him. zimmerman, while he was on the phone with the operator referred to martin and all the criminals in the area recently as "they". many think this means 'black'. but when the operator later asked race, zimmerman said he didn't know, and went through a few possibilities but said he didn't know. this means he probably wasnt referring to blacks, at least if he was honest, which we have no reason to question. probably 'they' means the criminals that have recently been ransacking the area.
Loyalty

I thank con for his patience, "Without conditions or limitations" is a satisfying definition; however,the implications that I am "basically" saying "that someone who is truly loyal does not intent to gain anything from the person they choose to be loyal to" is falsely contrived. This is neither implied in my opening argument nor can it be deduced based on the preceding definition. Con has no basis on which to place this statement. I agree with con that it is important to address why a person would want to be like that. In order to claim loyalty towards someone or something, one must possess legitimate reasons for having this loyalty. This argument addresses those who do in fact contain within them this solid resolve not to falter in their loyalties and why they are so adamant concerning said loyalties. Loyalty, the feeling of devotion one has for someone or something; allegiance, the duty a citizen has for his country; and fidelity, unwavering devotion to someone or something, are synonymous and all(based on the given definitions from dictionary.reference.com) inextricably interwoven with the idea of constancy(i.e. the quality of being enduring and unchanging(i.e. unconditional)) The two paragraph following con's "ultimate question" are based solely on speculation. The fact that con states that if the "so called true-loyalist who seeks the well being cannot get that well being then the so called true-loyalist will eventually gain a disliking for that person and lose their commitment for them in the end for sure" is "simple logic" then it is clear that he is placing a blanket statement over all loyalists, and more importantly, he does not realize that human actions are often not based on this said "simple logic." Concerning cons final statement: the usage of "no one" is flagrant. To say "no one" is to remove even the slightest of possibilities that someone might fall into a separate category. This concern not this debate particularly or directly. I am merely stating that such blanket references to most peoples(in this case loyalists) as wholes are the very foundations on which bigotry is raised. Again do I thank con for his patience and I await his response.
Loyalty

.. Now in Pro's Round 1 Pro said "Being truly loyal to something or someone is unconditional" and the key word in that sentence was "unconditional" so it appears that this debate is a debate about whether true loyalty is unconditional or not. So I will argue in this debate that being truly loyal is in fact conditional. Using thefreedictionary. com I looked up the meaning of the word "unconditional" and the explanation that I found said to be: "Without conditions or limitations" [1] So basically Pro is saying that someone who is truly loyal does not intent to gain anything from the person they choose to be loyal to. The ultimate question to this is WHY would they want to be like that? Obviously the So called true-loyalist is looking out for the other person's well being in the end, and gaining someone's well being is a condition for loyalty. And the person's well being may not turn out to be the way the so called true-loyalist desires it to be. Therefore if so called true-loyalist who seeks the well being cannot get that well being then the so called true-loyalist will eventually gain a disliking for that person and lose their commitment for them in the end for sure. That is simple logic. This shows that being truly loyal to something or someone is indeed conditional. No one will give their full feelings and attentions for someone else for nothing. They will seek to gain something. Therefore true loyalty is conditional in the end. I end my Round 1 here. .. Sources: [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
WODC: Xinjiang's independence

Hi Guys - timing has got the best of us with this debate. It was an excellent topic and we want to do it justice - since we've found out that we're debating eachother in the next round, we've decided to do a quick debate for Round 4 and pick this one up again, bright and early in Round 5. Round 5 for us will be argued on Edeb8, so feel free to pop over there and check it out next week.Arc will post a link to our new debate in the comments section. Thanks! Here's a baby sloth for being such a good crowd.
WODC: Xinjiang's independence

Thanks to my opponent for setting this debate up. China has held the Xinjiang region since 1759, over 250 continuous years of protection and investment. The resolution for this debate argues that China should split and grant independence to this area. My side of the house will argue that such a split would assuredly not be China's best interests for a range of sound and logical reasons. We believe it's no exaggeration to say that that to do so now could potentially lead to the collapse of China as we know her today. While our main argument will be based from China's perspective, considering the global implications of China's collapse will certainly be something we will bring to the table. For these reasons, we are happy to oppose the resolution and look forward to a rousing debate!
WODC: Xinjiang's independence

IntroductionThis debate is for Larz's World Online Debate Cup Tournament. Also, there is a 1,500 minimum ELO required to vote on this debate.Full TopicThat the Xinjiang province of China should be granted independence.DefinitionsXinjiang - is an autonomous region which also contains the disputed territory of Aksai Chin administered by the People's Republic of China in the northwest of the country. [1]Independence - is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory. [2]Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: ConstructivesR3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals and ClosingsSources1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...Thanks to nzlockie and await his acceptance.
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

http://www.merriam-webster.com...), I present the other definition of homosexuality: - The quality or state of being homosexualBy this definition, the debate is about whether the mere fact of BEING homosexual is immoral, not only ACTS of homosexuality.2) This is more of a sidenote: I won't be using analogy with the British Parliament, I hope my opponent doesn't mind. I hope for stimulating debate!
The San Antonio Spurs Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions.

I would like to point out a few things in order to attack my opponent's case: Miami's defense is far superior to the Spurs, only allowing 85 points per game while their offense averages 98. The edge in rebounding was arguably what led Miami over the Pacers in the final 3 games of the series, so taking rebounding as a meager stat (especially compared to blocks) is simply being ignorant. The fact that the Spurs have made the playoffs 15 years in a row is completely irrelevant as to whether or not they would win the title. The veteran players that the Spurs have can arguably hurt them. They're three best players all have at least 9 seasons in the NBA now, and Duncan is clearly performing at a lower level every year. They're age will make it tough to keep pushing through for the rest of the playoffs as younger and quicker teams (like the Thunder) run the court against them. Time for my own contentions: The Heat have better players. When ESPN ranked the top 500 NBA players, they ranked Lebron #1 and Wade #3. The best player the Spurs have? 34-year-old Manu Ginobili, ranked 18th. You don't win an NBA title when your best player is worse than 17 other NBA players, especially when your competition has 2 of the top 3 players. Miami has youth. As I touched up on, the Heat are young and the Spurs are old. Lebron is a year or two away from his prime and Wade is only about a year behind his. Bosh--when healthy--is at the ideal age of 27. The Spur's two best players are 34 and 35. This is great when you're sweeping teams and have a lot of rest, but when you have what should be a long series against a great young team like the Thunder and THEN try to play another young team like the Heat, you're oldies are gonna get worn out. Miami has better defense. This is a no-brainer, the Heat allowed only 85 points per game while scoring 95. Also, as I said, they have better rebounding, which is a stat that far too many fans overlook as oftentimes it is key in not only a game but a series. The Spurs have no "go-to". Miami can easily pass the ball to Lebron (or even Wade if they have to) with only a few seconds left and watch magic happen. But when was the last time you saw Manu make a clutch buzzer beater or Duncan put the team on his back in the final two minutes? If these teams play it will surely result in close games, and the Heat have two great players to get the ball to when the game is on they line. The Spurs? No.
The San Antonio Spurs Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions.

I would like to point out that the prompt is "The San Antonio Spurs will be the 2012 NBA champions", and since I am con I do not have to argue what team will win, I simply have to argue that the Spurs will not win. However, if I had to choose a champion I would have to go with the Miami Heat. However, like I said, I simply have to argue that the Spurs will not win the NBA title. I look forward for what should be a good debate.
The San Antonio Spurs Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions.

Resolution: The San Antonio Spurs will win the 2012 NBA Championship.I'm going with Dirk's prediction. Spurs all the way.Please, no semantics.*STRUCTURE: I. Round 1 will be acceptance. My opponent should also use this round to choose the team he/she believes will win the championship.II. Round 2 will be for arguments/rebuttals.III. Round 3 will be for rebuttals and defenses. No new arguments (or rebuttals for Con) may be presented in this round.*________________*Failure to adhere to these simple rules should result in an auto-loss. NOTE: The time to argue will be only 24 hours to minimize the effect that new developments in the OKC/Spurs series have on the debate.
Cigarettes should be banned from society

In the positive speaker's first argument they took into account many valid points that should be taken into consideration when voting on this debate, they showed statistics and links to a very informative website that should be viewed by anyone interested in the smoking debate, however, when analysing the arguments put forward by the positive speaker one notices the repeated failed attempts at making grounds with the limited evidence and lacking arguments. He attempted to rebut my point focussing on tax raising cigarette prices, he then provided extensive evidence about why these tax raising is a good thing. (To quote directly from the positive speaker, "smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; and that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society...") I believe all of the listed evidence the negative speaker has provided in this case prove even further that smoking should not receive a complete ban. If a complete ban did occur, cigarettes will become the next cannabis, being used illegally in the shadows creating a horrible economy and even worse lifestyles for those getting caught in the society. The positive speaker next describes how we should be sceptical of professional anti-smoking campaigners, and I agree, over the many years of the greater population feeling very mixed emotions towards the subject, the number of these campaigners have grown and the amount have extensive personal gain gives the audience a lot of reason to want these campaigners gone. With a government funded and supported campaign, the advertising and such will be taken care of by government paid for employees receiving no additional pay other than necessary. To finalise his statment the negative speaker provided many valid points that to my great supprise, backs up my argument. He listed the many reasons why a complete ban would be deteriorating towards the smoking and economic society, he described past bans as "hurts small businesses and violate private property rights." And even stated that "punishing smokers "for their own good" is repulsive" this remark in itself clearly benefits my argument (that cigarettes should not receive a complete ban). In short, for further arguements supporting my case, please re-read the positive speaker's round two speach. Cigarettes should not receive a complete ban as, put simply, this will effect smokers, society and even the economy worse than the current stage. Thankyou
Cigarettes should be banned from society

This arguement presents an overview of the controversy over tobacco control, with links to documents in HTML and PDF formats available from PolicyBot, the free online database and search engine that also resides on The Heartland Institute"s Web site. You can go directly to the "Smoking" topic in PolicyBot and view hundreds of documents without the assistance of this essay by clicking here. Why Defend Smokers? Everywhere you look, anti-smoking groups are campaigning against smokers. They claim smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society; and that for all these reasons, taxes on cigarettes should be raised. There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places. The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas. A growing number of independent policy experts from a wide range of professions and differing political views are speaking out against the anti-smoking campaign. These persons aren"t defending the tobacco industry, they defend smokers for several reasons: Smokers already pay taxes that are too high to be fair, and far above any cost they impose on the rest of society. The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science. Litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has "loaded the gun" for lawsuits against other industries. Smoking bans hurt small businesses and violate private property rights. The harm caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about safer options such as electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Appeals to "protect the children" don"t justify the war being waged against adult smokers. Punishing smokers "for their own good" is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force. i have the right to post new fact supporting my arguments next round
Cigarettes should be banned from society

Cigarettes should not receive a complete, immediate ban from society. I would like to scope this argument to the entirety of Australia, and define the topic as a complete ban of cigarettes. Meaning all use and possession of cigarettes will result in a heavy fine and possible community service and jail time. As the negative speaker I strongly disagree with this and believe that cigarettes should not receive a complete ban from society. I also believe that the effects of a complete ban of cigarettes will increase the level of crime in Australia, as well as create an additional struggle on the economy from the importation of the substance. The complete ban of cigarettes also will create another band of drug crime, and the illegal manufacturing of cigarettes will become unsafe as no standard amounts of nicotine or other chemicals will be controlled by regulations, such occurrences have repeatedly been recorded across other drug crime including that of cannabis and illegally manufactured supplements. However I believe that cigarettes should become more controlled in the factory process and use of cigarettes. This means there will be increased government promotion of e-cigarettes as a temporary alternative, and the ban of the use of cigarettes in all public places, as well as an increase taxation and a differing, safer formula in smokes overtime. I also believe that the job is not to completely ban cigarettes, but instead change and regulate the manufacturing process so a decrease in harmful substances and nicotine in each cigarette to create a controlled smoking environment that will assist in the deduction of smokers. I also feel those whom have placed 'cigarette user' on their medical records should receive an increase in mandatory checkups to maintain knowledge of possible diseases and to advertise counseling for cigarette users. I agree that cigarettes are an unhealthy way of life that circulates through families as a part of society, but I also believe that banning of dangerous substances in the past has led to an increase in long term effects and a complete, immediate ban is not a safe option. Cigarettes should not receive an complete, immediate ban from society. Thank you.
Garchomp V.S Swampert

Alright, well I guess I will use my move even though Garchomp goes first...Swampert use Endeavor!The move Endeavor is used only when the user Pokemon has a lower HP then the other. Once used both of the Pokemon will have the same HP as the Pokemon that used it.http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon)
Garchomp V.S Swampert

Rebuttals Surf, a water-type move, is not super-effective against Garchomp. Although water is super effective against ground, it is not very effective against dragon, making Surf a neutral move on Garchomp. With that said, the damage calculation must be redone. Using the same calculator from before, and both pokemon with max stats at level 100, Garchomp will take 111 damage from Surf, leaving it with 225 health (336-111). Argument. Garchomp used Earthquake! Using the same calculator from before, and both pokemon are at max stats, Swampert will take 151 damage from Earthquake, leaving it with 133 health (284-151). Note: I would like to say that Garchomp should be getting to attack before Swampert does, because Garchomp's base speed is higher than Swampert's. Therefore, Garchomp used Earthquake on Swampert before Swampert used Surf, as is Garchomp used Dragon Claw before Swampert used Hammer Arm.
Garchomp V.S Swampert

My apologies. I assumed ground and rock were the same type.It appears that my opponent has already chosen his amount of hp that is left for me so I will do that too. Swampert, use Surf!Super Affective!Putting in consideration that this move is Super Affective, My opponents Pokémon's HP goes from 336 to 200 because of its insignificantly small amount of Defense and Special Defense.
Garchomp V.S Swampert

Alright, let the debate commence! Rebuttals Hammer Arm is a Fighting-type move, which is not super-effective on Ground or Dragon types, therefore meaning Hammer Arm is not super effective on Garchomp. Argument According to the damage calculator, a Hammer Arm from Swampert against Garchomp, assuming both pokemon are level 100 and have max stats (rule 6), Garchomp will take 86 damage, leaving it with 336 health (420-86). Garchomp used Dragon Claw! According to the same damage calculator, and the same stats from before, Garchomp will deal 120 damage to Swampert, leaving it with 284 health, (404-120). Sources: http://www.psypokes.com... http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...