BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Segregation Equals Success In The US & Abroad: Part 2

My response isn't inaccurate. You're hypothetical situation does nothing for the U. S or abroad because it is imparctical. Why would you make your idealogical utopia segregated? Is race the only thing you can see? I'm not 50% anything so I wouldn't belong to any race in your definition. Lastly white Americans do not have the advantage. U. S citizens have an advantage over the world. Black people have the same exact rights as white people in the U. S. It's called egalitarian society. You don't truly think it is white people who are overfishing the straits of Japan or white people who are poaching in Africa. When "white people" do hunt for sport they pay hunting taxes or fees that are responsible for a large majority of all wildlife concervation. Hunters pay more towards enviormental protection than any other wild life group. Also, Arabia and China are responsible the largest portion of the ivory trade. Also Idi Amin and Robert Mugabi are dictators no matter what lense you put them through. I shouldn't have to mention this but I guess I am going to. There are plenty of european contries that didn't engage in colonialism. So keep lumping all white people together it's really making you look smart. I'd also like to point out that white people didn't jump off the ships and hunt down slaves themselves. They opened trading ports and the slave trade was already thriving in Africa when Europeans arrived. Most slaves were just bought. The oldest record of slaves are the Jews and guess who enslaved them? Africans. You mention African conflict diamonds. Do Europeans also get credit for boycotting the sale of conflict diamonds? I bet you really got to know the native africans in the chairforce. Did they hook up the cable for you? Aslo rapper with a rap sheet is a double antondra. Speaking of his millions: how oppressed would you say 50cent is?
Segregation Equals Success In The US & Abroad: Part 2

Nice response but you're highly inaccurate. I'll start by saying that this is a hypothetical solution because we know that it could never happen. Nope, I don't hate white people, I'm just exposing your history. Mixed race people? Well, We'll just use Biblical rules & you are of your father's seed. The one drop rule (which white people created), (which is another form of segregation), Allows you to proudly disown someone that's at least 50% of your own race. You mentioned that if someone had the power to enforce these rules then people would have an unfair advantage. . . Not to sound prejudice but white-Americans have an unfair advantage but you don't seem to have a problem with it. You said that people with nice lives would be forced to relocate to regions where they wouldn't be wanted. . . Well that's what happen when you divide a conquer for personal gain. That's what happen when you strip someone of their native tongue/culture. You said that it would be forceful to do this. . . I guess becoming a slave wasn't forceful. . . Nope, Mostly Europeans fought for resources because Europe lacks an abundance of resources. On the other hand, African tribes generally traded with each other because the resources were plentiful, Which is why white people are in Africa as we speak. You said that endangered animals are on all continents. . . OK, So what group of has control of just about all continents? Who hunts for sport instead of survival? I agree that poachers/fishers aren't race specific but whites buy a high majority of the end product. Despite all of the crime of buying/selling gemstones, Who controls/monopolizes the diamond industry? This is why the stones are known as "blood diamonds. " African dictators? Yeah. . . Sure. . . They're only labelled as dictators if white people can't get their hands on the natural resources. . . I spent nine years in the USAF so I think that I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on. And 50 cent's rap sheet is fairly small but it at least he's enjoying those hundreds of millions today.
Segregation Equals Success In The US & Abroad: Part 2

I disagree with the premise that segregation will fix all of our problems. People fought for resources long before The colonial period. This fight over recourses isn't exclusive to white people. All nations of people have wared throughtout history. Stop blaming white people. Animals are on the endangered list on all continents and this isn't a product of white people. Also how do you keep blaming white people as a group? Poachers and fishermen are not race specific. Their markets are not race specific? How do you justify hating white people so much? Why are you so ok with being racist? People can be proud of their heritage. People can be intrested in any culture. Alexander the Great is greek. I have no greek blood but I still love hearing and learing about his campaing and culture. I root for a historical character like Alexander the great because of his Ideas. He was one of the first people to promote egalitarianism. How can you claim Cacasuians are the problem when I have a list of African dictators longer than 50 cents rap sheet. Lets talk about your "proposal" now. Who is going to move all of these people? Who is going to enforce all these rules you're putting in place? If someone had the power to enforce these rules wouldn't they also have an unfair advantage over everyone? You're promoting lunacy. Not to mention you're assuming people can even trace a way back to their homelands. What about mixed race people? You want to just chop them in half or something? It's not practical or logical. It's also forceful. You're going to force people who have nice lives where they are on an adventure across the atlantic to people who aren't going to want them there. You told me to leave my emotions out of it but you're clearly soaking all your ideas in a bucket of hate.
Segregation Equals Success In The US & Abroad: Part 2

Once again, The topic speaks for itself. As I mentioned in a previous debate, The world's problems would come to an end if every racial group segregated by going back to their native homelands. Whites/Europe, Blacks/Africa, Latinos/The America's & so on because white people's greed & murderous behavior has destroyed the earth. A quick look through history & white people have committed the most murder, Put certain animals on the endangered species list, Wiped specific animals off the planet, Stolen/stealing all the natural resources, Are the pedophilia kings/queens and so on. It's funny how they're so proud of Europe but they don't want to live in Europe. So what's the reason? . . . That question is rhetorical because I already know the answer. At this point in time every race would definitely agree that Caucasians are the problem because they're the common denominator in every equation. It's time to separate and Do For Self which includes no trading & no interaction with other races if possible. Everything will be on an even playing field & there won't be any systems to put in place to hinder or excel anybody. There's the topic so let's see what you can come up with. . . Please Use Facts & leave your emotions out of it.
Bowling is a sport

But this is where you're wrong. Bowling can be used with any time of object such as a basketball, football, baseball, or other random objects. Football cannot be played with a bowling ball or baseball or basketball. Baseball cannot be played with a football or a hockey puck. Therefore, bowling should NOT be considered at sport, it should be considered as a hobby or something to do when you are free for the weekend. You don't see people playing lawn darts for scholarships or lots of money! So why should bowling be considered a sport. It should NOT. Are you going to be responsible for the pro-bowling deaths of the world? I would like for you to respond with an apology explaining why my answers were FAR more superior than your shrimpy little explanations. Thanks, TheOpinionatedOstrich
Bowling is a sport

I agree with all of your points about how the sport is so precise and you can make lots of money by it too! But I do not agree that bowling is a sport! Bowling is rolling a spherical object/bowling ball down a small lane and try to knock over 10 pins. People or myself, could easily do that with a can of green beans and 10 toilet paper rolls, and you don't see me getting a scholarship or getting lots of money! I think bowing is an excuse for someone to knock something over without getting in trouble. These are my reasons for why I think bowling should not be considered a sport. Eat it, TheOpinionatedOstrich
Bowling is a sport

Bowling is a sport for many reasons. For one, it is an extremely competitive event, and the are lots and lots of tournaments, and there are also college scholarships and professional events in which people can win and get a lot of money. A lot of people argue that there is very little to no physical activity involved, and when you only bowl recreational that can make total sense. But in competitive bowling, you sometimes bowl 20, 30 and maybe even 40 games in a weekend tournament. Bowling is also an extremely precise sport. There are a lot of variables involved that people who aren't into bowling do not understand. For starters, there are tons of different oil patterns layed out on the lane, that make you attack the lane in a certain way. For example if you are bowling on a short oil pattern, you are able to hook the ball more, so you have to take a wider angle to the pins, and when you are bowling on a longer oil pattern, your ball cannot hook as much, so you have to play a straighter, more direct angle to the pins. There are also several different types of balls that vary in terms of how much it naturally hooks, how wide of an angle it will hook, and several other things that will determine how you will play on an oil pattern. You have to make all these decisions on what angle you should play, where you should stand on the approach, how fast or slow you need to throw it, and that is just scratching the surface. Bowling is definitely a sport because it is a very physical game, and extremely mental game, and a sport that needs to be practiced repetitively to be good at. If people would start bowling more competitively, they would understand this, and it would be a much more popular sport. Bowling is definitely a sport.
Capitalism

Pro states the following: - "In most socialist countries, most of the people are in poverty, and are not free to grow wealth for the government sets a maximum that people can save, and just tax the rest." The nation of Finland, internationally renowned as "THE BEST PLACE TO LIVE"[4] is a very successful model of Socialism and how it can be implemented correctly [5]. In an ideal society, people do not mind giving their EXCESS wealth to the State, for they know that it is for the greater common good. - "Socialism only allows for the Government to decide what is produced, how much is produced, and at what price the products will be sold at..... shortages... surpluses.... etc;" You notion is correct. The Government would decide what is produced, how much, cost, etc... and this would indeed be a tragedy and lead to economic ruin if not for the fact that our economy is completely global. If any economic government decision led to a massive shortage, suppliers from other nations would gladly step in to satisfy the demand. Meanwhile, a massive surplus would lower prices on exported goods, making them more desirable to international buyers. - "Neither consumers make much more money, for the government taxes it all, and the businesses are not allowed to make profits...." Once again, you are correct. The government taxes roughly 50% or more of the income of its citizens, however this leaves the citizens far less fiscally responsible for themselves. Classes are virtually eliminated, and with the government managing healthcare, the economy, and security people can focus on the aspects of life that make them happy. - "Economic growth is cut off." I'm afraid you'll need to elaborate on why this is a bad thing. In the United States there is a notion that economic growth is necessary, but few people can explain why. - "Since most employees are stuck at the same job most of their life....." Socialism does not mean one is locked into one job. Granted this is how the Soviets handled it, which was a mistake, but it is not an integral factor of socialism. Even if it were, citizens are selected for jobs based on where their strengths lie. This means that the workforce would be comprised of the most competent people in every position, however this is NOT necessary in order for Socialism to exist. My Attacking arguments: Capitalism rewards competition, which always results in a winner and a loser. While the competition may fuel forward progress, forward progress is worthless to the "losers" who don't reap its benefits. The competition involved in the Capitalist system also provides an incentive for cheating and corner-cutting in order to get ahead and make a greater profit. This results in substandard products (which become the norm) available at a lower retail value, fueling the competition further until cheating MUST be done for a business to stay afloat. [6] The economy grows, yes, but at the expense of the citizen. Any major growth is artificial, and this becomes apparent as the capitalist economy falters (as it is now). [4]http://www.gadling.com... [5]http://www.thefreelibrary.com... [6]http://www.idebate.org...
Capitalism

Defense Point 1: Capitalism allows for the vast majority of people to live comfortable lives. It allows for the free (as in the right to) growth of wealth. Defense Point 2: Capitalism allows for the consumer to ultimately decide, what products should be produced and how many products that consumers will buy. Then the market sets an equilibrium price that allows for the consumer to one, shop where prices are cheaper, and two, get a say in what a particular price should be. This efficient system allows for shortages and surpluses to be eliminated in a timely fashion. This system allows for the consumer to decide what he wants. Defense Point 3: It allows for the country's economy to grow, thus increasing both consumer wealth and business wealth, which in turn allows for consumers to buy more of the products that they want and the businesses to make more of the products that consumers want. Defense Point 4: As consumers and businesses get more money through overall economic growth, this allows the businesses to pay higher wages to their employees, which allows their employees to buy more products from companies, and the cycle constantly repeats with businesses getting richer and more successful and consumers to get richer and to get more of the products that they want. Defense Point 5: It allows for the poor to help their situation by allowing them to choose which job pays the most, which increases his wealth. Attack Point 1: In most socialistic countries, most of the people are in poverty, and are not free to grow wealth for the government sets a maximum amount that people can save, and just tax the rest. Attack Point 2: Socialism only allows for the Government to decide what is produced, how much is produced, and at what price the products will be sold at. This means that consumers have to take what the government gives them, and they may or may not end up with the products that they want or how many of that product they can buy. This in turn makes shortages and surpluses rampant. In most countries, the price of essentials is too high, and the number too few for the efficient transfer of resources, which makes poverty. Attack Point 3: Neither consumers make much more money, for the Government taxes it all, and the businesses are not allowed to make profits, the profits go to the Government, which does not let the business expand and grow, and the businesses can not keep up with consumer demand. Attack Point 4: Since businesses aren't allowed to make a profit, businesses can not increase employee's wages, which in turn, can not cycle more money into the business. Economic growth is cut off. Attack Point 5: Since most employees are stuck at the same job most of their life, only a Government motion can increase wages, since the employee is not allowed to look around for higher wages, nor can the business make profit which in turn. the business can not increase wages. And that Government motion comes rarely.
Capitalism

I would like to submit the following topic for debate: "Capitalism is an overall better economic theory than Socialism. " I would also like to submit the following definitions: Socialism- any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. [1] Capitalism- an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. [2] Better- more advantageous or effective. [3] Once again I would like to thank pro for this debate, and look forward to hearing what there is to be said. [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Capitalism

Response Point 1: Ok. Scandinavia is an exception. One, Government instituted healthcare education usually only work in small countries with little diversification (like Scandinavia), and two, you must have a good Government to institute the policies (like the US's is terrible, but Scandinavia's is pretty good). Few countries can institute these policies well. But private education and healthcare is still better because it allows for competitition to lower prices, and to increase the standard of healthcare. Like what usually happens with most monopolies, they charge an exorbitant price and the standard is horrible. Same goes with most Countries' policies. "it can work in a small homogeneous population, which is all on the same page - same religion, same values, same culture, and a small population - provided everything stays that way.": http://ezinearticles.com.... Response Point 2: Response Point 2:
Affirmative Action

"If an African American or a Hispanic works hard even segregation would not be able to bring them down" Innocent black kids get shot for being "Suspicious", 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men, and Individuals of color have a disproportionate number of encounters with law enforcement, indicating that racial profiling continues to be a problem. (http://www.americanprogress.org...) "Also if Affirmative Action truly protected female individuals, then what happened to Suzy Lee Weiss. She had 4.5 gpa and 2120 SAT scores" Her letter left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Susie Lee Weiss is on of the most luck people in the world. Suzy "lives in a $700,000 home and attended a national blue ribbon school in Pennsylvania." ( http://mic.com... ) Systemic problems do not disappear simply by portraying yourself as a diverse individual. Many students of color and LGBT students lack financial and emotional safety nets during their college years and struggle to stay afloat despite being incredible academically competent. Rising above racial stereotypes daily or coming out to your loved ones and facing rejection takes courage and integrity and universities value that in students. every year competitive universities receive enough applicants to fill the incoming year many times over. "Also please tell me, are there no rich black people? Does my opponent assume every black is poor? Are all whites rich? Are there no poor whites?" 35% of black people live below the poverty line in The United States. (http://kff.org...) as apposed to 13% of white people. " If so, why should "present-day" whites be judged on what their parents did? If your parents were rapists does that mean you should pay the price 50 years later?" It isn't about punishing white people, it is about giving people of color a chance after having hundreds of years of unable to succeed by being disenfranchised (and arguable still are ).
Affirmative Action

My opponent has mentioned that white men recieve 53% more job offers than Latinos and 43% more than black men. Despite this may be true, he failed to examine that there are so many things that go into recieving job offers than just experience and education. There also is how an individual presents themselves. Also because Affirmative Action exists in a majority of the states, they need a certain proportion of individuals who are in the Caucasian category. Also if Affirmative Action truly protected female individuals, then what happened to Suzy Lee Weiss. She had 4.5 gpa and 2120 SAT scores (http://blog.sfgate.com...) please tell me is this not discrimination? Now Kwasi Enin got accepted to all 8 Ivy League schools despite being a black man. (http://www.usatoday.com...) If my opponent did not realize, Affirmative Action mostly applies to higher education instead of jobs. Also please tell me, are there no rich black people? Does my opponent assume every black is poor? Are all whites rich? Are there no poor whites? Finally, my opponent implied that Martin Luther King Jr was ok with reverse discrimination. Color blindness means "3 : not influenced by differences of race"(http://i.word.com...). The world Martin Luther King Jr wanted can not be lived to the fullest unless we get rid of this outdated policy. Also one big question to my opponent,(Answer only in conclusion round), are we ever truly color blind as long as we are creating reverse discrimination? If so, why should "present-day" whites be judged on what their parents did? If your parents were rapists does that mean you should pay the price 50 years later?