BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
White children vs Asian children - Whites result in more negative teenagers

I know this isn't much of a debate. Yet I would like to sum up my stance to the voters. I believe that white children do not result in more negative teenagers compared to Asians. Asians tend to live in states and jurisdictions that have higher scores and other statistics overall for all races - white, African-American, Hispanic, and Asians. The reason whites are behind - not much, however - is because they are the majority in virtually every US state. The white statistics are boosted by areas that have good rankings overall (for all races) but are lagged because whites also live in states where results are behind. I am simply trying to say that lumping the white race as a whole makes it appear as if they were lagging behind; however, a majority of whites have caught up or have even surpassed Asian statistics. My opponent failed to cite resources and utilized a good bit of stereotype and assumption. I ask voters to think about who honestly won this debate - not only in terms of convincing arguments, but also in terms of conduct. Thank you.
Fiscal conservatism and private business is our only way to prosper and get out of this recession.

There isn't a single economic model anywhere that shows that government "investing" yields long term economic growth. Fairness is not an American value. Reducing taxes and cutting government spending will increase the overall wealth of America which is not finite, but in only being constrained by inefficiency. Optimally, taxes would be 0% plus a marginal, equal distribution investment by all in order maintain security and infrastructure. The government rarely achieves anything by investing. We are held hostage by such statements that investing in education will yield better results, or investing in clean energy will benefit this country. Almost all successful investments come from the private sector as eloquently demonstrated by companies such as x-prize.
Fiscal conservatism and private business is our only way to prosper and get out of this recession.

Ok, I wrote that so I will rewrite it here: The first step to fix this country is to immediately slash federal government spending. Although this will send a shock through the entire economic system, it is a necessary shock. When the system is artificially propped up, there will be an impact from that false pressure. The approach that we take today where every program begins the budget year with a necessary 10% increase is self-defeating. There are no checks and balances and no accountability. There must be hundreds if not thousands of federal agencies that were originally intended (usually driven by emotion) to do good for some slice of the population; agencies which we don't even remember their original purpose; and lastly, agencies that fail to actually do the good that they intended. The public sector, service oriented good intended agencies repeatedly have failed to provide (except for a few exceptions). So start with what the federal government was established to do: defend the country and the population. This means a military to defend against foreign attacks and to maintain interstate law and order. After that program is reviewed (and it does need review) and funded appropriately, you then have a bottoms up budget design. Social Security is not going to be around in the near future . I'll pay into this abomination that has become the private sectors baby boomer's retirement fund, and I'll try to fund my own retirement. I have to do both. But please, while I do both, stop spending and printing money so what I am actually saving has some value down the road. So yes, reform social security. We don't need to give money to people that don't need it. Sorry, if you don't need it, you don't get it. I don't care if you paid into it. So did I and so am I, but we all know I am not going to see it. Please don't have our younger generation of new workers entering the work force pay into this social security that is giving money to wealthy senior citizens. We must stop income redistributions. Especially stop sending SSI insurance to young people who are "disabled" from depression or anxiety. Please, don't get me started here. It's the worst way to help them. Cut off welfare, food stamps and unemployment for anyone using them longer than 3 months. You would be amazed how much communities will help each other and how charitable this nation is. But it is hard to be charitable when all of your money is already being inefficiently transferred by the federal government to those that don't even need it or who are unwilling to work. There are almost 400 million people in America. 50 million pay federal tax, 80 million receive money from the government. You can review the 441 federal agencies that can be cut although not all of them fit so refer to my link in my previous argument. I beg anyone to make a case as to why our Federal Government should be funding these agencies. I was very mindful about these so I am sincerely looking for feedback.
Call Of Duty is No Longer a Fun Game Franchise

The Call Of Duty gaming franchise is no longer entertaining. It seems that it is the same game being released every year. There are only minor differences between them now. Ever since the first MW and MW2, the games have become a "DLC Fest" and there is a bombardment of extensions being thrown at the consumers. I have been playing ever since before MW and I deeply enjoyed the games. Ever since Ghosts, it has spiraled out of control. The producers are just milking the franchise and putting the same game on the market every year.
Call Of Duty is No Longer a Fun Game Franchise

I see your argument and I agree with that aspect of the game, but I am primarily talking about how DLC has gotten out of hand and that it seems in my opinion, that it is the same game every year. If you look at the differences between Advanced Warfare and BO3, it seems that there are small differences like different mechanics in the "Thrust Pack" and the ability of wall climbing. With addition to this, there are bombardments of DLC to the consumers. This shows just how desperate it seems that the producers of the game are. If you look at Ghosts, there are hundreds of possible DLC purchases that are completely useless, like changing your in-game character's voice to Snoop Dog. I'm not saying that DLC is bad, in fact, I used to always get the season passes on the older Call Of Duties. All I'm saying is that the extensions have become a bit ridiculous and useless. With this and the fact that the games have become a constant "makeover" every year with no significant changes show just how the franchise has become repetitive and no longer fun to play. If I wanted to play the newest Call Of Duty (BO3), I might as well pay a discounted price for Advanced Warfare instead of paying a price over $100.
Smoking Should be Banned

"There are plenty of places in which smoking is not allowed for the sake of non-smokers." So why not push it even further, and make smoking healthy for everyone? Quitting smoking reduces risk of lung cancer and all the other diseases it causes."Statistics are null and void here because they simply do not matter." What do you mean? So you're saying tons of people dying do not matter?! What if your father died from lung cancer from his addiction to smoking? Would that not matter? "Anyone has the right to do something potentially harmful to himself if they wish to do so." That's true, but the big problem is the addiction to smoking. Without someone to stop them, people smoke on and on. The ban serves as a reminder not to take the harmful product with merely good mental effects.In addition, your sources only support my argument! Take your first source, http://www.cnn.com..., for example. This shows that we hate tobacco and put a restriction act on it. How does this support your argument in any way? Oh, and to take it further--we have already banned smoking in many states and areas, as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org.... If it works for now, there is no reason not to take it to a world-wide level and save everyone from high risk of getting cancer or some other disease. And, your http://debatewise.org... only helps me. A few good points I will stress are "Evidence suggests that in spite of possible practical difficulties of the smoking ban in pubs and bars, it has been a considerable success: if we are to believe Health dept. figures, 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban being brought in"; and the negative health effects and terrible chemicals a single cigarette has. "... if smokers are careful to not expose others" which is why smoking should be banned. It is because it cannot really be enforced in private spaces that in those specific areas they can still be allowed. By "banning worldwide" I really mean "in the public", as police cannot station cameras in houses. :PI have to go to sleep and I'm tired so onto you con!
Smoking Should be Banned

Final round. Okay, so, to support my "unreliable and informal" source, here's a credible source: . http://news.bbc.co.uk.... "A survey suggests more than 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the smoking ban. ", and "Nearly two fifths (39%) said the ban had helped keep them out of hospital. " As can be seen, banning of smoking truly has a positive affect. Your argument about milk: You cannot compare milk to cigarettes. While milk has some negative effects, it has more positive effects. In contrast, cigarettes just make you "Feel good" and have terrible disatrous consequences on the human body. The benefit of smoking is overwhelmed by the negative health effects it gives out. "Where in the constitution does it say anything about the government being required to keep citizens healthy? " It doesn't, but the government nevertheless has tried hard, with the FDA program as well as many other medicine programs, such as health care. If the government didn't try, citizens would be angered and possibly revolt against the bad government. So to answer your question, yes, the government is required to keep citizens healthy for its own state and being. And because smoking is so difficult to quit, the government needs to put a mandatory law upon it. It's similar to a parent stopping a child from doing something bad. You need to "Ground" the child in order to stop him/her from doing the bad thing you don't want it to do. "the numbers do not have any impact on the logic". You are wrong here. Let me exaggerate the numbers a bit more, okay? Let us say, instead of 6 million people dying each year, half of the population on the face of the earth died last year. That would be incredibly impacting to the world, destroying governments around the world, societies, and the rest of the people would struggle to live on. Cigarettes are being introduced by ads, and teenagers are curious to a taste of cigarette. If smoking was spread across the globe, and many many became addicted to it, unable to quit, then my situation would happen--half of the population would die within a year. Had smoking been banned, the number would have been much more controlled and low. Yes, they can buy from the black-market, just like when the alcohol was banned, but the number is very small so as to keep the government from noticing. The ban of smoking will cause a massive decrease of smokers, and thus, leading to the eventual decline of smoking deaths and diseases, enlighting the massive burden on hospitals as well as the money a family has to pay in order to cure the disease obtained from smoking. In conclusion smoking should be banned. Although it cannot be really firmly enforced, it would definitely have a positive effect on the health of the general population.
Absolute knowledge is possible.

I now I understand where you are coming from. I thought your definition of "absolute knowledge" was knowing everything there is to know. After reading your argument I know understand where you are coming from. You mean its possible to know "absolutely" weather something is correct or not. Now knowing what you meant I agree with you. (this sucks because this is my first debate) Sorry for misunderstanding what you were trying to debate. I guess this means I concede.
Absolute knowledge is possible.

The fact that we have to learn neither proves nor disproves the claim that absolute knowledge is possible. It is possible that there might be some bit of knowledge that, once learned, we can be absolutely sure about, in which case the necessity of learning does not contradict the claim that absolute knowledge is possible. For example, we need to learn arithmetic (we aren't born knowing it), but once we learn it we don't go around wondering if we're really sure that 1 + 1 = 2 or not. So, if arithmetic could be shown to be a domain of absolute knowledge, the fact that we need to learn arithmetic doesn't contradict that claim. However, I am not going to attempt to show that arithmetic is such an example of absolute knowledge. In order to prove my case, all I need to do is show ONE example of a claim that we must be absolutely sure about; that can not be controverted in any way. That claim is the following: Something exists. I maintain that the claim above is 100% reliably true. There is nothing that could convince me that it is false. There is no amount of money I would not bet against someone taking the converse position: Nothing exists. The very act of attempting to show the statement to be false, proves that the statement is true. Even if you say that perhaps all of what I call reality is just a dream, that is STILL SOMETHING. Even if everything else is in doubt, at least this ONE statement can be absolutely relied upon and therefore I have proven that absolute knowledge is possible.
Absolute knowledge is possible.

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I simply meant that it was possible to have absolute knowledge of something, not that it was possible to have absolute knowledge of everything. Actually, this is in fact somewhat of a controversial statement as there are many hard-core philosophers who do not believe absolute knowledge is even possible. However, I simply don't see how those philosophers can get around the claim that something exists. The very act of CONSIDERING such a statement proves that it is true. Indeed, how can you even acknowledge the statement (let alone consider it) without proving it to be true? Anyway, thanks for the debate. Good luck in your others.
morality

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now fact=past observation sounds not to similar from memory does it.. and memory is not sharable, i can at best BELIEve what people tell me, as i have to imagine it religion=to rely on, while self is one burn yourself on hot water in your imagiantion, doh hot.. is.. the opposite cold... what are the other options..... im not sure what the opposite of milk is.. to high level for me it is the outcome of the push and the push....... you are trying to remove the effect of the cause, dosnt work, absolute. effect can not exist without cause if you accidentally push him then obivusly its not intended reason+intent=morality if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear. show me a bear skin that dosnt come from a bear.. you will impress me, and constructs are machines not nature, try again you have had no succesfull counter so far, not even 1
morality

1. "Facts are subjective" Facts are not subjective. That is what makes them factual. You are essentially rejecting logic by saying this. If facts are subjective then everything that you are arguing is not based on anything other than opinion. I suppose you are right about the strawman, it was giving your argument more credit than it was due, what you said was just nonsense. 2. "Objective opposites" Hot is a subject, it puts a temperature in relation to another temperature that is normal or not hot. Another example of this is 1 is an enormous number if you are counting by millionths. Suggesting that hot is objectively the opposite of cold is the same as saying that -300 degrees Fahrenheit is the opposite of absolute zero. One is excessively elevated in temperature compared to the other. 3."Everything that exists has an opposite" What is the opposite of milk? Don't say cheese. 4. "Cliff" What makes the cliff scenario moral or immoral is the push not the outcome. If pushing is immoral, then it is immoral to push even if no one dies. 5. "Last paragraph" The phrasing of your last paragraph you make it clear that you have no concept or flexibility to understand the simple misunderstandings you have about human cognition or morality. You aren't debating, you are simply spouting off some slanted misconception that you have.
morality

I will respond the same format I that I did in the last section. 1. "Facts are in the past, the past doesn't matter, now is what matters." 1.a. I wasn't aware that in a debate, that we could basically just assert anything as fact. Here is my response: "Your statement is subjective." 2. "Information is nothing..." 2.a. This isn't true at all. A concept is something. Not a physical something, but it is something. 3."... Like you can never pick up 0 sodas from the floor...." 3.a. This is a strawman fallacy. 4. "Information is the opposite of matter, mental and physical, 0 and 1." 4.a. Opposition of things is a subjective, cognition of patterning. It has not bearing on the validity of your argument and it is sophistry to suggest that it does. 5. "Matter is true, but it is also true that lies exist." 5.a. This is meaningless. 6. "Experience is the balancing point between matter and information..." 6.a. No it isn't. 7. "Memory is reason, I do not have a choice but to be able to remember, or I will cease to exist." 7.a. Okay. Cease to exist meaning death? How do people with memory loss or brain dysfunction live then? Cease as in degrade in your ability to be a cognitive human being. How would you know unless you perceived reality from the position of a person that had no capabilities of memory. 8. "Information is much more than a concept." 8.a. I'll clarify that we are using the philosophical definition of concept which means "an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects." 9. "If you float off the cliff it is more reasonable for me to push you than if you were to fall and die. More moral?" 9.a. No the concept of morality is deeper than that. Just to break it down, again. Morality is the difference between right and wrong. If you do something culturally unacceptable, that makes it wrong/immoral. If we live in America with low gravity, and American's don't like being pushed off cliffs, then it is still wrong/immoral. If we live in a low gravity country where it is acceptable to push people off cliffs, then it is right/moral Do you understand? 10. "If I pick it a stone and hit you in the head with it because I want to see blood..." 10.a. This is where you are muddying the lines. As the assailant in this scenario, you are acting within reason in your mind. "I want to see blood, I'll hit him with a rock." This is an application of a solution to achieve your goal. What I have explained so far in this paragraph as NOTHING to do with morality. To incorporate morality, I have to ask you, as a 21st century person living in a civilized country that probably thinks murder is wrong, if the actions of the assailant are right or wrong. We tend to assume that the actions of the assailant in this scenario are wrong, because we understand that murder is wrong. 11. "know is true . . . belief is false . . . belief = be lie. . . kNow = now." 11.a. Word games don't validate your arguments. Sorry. 12. "I have no data in my mind. . ." 12.a. This is obvious.
morality

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter information is nothing, 0, like you can pick up 0 sodas from the floor, but you can understand that you cant even thou 0 sodas can never exist in reality information is the opposite of matter, mental and physical, 0 and 1 matter is true, but its also true that lies exist experience is the balancing point between matter and information, experience is matter and information, i did not invent information, like logic, i did not invent reason(depending on how you mean). memory is reason, i do not have a choice but to be able to remember, or i will cease to exist concepts are information, but information is much more then a concept. the future and past is information, not real if you float of the cliff i dont know why you would be unhappy, unless you really dont want to be on the bottom.. i dont know, it is very simple thou.. im not talking about safe or unsafe, im saying its immoral based on logic, cause and effect, if you float of the cliff it is more resonable for me to push you then if you fall and splat, more moral, no? if i push you off a cliff to kill you it has many consequences, even if i never get caught i already said, morality is not an object, it is nothing, guided by something, logic. if you go back and read my examples you will se i already said a stone has no intent, therfore can not be immoral. if i pick it up and bach you over the head because i want to see blood squirting, i am not resonable logic is matter, reason is information, opposites physical experience is logic, there is no logic in fantasy thinking has many effects, emotional for one, and there is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy your number 6 example is a demonstration of reason and logic, not morality belief is unresonable as belief is false, belief is theism, all evil that can possibly exist your number 7 example, you say knowledge is non sense, which is correct, reason is non sense, sensory experience is logic. only sensory experience is true, matter information=false and truth=imagination and memory=0matter=true=physical experience=1 know is true, knowledge is truth, and belief is false. belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it, kNow=now i have no data in my mind, data is physical, information is mental i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it. imagination is false, and truth is memory of know know=NOW not future and past
morality

information exist beyond space and time, not real, morality is not real, i can not grab it with my hand, but it is guided by absolutes, therfore it is absolute just like you cant love, without it ending in pain at some point, because you have to let go again its basic reasoning.. you would not be to happy with me if i push you off a cliff but luckily you survive, wouldnt you be pissed if not on your way to push me of? you know.. if you had gotten supermans power over night it would be fairly more resonable for me to push you of, like with the floati gravity to determine morality, i must determine what is resonable, which means i must know logic i know it is resonable for me to keep my eyes open if i want to read on till the end of this sentence, as i cant read these words on the screen with my eyes closed, cause and effect(absolute, you cant argue with this) cause+(and)effect=(is)logic logic+experience of it=reason(concept, simulation of logic) reason+intent=morality=contrasting self with others úsing thought and emotion right and wrong is reason, i cant be immoral if i cant tell right from wrong, and i cant be immoral if i have no intent, like a rock has no intent, so morality is reason and intent, cause and effect belief=unresonable=mentally enslavedknowledge=resonable=free willfor perfect balance, as they stand in contrast know=reality belief and knowledge is the opposite of know(physical experience of now, see no equal sign here) :) the law of the land is human made, its fiction unless its based on absolutes nature flows in the path of least resistance. lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one