BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The NAACP helps African Americans more than it hinders them

Thank you, Con. I'll take a moment to acknowledge what I consider to be your sincere desire to bridge the racial divide, and alleviate fear, suffering, and isolation for people of all races – a desire which both I and the NAACP share, irrespective of whether we all agree upon using exactly the same methods. But this debate is not about you, of course. This debate is also is not about affirmative action or welfare, as it happens. At the moment we are only discussing the NAACP, and whether or not they have a net positive impact on African Americans. There is therefore very little from Con’s last round for me to refute. His core assertion seems to have been that “Until race is not used at all as a factor, there can not be truly equal rights”. This was merely a bare assertion. No attempt made to support or justify it. I will thus continue to build on my own case with a brief history of the NAACP. It is no secret that America has grappled with problems of racism throughout its existence. Albert Einstein, a member of the NAACP during the 1940’s called racism “America's worst disease” [2]. From its incorporation in 1911, the NAACP has been a diverse (the founders were mostly Jewish), fearless, tireless, and highly effective proponent of an egalitarian society in which hatred and discrimination are abolished. Through litigation, the organization spearheaded battles to end segregation, disenfranchisement, and bring once powerful hate groups to justice. The landmark case Brown vs. Board of education was fought by the NAACP, for example. In part because of their efforts, it is much easier for African Americans to vote than it once was. They are able to go to the same schools, use the same bathrooms, and drink from the same fountains as whites, which was not possible just a generation or two ago [3]. Unfortunately, it still appears that a black male walking in a predominantly white neighborhood is suspicious enough that a citizen is entirely within his legal rights to stalk, confront, and kill such a black teen [4]. Consistent with an organization concerned with fighting for the social justice for all Americans, the NAACP have firmly thrown their support behind the LGBT community [2]. Today, much of their effort is directed towards youth and education outreach programs in underprivileged neighborhoods, and children of any race are welcome to use these facilities and enroll in workshops. The concern of the NAACP is not only with respect to race, but even if it were, that doesn't do anything for Con's case unless he shows blacks would be better off without the NAACP. Source 1 from Con’s last round seems to have no clear connection at all to the NAACP or to the resolution, and thus is irrelevant to this debate and should be ignored. Source 2 seems to be a dead link. Here are my sources: 2) http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... 4) http://abcnews.go.com...
The NAACP helps African Americans more than it hinders them

We ought to take the default position that, as they claim to, the NAACP is concerned with fighting for social justice for all Americans" says my opposition. Yes the NAACP tells us that, however when looking at crimes that are black on white, like the beatings at Church and Brambleton (1). The attack which was a group of 30 black teenagers beat up 2 white individuals. The attackers have gotten away because the law, quote "told them the attackers were "probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?". Where is the NAACP on this crime if they stand for social justice for all? The NAACP will easily step in when they perceive that the law has not done its job on a white on black case, like Trayvon Martin case in which they state "The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin." (2). The previous paragraph might give the impression that I am a racist person, per contra, that can not be farther from the truth. I want to prove that, through this debate, I can, with others help start to close the race gap. Until race is not used at all as a factor, there can not be truly equal rights. "There are many problems which fall disproportionately on people of certain races" states the Pro, however. True as this may be there are also different factors that could be used to help them with there problems. For example, the use of the welfare system is a way to help one self get out of poverty and start a better life style. Use of food stamps, to get food for when your income is not enough. The use of race to try to better one's self only because there are more problems on that race is not going to help teach children, the future generation, on why race can get treated differently, for better or worse.Another item that is not helping anyone is affirmative action using race, which using Merriam-Webster for anyone that does not know what it is or is confused, is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women. Yes it could help the minorities, needless to say, it can hurt them. It can teach children that success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Before people that argue race based affirmative action is extremely necessary, I will give an example on how one can ask for help and get it based on traits that are not including their race. The person is an male that is going to be the first person in his family to attend college, his grades were very high, however his family makes below the poverty line. Race type will not be brought up because this family is not specific to one race, and giving the same families different treatments based on race is still being racist anyway you look at it.Best of luck to my opponent :)Sources 1 - http://hamptonroads.com...2 - https://naacp.org...
The NAACP helps African Americans more than it hinders them

I would agree that great progress has been made towards racial equality in recent decades, but we have by no means arrived to the destination of equality yet. My opponent states, “while the need to help people get a better education, get out of poverty, get out of crime, are still present, they are human problems and not problems that have fallen to just one race. ” That is true, but there are many problems which fall disproportionately on people of certain races, which easily answers Con’s question as to why certain people are getting certain treatment on the basis of race. At any rate, for a private organization to attempt to correct disparity by lifting up the unfortunate rather than by dragging the fortunate down does not seem to me to be a problem at all, regardless of what basis they use to do so. The KKK in modern times used exactly that kind of idea to try to justify their existence; essentially claiming they don’t want to hurt anyone but simply want to help out whites. There are certainly millions of disadvantaged and impoverished whites who do need help. The need is great, and again, if a private organization wants to help, I don’t see what the problem would be with giving poor whites educational and financial support, even if they were selected for help on the basis of being white. But as it happens, few believe the KKK, due to a lack of credibility caused by their longstanding track record as a terrorist hate organization. By contrast, the NAACP has earned a far more positive reputation and credibility because of a long track record of helping the needy and not hurting anyone. If I understand my opponent (if I’m mistaken, please correct me), he would like to argue that not only is the NAACP no longer needed, in fact by virtue of its own existence, on net it perpetuates discrimination and injustice more than it diminishes it. By all means, I look forward to hearing his case in full, and considering his evidence. As Pro, until I can present my full case, I will simply take the position that unless Con can present us with evidence that they are lying, we ought to take the default position that, as they claim to, the NAACP is concerned with fighting for social justice for all Americans [1]. 1) . http://www.naacp.org...
The NAACP helps African Americans more than it hinders them

In this debate, I will being attempting to sway the readers for why NAACP hurts African Americas more then it helps them. This will be a short debate, with 3 rounds and a max of 3,000 characters. RULES: Round 1 is an Acceptance and Opinion Round. Round 2 is for Arguments. Round 3 is a Conclusion Round May the best debater be the winner! --- In history differences in people separated them, let it be how they talk, how they dress, the God(s) they preached to, or be it the color of their skin. We were separated because new was not always safe. Fast forward to this day and age, and you can still pick up the remnants of that human trait. This trait that we still carry is not a good trait anymore, and in fact has lead to many problems like racial discrimination. To fight this, those groups that were being segregated, joined forces and made race based organizations. While this has helped in countless ways in the civil rights movement, times have began changed for the better and these groups use to help, now hinder. Kids are still growing up learning that even now race can tell you what you get easy and what you do not get, companies are being forced to have their workforce composed of a certain make-up of races, even if that person was not the best at their respective job. While the need to help people get a better education, get out of poverty, get out of crime, are still present, they are human problems and not problems that have fallen to just one race. The NAACP, or National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was a group that was founded to give equal treatment to a certain race, African American. The NAACP was crucial in the civil rights movement, because of the outcome of that movement, people have come to realize that the color of your skin does not affect the person in that skin, therefore racial discrimination has started a rapid decline. Needless to say, now has comes the time that the NAACP must understand that helping a group of people because of their skin color is not helping but in fact still being racially discriminate, and in order to move on to a better future we can not have anything that excess to help just one race. Until that day, people will still have to explain why certain people are getting certain treatment, less it be good or bad.
There Will Be Blood is a better film than No Country For Old Men

I agree with my opponent that this will be a very subjective debate. However, since my opponent seems to agree that we should not put personal views into this and rather compare the two, I'm going to start some basic definitions.There will be Blood2007 Drama produced by Paul Thomas Anderson.Obtained 91% positive on Rotten TomatoesThe film was released on December 26, 2007, in New York and Los Angeles where it grossed US$190,739 on its opening weekend. The film then opened in 885 theaters in selected markets on January 25, 2008, grossing $4.8 million on its opening weekend. The film went on to make $40.2 million in North America and $35.9 million in the rest of the world, with a worldwide total of $76.1 million, well above its $25 million budget.[1] But the prints and advertising cost for the film's United States release was about $40 million.[61]So... at a cost of 25 million and 40 millions of hype, this film has just earned around 11.6 million.No Country for Old Men2007 American crime thriller, based on novel of same nameObtained 95% positive on Rotten Tomatoes.As of February 13, 2009, the film has grossed $74,283,000 in the US.The cost of the film was also around 25 million, but it spent far less on advertising.Since No Country for Old Men earned in the US the amount earned by There will be Blood worldwide, I think it's safe to say that it was more of a box office success. Logically, we can concur that more people wanted to watch No Country for Old Men in theatres and thus it earned more money. This is the conclusion of my first argument, that being that No Country for Old Men was a box office success, and more crictically acclamied by critics than There Will be Blood.Since my opponent has yet to present any arguments, I do not believe it to be fair to present my other two. On to you now. Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...(film)http://en.wikipedia.org...
There Will Be Blood is a better film than No Country For Old Men

I will accept this argument. Please clarify on how we will be arguing the definition of 'better', since it is very subjective. If you do not wish to define it, I propose that we let the term 'better' encompass everything, so that we have an accurate perspective on both sides and there will be more information to be presented. If you do not accept that definition, please keep it reasonable?
There Will Be Blood is a better film than No Country For Old Men

It seems my opponent would like to discuss the themes addressed in each movie. He has given a list of themes that he believes were in No Country For Old Men (NCFOM). I agree with only some of them. Now, let's compare - "Fate". . in There Will Be Blood( TWBB)? Yes. "Religious Values" In TWBB? Yes and covered better than in NCFOM. "The ethics of theft" This one I don't understand. I wouldn't call it a theme. .. everyone knows that theft is wrong. I don't think you need a movie to tell you that. "Evil". .. Daniel Plainview is evil. .. there is no questioning that. His intentions are evil, his personality is evil and his final actions are evil. "Anxieties by the old" Ok, my opponent may have a point with this one. "Greek tragedy" Not really a theme. More of a genre. "Nilhism" I think both films address this in equal measure. "The hunter and the hunted" Daniel Plainview hunts for wealth. Eli Sunday is h "Role of women" Women are not a big part of TWBB, which, I argue says more about their social standing at the time of the film than NCFOM does in the '80s. More themes addressed in TWBB are - Greed, capitalism, father and son relationships, respect, domination and disability (H. W. is deaf) Not only are there more underlying themes in TWBB, but they are better presented and shown with more subtlety. With regards to the photography of each film, I'd like to note that TWBB's won an Oscar and would request that all readers go and watch the scene where the derrick is on fire. If there is a more impressive feat of cinematography, I'd like to see it.
There Will Be Blood is a better film than No Country For Old Men

For the benefit of my opponent, I'd like to point out that the line he provided does not actually work.I'll start by addressing my opponent's points and then add to my own. But as time has passed, I think that There Will Be Blood has widely become recognised as the greater of the two films... indeed it appeared on more critics’ lists of “Best Film Of The Decade” than any other film. No Country for Old Men appeared on the top ten lists of 354 critics, the most of 2007 and was the most selected film as best of that year. I feel that if we are to compare the performances of actors in a film, it is very difficult to honestly say that one actor is superior to another. I agree with my opponent in the fact that There will be Blood had a soundtrack that was superior to No Country for Old Men, but I believe that a great movie isn't determined by its soundtrack. In the case of No Country for Old Men, the directors and producers chose to have a very very limited soundtrack so that the movie's effect was greater in its lack of music. Despite this, the blip-blop in the movie has become just as famous as the Jaws theme of which I think most people are well acquainted with. I personally believe that the film was very suspenseful and that the lack of a proper soundtrack did not really detract from the movie itself. The second point that I'd like to point out today is that No Country for Old Men covered a significantly higher amount of themes and generally portrayed and expressed themes and lessons better than that of There will be Blood. The argument here is that since No Country for Old Men covers more themes and covers them better, as this is one of the ways something can last for centuries, No Country for Old Men will be looked at in the future and is the better film since its morals and lessons can apply at any time in the future. For example, Shakespeare covered a great deal of universal themes in his works, and they have survived to this day. Let us list out some of the themes covered in No Country for Old Men: I can explain any of them in depth if my opponent wishes for me to Fate Religious Values The ethics of theft Evil Anxieties by the old Greek tragedy Nilhism The hunter and the hunted Role of Women All and all, one of the best indicators on whether a film will last is that if it is truly beneficial and covers universal themes so that it can be enjoyed at any time and any place. Compared to There will be Blood, it'll be much more difficult for most people to relate to it compared to No Country for Old Men. Thus, it is the better movie.
There Will Be Blood is a better film than No Country For Old Men

All debates, especially those about entertainment are opinionated, but I’ll try my best to keep opinion out of this one.I agree with my opponent that No Country For Old Men earned more money at the box office. I also agree with him that at the time of their release, both 2007, No Country For Old Men more the more critically acclaimed of the two. I will even do my opponent the favour of mentioning that No Country For Old Men won the three of the “big five” Academy Awards, for Best Film, Best Directing and Best Writing (adapted). Although, I hope my opponent agrees with me when I say that the Oscars very rarely rewards the greatest films (ie. Citizen Kane).But as time has passed, I think that There Will Be Blood has widely become recognised as the greater of the two films... indeed it appeared on more critics’ lists of “Best Film Of The Decade” than any other film. Films which include other masterpieces such as Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind and The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. According to my source (link below), you can see that There Will Be Blood topped lists 5 times, where No Country.. had exactly 0 picks. Turning to the films themselves, I’m sure that all of you reading this will agree with me when I say that Daniel Day Lewis, as Daniel Plainview gives one of, if not the greatest performance ever committed to film. Apart from Day Lewis, the other star of the film was the soundtrack. It was created by Jonny Greenwood, of Radiohead fame and is thoroughly unique among movie soundtracks. It compliments the movie perfectly, in contrast to No Country.. which barely has any soundtrack to speak about... which is not a bad thing, I might add.I also feel that No Country.. was ever so slightly a repetition of the Coen Brothers’ previous films, such as Miller’s Crossing and Fargo. It has the same crime thriller feel to it, with moments of dark comedy. There Will Be Blood though, was thoroughly original.In terms of style and structure, There Will Be Blood is as good as it possibly gets. The opening 20 minutes are a perfect example of the golden rule in cinema.., show, don’t tell. The ending too, completely catches you by surprise. The tone completely changes and turns into a Hellish comedy of epic proportion. Day Lewis also has a line that has become something of an everyday catchphrase for many people, “I drink your milkshake!”. On the other hand, No Country... feels very second hand with it’s simple plot and structure.Source--- http://www.metacritic.com...;
Drawing Contest

click="document.location='/ESocialBookworm/photos/album/3722/24079/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3722/106131-3722-ydz9a-a.jpg" alt="" /> Before I begin, hats off to 9spaceking. Wonderful painting! I love it! Although this is a drawing debate, please don’t take out the conduct point from my opponent. I wish I knew that we could have posted paintings before though because I had better pieces I could have put forward, but oh well! Everything happens for a reason! This piece is both an impressionist and expressionist painting. In an expressionist painting, you dab the paintbrush with paint on the paper to get a 3D effect. In this painting, I used acrylic paints and acrylic paper (14 x 17.) It was a piece due for marks in school and we were given specific compositions to come up with. For example, I chose to paint a crystal cup and coffee bottle (without the label) standing on a brown leather stool. For the water in them I could only use tones of blue, white, brown and yellow. The yellow and white spots on the stool are a paint stain and a ‘glare’ on the stool respectively. The background couldn’t have been expressionist as well, because then it would have taken away emphasis from the focal point of the piece- the crystal cup and coffee bottle composition so I did a wet on wet background. (That is, for those who don’t know- I wet the paper and watered the dark pink paint and applied it when the paper was still wet.)Link to picture if you can't see above: http://www.debate.org...