BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no stigma surrounding mental health issues in Australia

Have you ever internalised a prejudice you have heard? Felt insecure about something because you feel the threat of being trapped in a stereotype? This is all associated with what is called a self-stigma. As my opponent said Lili Reinhart did speak up about her personal experience with mental health however she is 22 and only starting to speak up which means a stigma does exist if it took her so long to talk about her issues. Maybe she was scared, Insecure about being shamed for having a mental health issue. Shani Grimmond a famous youtuber was able to open up about her own mental health issues however she also says that she has been dealing with it for a while and that she hadn"t been active on her youtube account for some time. This reinforces the idea that even though some people can speak up to others there is a personal stigma that exists and can stop someone from speaking up or seeking help immediately. Charlie Cooper, 21 is another person who bravely was able to speak up about his mental health but he also talks about what stopped him from speaking up for so long. He says. "I struggled with anxiety for over a year before I spoke up. I worried about whether my family and friends would see me as soft, Incapable or crazy". As can be seen through Charlie"s journey a stigma does exist when it comes to mental health. Even the people who do eventually speak up have been holding it in for so long because of this shame. We can"t be indifferent to the fact that this shame does exists, Because we can see that it does. We know that self stigma is the hardest to end and the most common form of a stigma found in adolescents today because these 3 examples of people who have spoken up are over 20 years old, There for they have been battling a mental illness alone for to long. That is why it is so important to acknowledge that it still alive in society today so that we can learn to rid ourselves of this personal or social stigma forever.
The words racist and racism are used too loosely in society

"If you vote against Obama, you're racist. " Never heard that one. "If you think his presidency has been mediocre" Well if you think his presidency was bad but have no knowledge of what makes it bad, you could argue racism is involved. "If you're against affirmative action, you're racist" That's because most people against affirmative action are racist. "If you think George Zimmerman was innocent you're guilty of racism in some eyes" Well duh, a white man shoots a black kid for walking home. "if you're for less welfare, you're racist and don't care about poor blacks" Which is true. "The same for universal healthcare. " Which is true. "Mitt Romney, George Bush and John McCain are all racists. " They have said some controversial things. I don't blame people for speculating. "Securing the border and that illegal immigrants hurt the economy, you are racist against Latinos. " That's an ongoing debate. The examples haven't really shown anything or any examples of people actually using this. He/She just pulls out examples from nowhere, not citing anything.
The words racist and racism are used too loosely in society

In conclusion, people use the word racist in these ways. If you vote against Obama your racist, if you think his presidency has been mediocre, if your against affirmative action your racist, even if your republican many people will say your racist, if you think George Zimmerman was innocent your guilty of racism in some eyes, if your for less welfare your racist and don't care about poor blacks and the same for universal health care, Mitt Romney, George Bush, and John McCain are all racists. More examples include if you believe in securing the border and that illegal immigrants hurt our economy you are racist against Latinos. Lastly, racism is a serious evil and does exist but it is overused. Even if my challenger says these examples are so small, by definition if even only one person uses the word race or racism in these examples above it is loose and overused.
The words racist and racism are used too loosely in society

We're not "losing" the real racism by trying to break the social stereotypes. Surely saying more Germans piano is not racist. Neither is saying more blacks play basketball and rap. But saying if Germans are better than anyone else at making pianos, that's racist. But there's many racist saying that we say. Such as blacks eat watermelon and drink kool-aid. We stereotype and discriminate. If we lessen the outburst and emotions involved in stereotypes and social stigmas then we will have areas ONLY dominated by that racial stereotype and then jobs suddenly become a racial thing. We shouldn't even care if more German's make pianos, it doesn't matter. A job is a job and the more we racially stereotype the more problems we're causing and making it socially unacceptable to do that is the right direction. The word "racism" isn't being misused or too lose, it's to keep people from discrimination.
The words racist and racism are used too loosely in society

The example of the Germans is an example from the study of Thomas Sowell who was a long time Stanford professor before retirement and author of "The Economics of Race and Politics". He had compared Germans from Brazil, Australia, and America. He also looked at the Chinese where the I was an average higher IQ no matter the country (Indonesia, USA, China, etc.). Now, don't assume it is genetics because it is not. Thus, this is not racist. Also, these again prove no inferiority. This actually a result of culture and how each generation is raised by the next thus incorporating certain customs and attitudes. These customs and attitudes differ thus certain raises and cultures have different patterns. But back to my argument. There is racism (an evil) and then there is "institutional racism" which is more in line with representation. Is it right to call someone racist if this person is black and he thinks blacks are better rappers and basketball players? No. He is simply looking at cultural patterns and history which show blacks dominate in these areas much like the Germans in pianos. Now there are exceptions without a doubt, as I said earlier these patterns are not definite. Also, representation is wanted by all and I wouldn't be surprised that the majority of the people who name the hurricanes are white. So why is it racist for them to pick names they like or are familiar with. Is it there job to make sure they are "politically correct" and make every race happy? Equal rights and representation according to race in the ares of laws and rights is something needed for a morally good society, but as much people want to shape cultures for equality this is not possible. Thus, people use "racist" to often and because of this an inflation is occurring where the word is losing its value of representing evil.
The words racist and racism are used too loosely in society

So I couldn't find pro's definition of "racism" anywhere. The word Racism has many different definitions, for example Webster Dictionary cites that racism is: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." But Webster also cites that racism is also: "racial prejudice or discrimination ." [1] So here's what we'll do, I'll accept the first definition of pro (since it's a simplified version of Webster's first definition) but we'll also conclude the second definition of the word. So in conclusion these will be the definitions of the word "racism" that we'll examine while looking at situations: 1. Racism is the belief that a group of people divided by race are INFERIOR genetically. 2. Racism is racial prejudice or discrimination. For here on out, I want my opponent to cite the sources to "studies" such as the German piano maker study. In terms of the politician and hurricane example, Pro is right to say it has no use of the first definition. Naming hurricanes doesn't show belief of inferiority genetically. However, choosing 90% culturally white names in a mixed culture country is discrimination, therefore it fights the second definition of racism and is accurate. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The words racist and racism are used too loosely in society

In today's society and culture the accusation that something is racist or some is a racist is used too often. What is racism? It is the belief that a group of people divided by race are INFERIOR genetically. Now research shows that races do have differences beyond skin color and these differences are not something that is positive from person to person. For example some are taller, longer life expectancy, and are more likely to have certain diseases later in life. People of race can fall into certain categories in society no matter the country. For example the Germans always have been lead piano makers no matter the country as studies have shown. But these differences do not in any sense qualify someone as inferior or superior. Now, a politician brought up that more hurricanes are named after whites than blacks and this is racist. Such is one of the many bad ways of using the world. Does she really believe that the people who name the hurricanes believe the whites are genetically superior than blacks. No, I believe she wants blacks to be more represented which is understandable, people take pride of who they are and what they are. In conclusion, racism is an evil that exists in this world and is morally wrong, but it is not as common as some people would like to think.
War or Not? ISIS Issues

If there are troops in the Mid East constantly, what need of their own military do developing Mid Eastern countries like Iraq have? Full on war and their subsequent occupation is what causes our military spending to skyrocket, which is why we cannot engage these situations as 'War' in the expected sense of the word. War has a financial toll on those fighting it. Dropping quarter million dollar ordinance on 6 men in a 'beater' pickup with some 200 dollar black market AKs (or worse, scavenged US and Soviet Era arms from abandon sites) puts us at a marked disadvantage with no foreseeable gain. We have clandestine agencies and covert operatives for situations like these, which dollar for dollar can have a much bigger impact with minimal exposure. As it was stated by Rear Admiral Kirby, "This is not the Iraq war of 2002". Fighting terrorism requires technology and secrecy, the exact weapons our enemies cannot use (by definition) to spread their ideals.
War or Not? ISIS Issues

We need to cut off this head of the hydra because it will become way too powerful. It will take over Iraq, Syria, other Middle Eastern Countries, and even Egypt (ISIL: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant- the Levant is a term that describes Israel, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt). ISIL is trying to create an Islamic Empire similar to that which existed in the 1300's. It spanned from Iraq to Egypt, and was the world's superpower at the time. If this happens, ISIL will be a severe threat to the U.S. You are correct in saying that if this head is cut off, others will grow, and that is certainly true. However, this is why troops need to remain in the Middle East until those countries can LEGITAMATELY defend themselves. This means no more cutbacks on the military. If there are troops in the Middle East constantly, these kinds of radical terrorists groups can be stopped before they can have a major effect on the world.
War or Not? ISIS Issues

"Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, used the language at least three times during his daily briefing with reporters. "The U.S. is at war with ISIL in the same way the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda," he said, using an alternate acronym for the group.", from NBC news. Also: "Minutes earlier, a Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. John Kirby, used similar terminology. "This is not the Iraq war of 2002," he told reporters. "But, make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL, in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates." , from the same source. "I beileve that there need to be troops in both Iraq and Syria fighting against these terrorists." --- and there in lay the problem. In the name of fighting the hydra of terrorism, we insert ourselves into more nations, earning us more enemies. There is no surety that should this head get cut off that some other group of malcontent radicals won't just fill in, depleting our resources further.
War or Not? ISIS Issues

The White House and Pentagon have recently declared war on ISIS, Friday to be exact, so there's my point proven. And since that is settled, we shall now debate the topic of what to do to ISIS. I beileve that there need to be troops in both Iraq and Syria fighting against these terrorists. Air strikes are a good first move, but it is not enough to stop this force. We need to continue to pound them with air strikes while providing tactical assaults from the ground. As I said before, nobody is doing anything because they want to say that they successfully gave peace to Iraq so their politcal status will be improved for the November elections. To add to that point, we need to realize that dealing with ISIS is not a political issue. They are a direct threat to the U.S., and need to be taken as such.
War or Not? ISIS Issues

I accept the challenge. I will demonstrate that the conflict with the self proclaimed Islamist State is a continuation of anti-terror measures that have been previously adopted. ISIS is one head of a hydra we call terrorism, something on going and that directly defies the conventions of 'War' amongst the world community. We are not at war with ISIS any more specifically than we are at war with 'Drugs', 'Poverty', or 'Illiteracy'.
War or Not? ISIS Issues

Many democrats have said that the struggle with ISIS is not a war, but rather a counter-terrorist movement. This is bull crap. ISIS has 30,000 members now, and a few air strikes will not cut it. Also, just because there are American boots on the ground fighting ISIS, this does not mean that it is not a war. However, many liberals choose to change the definition of war all so that they can say the War on Terror is over. Why would they do this? So that in November when Election Day comes, Democrats look better on the ballot. These liberals do not want what is best for the American people by eliminating this serious threat, rather they are interested in the political aspect of it so that they can be elected to screw up even more. ISIS is directly threatening America, but Obama chooses to rely on the allies he doesn't have. Britain, Germany, and Turkey were all asked to aid in this "prolonged counter-terrorism movement", but due to Obama's terrible foreign policy nobody is helping.
God exists.

Thank-you for letting me know how to bold and things like that!Also, I accept both debate challenges. A few concluding points to summarize:1. My central argument for contingencyThis argument is one of the classical arguments from the theistic tradition. It is a cosmological argument. In my opinion, much stronger than the Kalam version. I think that this argument is proof of a necessary being, otherwise, we cannot explain reality. The necessary being must have certain deducable traits but I did not get into those traits in this debate. 2. Fine TuningThis was a variation on the design argument. It relied on modern physics. I think that it suceeds because it is based on solid science and because the "chance" involved in these anthropic coincidences would be astronomically low in terms of likelyhood. I provided links earlier to explain some of this. I think that it is solid evidence for a designer(s) with human beings involved. Not irrefutable proof of God per se, but still strong evidence of Design. Given that the Judeo-Christain religions rely ona designer with humans in mind, I think it is solid evidence. 3. Argument from the Soul My third argument argued from an immaterial part of the human being to an ultimate immaterial being. Sound reasoning tells us that material things cannot cause the imamterial. The reason is that for something to be the cause of something else, the cause has to have the effect in it somehow. This does not mean in the exact same way, but in some way. This is precicely what gives things the power to bring about certain effects and not others. Matter has no power to cause the existence of immaterial substances because the material cannot contain the immaterial. Because of this, some immaterial principle must breathe life as it were into the human being. This I think is good evidence for God.4. Problem of Evil as raised by ConThe problem with this argument is that it assumes that If God is all-Good He would Want to eliminate all-evil. This however is fallacious. The reason is that it is perfectly logically possible to assume that an all-Good God would not elimate all evil IF that evil could somehow serve His good purpose. Therefore, the problem of evil is one that does not refute the existence of an Omni God. Through the centuries of theism it seems as though many philosophers would agree with my statement. All in all, I ask everyone to vote Pro. The reason is that I think I have succesfully demonstrated with thorough reasoning that a necessary being exists as an ultimate explanation of reality, a designer of the universe with humans in mind exists, and a immaterial giver of life to human beings exist. I argue that these are properly identified as God. Obviously there is more to a debate over God. This could take books and books. But in the space given, I think that I have made my case more than con has. Regardless of who you agree with, I ask you to vote for Pro. I think I have made my case well and answered the objections raised by con. Thankyou for the time debating this most important issue.
God exists.

As per the unwritten rules of conduct on DDO, I will not had any more rebuttals or arguments.Dmot mention him not knowing how to bold etc. So in the future, Dmot, you click on "Rich text" that is above where you type you arguments.To square off, Dmots argument of the Fine Tuning fails because it relies on faith of chance. The Soul argument fails because it assumes the material cannot make the immaterial. Now, this could very well get into semantics because I think dreams are immaterial. The various brain connections create the dream.Dmot dropped my PoE argument. Dmot, if a all-good god allows evil to exist, then he is not a 'Tri-Omni' God. It is pointless to talk the BOP now. The voters will vote.I will ask Dmot for two follow up debates. One on the Fine Tuning and one on the PoE.You may accept in your next round.Vote for Cats
God exists.

I. Argument from Contingency Definitions: A contingent thing is something that depends on something else for its existence. A necessary thing is that which exists by the necessity of its own nature. P1) If all that exists in the world is contingent things, there is no ultimate explanation P2) There must be an ultimate explanation for existence C1) It is impossible that everything be contingent therefore we must admit a necessary being.This sounds like a non sequitur! P1 is false and P2 is unfounded. Even so, the Big Band could be considered as a 'Ultimate explation'. God even seems to break this logicArgument II - Fine tuning of the universe 1 There exists anthropic coincidences that are necessary for human lifeI agree.2 These may either be explained by chance or by designI agree, but I dont like your use of the word "chance".3 Since there are so many it is near impossible they exist by chanceI disagree. There is plenty of planets out there. Even if the odds were 1 in a billion, Life would still ikely arise becuase of the number of planets and maybe universes. C They exist by design False.Argument III- The soul 1 Humans are at least part immaterialFalse? Actually, answer me this: Are dreams immaterial? Light? Concepts? 2 Matter cannot produce the immaterial C There exists an immaterial entity that gives an immaterial component to humansMoving on to my arguement. ONE:The Problem of Evil.P1. Evil exists in some form.P2. God is all-lovingP3. He is all-knowingP4. He is all-powerful.P5. God with these traits would never let evil run though the Earth.P6. Evil exists, therefore God does not exist. I am foreseeing a Free Will rebuttal. The Free Will rebuttal is not effective because it implies God is not all-powerful. All-powerful means all-powerful. To imply that Free Will and evil come together nulls God being all-powerful. I can choose to eat sushi over salad. I do need to kill or steal. I will go more in detail later.
Legalization of sex-work

Obviously I can't answer for every single sex worker out there as to why she/he (for the record, there are also male sex workers) chooses to be in that specific profession. Because that is what it is or should be hence the legalization - a profession. Sex work is a profession like any other - you do something you're good at, and you work to earn money, you work to pay the bills, you work to be able to buy the things you want. Whether or not sex work is immoral is a matter of opinion and possibly religion. Does a sex worker have no dignity? Of course, he/she does! To me, a person does not lose their dignity just because they choose to be a sex worker. But again that's just my personal opinion. This is something that we might as well agree to disagree upon, as I don't think we'll ever come to a common conclusion, which is completely okay. This debate isn't as much about our personal opinions and views as it is about facts, though. And the facts that I presented in my first argument are just that - facts. You mention that many people say we can avoid rape by legalizing sex work. Avoiding rape completely is basically impossible. But we can reduce it. When Rhode Island legalized prostitution, both incidence of gonorrhea and the number of rapes decreased significantly (gonorrhea by 39% and rape by 31%). * It has also been estimated that the number of rapes in the United States will decrease by approximately 25% if sex work was legalized.** Whether or not you think that legalization of sex work is the best solution because of the "immorality" of it is again a matter of perspective, opinion and possibly religion. But the facts will remain the same no matter what personal opinion we may have. In your argument you also say that prostitution is harmful to women due to the high risks of STD's, unwanted pregnancy and miscarriage. Yes, for the sex workers working on the streets there are very high risks of this, as the male clients most likely won't want to use a condom. This is where the legalization of sex work could have a huge impact. If the sex workers are working in legal brothels, wearing a condom will most likely be a requirement for the clients (it is in the legal brothels in Nevada), and the sex workers won't be exposed to STD's or unwanted pregnancy. If, say a condom breaks and a sex worker gets an STD or gets pregnant, the sex worker can receive treatment at the regular check up with their doctor (these check ups should be a requirement at legal brothels and they are at the legal brothels in Nevada). * http://www.nber.org... ** http://www.independent.org...