BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

You continue to ignore my points. If all whites go to congress, whites would still become the minority, therefore your point would be useless. You also continue to list simple violence that occurred in the past where racism simply played a part. I am not saying that we will all just get along fine, but the fact is that we will continue, a free nation. Humans fight not only because of racism, but because we are humans. If only whites were in the office, then the whites would still fight against the whites. There have been countless wars between the whites, what about the revolution? The colonists fought because they wanted to be free from the British. But the Brits continued to tell them that they could not run a country. Should we ave given up because Britain was in a better position to govern us? Is that common knowledge enough for you? If not, here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org... I find it odd that you list all the violence in other countries with blacks, but You have left out all the violence that happens in America! Everyday people get rapped and beat to the ground, people are murdered, or on drugs. You can not deny that America needs help, but the reason we do not see all the violence that we see in other countries is because of money. We have the money to do our dirty work instead of us having to do anything physical. Audience, my opponent has failed to defend all of his points, he has also fail to answer the questions that I asked. In a debate you can not simply pick and chose what you want to rebut. He has also ignored most of my Points. For this reason I heavily urge a Con vote. I would like to thank my opponent fr this interesting debate, and the audience for reading. I encourage my opponent to look around, the world and try to see it another way, that we are all a lot of people who are in need of help. We all are human, but with different c
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

what you call "common sense" is horribly faulty logic Common sense is the analysis of basic logical correlations that any human being can make. A typical example of common sense is Yesterday I kicked a dog and it bit me Today I kicked the dog and it bit me again thus... If I kick the dog tomorrow, it will bite me again Contrary to common sense is insanity. Ben Franklin's the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" for this example, insanity would be "If I kick the dog tomorrow, it will not bite me" Now, in our case... We allowed millions of nonwhites to settle in Paris, severe riots occurred and gang crime rose exponentially We allowed millions of nonwhites to settle in Malmo, severe riots occurred and gang crime rose exponentially the logical conclusion would be.. If we allow millions of nonwhites to settle in the rest of our cities, severe riots will occur and gang crime will rise exponentially The typical american examples are Detroit after 1967, and Southern California, specially after the race riots of 1992. It is the origin of what we now call white flight http://en.wikipedia.org... but your illogical conclusion is that it will not happen, because we are all humans and we all can just get alone fine, which is obviously wrong, and have no basis in history Human groups have never "get along fine", even when forced to share the same living space. In India, the low-level civil war between hindus and muslims continue to this day after 700 years of sharing the country, with periodic bombings by extremists, the same can be say of the Balkans, where 6 ethnic groups are deeply mixed, situation that has lead to over 9 wars, among them world war I, and many minor conflicts, the most recent in Kosovo, You obviously have never read any history, or you prefer to ignore it to forward your points, which is sad, because I could have debated a serious contender
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

Still, you claim that racism is on the rise, then you just list one little come that happened! I ask for facts! Proof! You did say that whites never rape blacks. You said it here, "Whites raping black women? zero percent" You claim strawman with what I said on blacks running government. So let me ask you another question. Are blacks perfectly capable of running in the government? You claim the it is a very real probability that if whites become the minority,then whites will be kicked out of Office. Why? Why and how would that even happen? "You have failed to support your arguments beyond logical fallacies like "because I say so", "It cant happen because I dont think it will happen" fallacies." I beleive I am using common since, which most people have. Like I said before, I could get videos of White on black crime, but what would this do? There is no point of pointing fingers. "You have failed to explain why the riots and/or gang violence that we now see in Malmo, Paris, California and London will not repeat itself once whites become minorities in the rest of the cities" Easy, because we are all human. There's is violence wherever we turn. I find it funny that you assume America is perfect. Go to new york and spend time on the streets, get out of your little Kansas town. "You have failed to put forward arguments to convince a normal white person that becoming a minority would be good for his interests" I do not have to do this, it is unrelated to this debate. If white people are in office, there are still gonna become the minority. To sum up this debate, the real reason whites should not vote on only white parties is because that is not what politics is about. What if there is a white guy who wants to do nothing but sit on his butt, and a black guy who wants to ave America. When voting, you should vote on whom you think is a good choice, not who looks like you. I ask you answer question 3, 4, and 5. They are related to the subject wh
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

"blacks do discriminate against whites, but even that is dying" It is increasing. Recently a whole family was beaten by a mob of blacks in Ohio. Such thing had never happened outside of South Africa before http://www.youtube.com... "You can not claim that white men have never raped black women" Never say that. The data in the PDF is from 1997. There obviously were rapes of black women by white men during the times of slavery, but it is a rare event now "Blacks are not less powerful then whites" Strawman. I never said that. I was talking about militar power AND islamists. Please read my argument again "why are blacks incapable of running the government? Do you think they have a low IQ?" Strawman. My argument is for whites to vote for prowhite candidates that would represent their interests, it has nothing to do with the ability of blacks to run the government "Something else to consider, you think for some reason that the moment whites become the minority that all blacks will kick them out of office" That is a very real probability. something similar already happened in South Africa "If America was all Prowhite parties, they would treat other races like dirt" Strawman. I never suggested that. Blacks are completely free to vote for their own pro-black candidates, just like they already do, the same with mexicans so far: * You have failed to support your arguments beyond logical fallacies like "because I say so", "It cant happen because I dont think it will happen" fallacies. * You have failed to explain why the riots and/or gang violence that we now see in Malmo, Paris, California and London will not repeat itself once whites become minorities in the rest of the cities * You have failed to put forward arguments to convince a normal white person that becoming a minority would be good for his interests "I will now ask a few questions from you" questions are not related to the debate. Please address the original
whites better start voting for prowhite parties

Sorry about the abrupt end in my last argument. I did not know about the lame 2000 Character limit. Argument extended on white definition. I know that blacks do discriminate against whites, but even that is dying. You can not claim that white men have never raped black women without showing your proof. The very idea is absurd. some slave owners would purchase pretty black women only to raped them. Blacks are not less powerful then whites, I find it funny you would say that. During the slavery times, it was the blacks who did most of the work! You can not assume that just because some people do something, everyone is going to do it. Let me ask you a question, why are blacks incapable of running the government? Do you think they have a low IQ or something? I would like to point out that Obama was more for pulling the troops out of Iraq than McCain ever was. Something else to consider, you think for some reason that the moment whites become the minority that all blacks will kick them out of office. The truth is that America is realizing that racism useless. Also, for some reason you think that all black on white violence is racist. Did you know that when a black person rapes a white person, it usually is not for a racist reason. If America was all Prowhite parties, they would treat other races like dirt. I will now ask a few questions from you. 1. Do you think it is wrong that blacks voted for Obama just because he is their own race. 2. What is so good about white people that blacks do not have. 3. If you could have a law banning any other race from being in congress would you? 4. Why do you think whites are racist. 5. Why do you think blacks are racist.
keynesian vs classical in economics

Classical economic theory is founded on the belief of free markets. There is no government intervention. Therefore, individuals operate as per their self-interests in making economic decisions. Keynesian economists postulate that the aggregate demand that is influenced by both public decisions (government agencies) and private decisions (businesses and individuals). In defense of Keynesian economics, there are several positive outcomes. According to Cate (2013), "Keynesian economics lead to higher employment levels through financial stimulation from the government to businesses"(p. 112-116). The banking industry is also stabilized through government involvement. As a result, loans are guaranteed, and lenders are confident in providing capital resources including the government spending that is controlled actively, therefore, preventing increased demand that may spur inflation. Governments are forced to cut deficits; saving for the next economic cycle. Moreover, the interest rates are also moderated through reduced and controlled government spendings. These advantages related to the Keynesian economy are what the modern economy thrives in. Therefore, the school of thought overrides the Classical economists" postulations. Reference: Cate, T. (2013). An Encyclopedia of Keynesian Economics (Second;2; ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Funa, L. & SusN0;jan, A. (2009). The relevance of Keynesian economics in times of economic crisis: Undergraduate thesis. Ljubljana: L. Funa.
Without God life has no meaning or value

first i would like to write that i agree that " it's about living your life to the fullest" would create a beautiful slogan for nike, adidas, even beer. then your telling me to show how the absents of god has no value and meaning. this is not show and tell. it is like asking me to show you the wind. the wind has to be felt not shown. you are confusing an internal experience with an external one. if you were to have faith in something higher than yourself then you would feel it. even if it was scientology. your definition of a god is all power, all knowing, eternal. if someone were to believe that about scientology then even scientology can be made a god. all you need to do is have faith in something higher than yourself then meaning would be felt. this has to be experienced for yourself not shown to the world for proof. and if you go on asking the world ' does god have meaning in your life?' i bet over 80% of the world would say yes but they won't be able to prove it. the reason why is because it is beyond mind. it comes from within not without. as far as saying 'assertions don't count for much' i'm debating to debate not to win or achieve something.
Without God life has no meaning or value

Pro says "with out god life has no meaning", please present justification for this claim, just making an assertion doesn't count for much. Pro says " god creates mystery, the unknown" justified ignorance anyone ? Pro says "many people have faith in god and because of that it gives the extra strength to push on" believing in Scientology gives some people strength too, maybe we should all become members of Scientology. Pro says "it's about living your life to the fullest." that would make a good slogan for Nike, or Adidas. I would ask Pro to show how absent God life has no value and meaning, and with Gods' existence life does have value and meaning.
Without God life has no meaning or value

with out god life has no meaning. god creates mystery, the unknown, something worth living for. god creates faith. without all that then why live. many people have faith in god and because of that it gives the extra strength to push on, gives them hope, to allow miracles to happen. you see it happen all the time in sports. it not about winning or losing but about reaching your maximum potential. and the believe in something higher then yourself allows you to trust yourself so you can be your best possible. and to live without reaching your maximum potential is meaningless. it is not really about whether god is or isn't. it's about living your life to the fullest. and the belief in god is the key that opens the door to your potential.
Without God life has no meaning or value

It is often claimed that "Without God life has no meaning or value". I as the Con will seek to show that this claim is not justified My opponent as the Pro will seek to show that this claim is justified Definitions God = Classic Theism, All good, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, uncreated. Opening Argument........ Common arguments given to support the claim that "Without God life has no meaning or value" include...... Claim 1) "A problem is that if God does not exist then there is no immortality" But what is the argument here, that meaning and value are contingent on duration ? How so ? No justification is given for this link, it just asserts it then moves on. Claim 2) "If God does not exist, then evil doers can get away from being punished" Again, what is the argument here ? 1) If God does not exist then evil doers can go unpunished. 2) I don't like the idea of evil doers not getting punished. 3) Therefore God exists. This is just an appeal to emotion http://en.wikipedia.org... Consider this argument....... 1) If I die, then I won't be able to enjoy all I have worked for. 2) I don't like the idea of not being able to enjoy all that I have worked for. 3) Therefore I wont die. Claim 3) "Only God can given meaning to life, if a person or humans make up meaning to life, its just made up and not real" This is just a double standard. If a personal being such as a human gives purpose to something its fake, if a personal being such as God gives purpose to something its real. I look forward to Pros response.
Without God life has no meaning or value

Once again I would like to agree with you. Without cookies life would have no meaning. Especially oreos. They really unlock the magic. Cookies are delicious and because of that they make people happy. What would be the point in living without happiness? Then you said that " I know that 2+2=4. " You don't know that, you were taught that. You are confused between knowing and being taught. If you don't even know the difference between that then what do you know. 2+2=4 is something that you were taught, you didn't discover that out for yourself. Knowledge comes from your personal experience and being taught comes from someone else. And yes if you are all knowing you have the power to do something. If you knew how to make a light pulp then you have the power to make it happen. Then again you are still asking for proof. I did that the last round even though I wrote nothing needs to be proven. But I'll prove it again by example. Have you ever seen the movie Men Of Honor. Based on a true story. I was just watching that movie a few hours ago. It is a movie about the first African American master deep sea diver. He over came the most impossible obstacles you could ever imagine. The odds were heavily stacked against him but it is what his father told him that kept him strong. He told him "never give up, keep fighting, and don't come back home. " What the father said stood with him throughout his hardship. It was his God. It gave him all knowing, he knew his potential. All power, he had the power to carry out his actions. Eternity because his courage will live on and be remembered forever. It was his faith in what his father said that gave him the will to push on. Every time he felt discouraged he look over at the picture of his father and that gave him the will to keep going and because of that he achieved the impossible. That is no different then a man praying to God in difficult times for the strength to make it through his hardship. Without God he would have never became a master diver because he wouldn't have any faith therefore not realizing his potential. He would have lived a meaningless life because his heart was in diving not anything else. Overall, I don't need to prove my point but I did it anyway. But what have you proved?
Without God life has no meaning or value

It seems to me Pro launched into some strange psychoanalysis in an attempted to prove their side of the argument. Pro says " you want proof because it will give you knowledge and with that comes power. without knowledge how can you feel powerful? the more knowledge you have the more powerful you feel and the more powerful you feel the more you feel godlike, invincible, eternal. " I know that 2 + 2 = 4, oh wow, how invincible I feel, Also power means the ability to make something happen, even if you are all knowing, this doesn't mean you have power to do anything. Now Pro says " you ask for proof and the proof is in you asking for proof. " So lets look at Pros argument here, if some one tests the claim that without God life has no meaning, then this proves the claim that without God life has no meaning. Ummm no it doesn't. Consider this argument. .. .. "Without Cookies life has no meaning" ahhh, you see, the fact that your testing this claim only PROVES the claim that without cookies life has no meaning.
Without God life has no meaning or value

this is a debate not a court trial. nothing needs to be proved. all we are trying to do is develope an understanding for different points of view. to expand our knowledge and incite. the reason why you are asking for proof is because you too believe without god life has no meaning or value. you may or may not be aware of it but it is true. god is all knowing, all power, eternal. you want proof because it will give you knowledge and with that comes power. without knowledge how can you feel powerful? the more knowledge you have the more powerful you feel and the more powerful you feel the more you feel godlike, invincible, eternal. you are searching for god through mind, intellect because without that feeling of all power, all knowing, and eternity life has no meaning. without that feeling you will always be asking, searching, and questioning. this is why people are always searching for god whether its from the mind, church, or walt disney. it is because without this feeling of all power, all knowing, and eternity life has no meaning. you ask for proof and the proof is in you asking for proof. You also stated " so if they are not using the mind to understand this meaning, then what are they using to understand it?" Nothing has to be understood. It is either you feel it or you don't. It is like when a person sits by you in a train and your gut feeling tells you to get away fast. You don't understand it. If you ignore the feeling and get robbed or assaulted then you will regret not listening to your feelings. you can't explain the feeling or why it was there, you just know you felt it.
Without God life has no meaning or value

The debate resolution was "Without God life has no meaning or value" as the Pro you were to argue for this position. If Pro is of the view this can't be proved or at least argued for against its negation, then why did Pro accept the debate ? Pro says "if you go on asking the world ' does god have meaning in your life?' I bet over 80% of the world would say yes", What is the argument here ? People say God gives meaning to their life, therefore without God life has no meaning ? Pro then goes on to say "but they won't be able to prove it. the reason why is because it is beyond mind", so if they are not using the mind to understand this meaning, then what are they using to understand it ? Pro says " I'm debating to debate not to win or achieve something" I appreciate you not trying to win at all costs attitude, but it would be nice if you could give reason in support of the resolution, and defend them against counter arguments.
Violent defense of the unborn is a legitimate tool to end abortion.

Again, my opponent has taken dead aim at the bulls eye, and missed the target completely.My opponent ignores every poll presented in the group of polls that shows a majority believing that abortion is in fact murder, and concentrates on the only one that where less than 50% call it murder, but a vast majority still consider it the taking of a human life.My opponent declares "everyone deserves a trial" while completely missing the point that abortion itself is the taking of a human life without a trial.I must take issue with my opponent declaring that it is only the law that matters, because very few would agree that the law is always correct, or should be followed. Insurgent groups existed in WWII Germany, fighting against the holocaust. Were their methods less justified because they were illegal? Slavery in the United States was often fought with force and weaponry. Were these methods unjustified because they were illegal? History is replete with examples of those who acted against the legal powers of the day and are remembered, and honored, as heroes.My opponent continuously refers to the defense of the unborn as "murder". However, my opponent has himself admitted "taking a life is not the same as murder. Many forms of killing are actually considered justified". Furthermore, violent defense does not constitute murder or even necessarily the taking of life. My opponent calls this vigilantism, however, we are talking about defense, not justice. Justice is the sole province of God and government, defense is a moral right and duty. My opponent has completely missed this distinction.