BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Census is one of the more totalitarian aspects of the government

First off, I would like to give you some FACTUAL involving the US census that proves that it is totalitarian. My source will be listed at the bottom of my argument. It is biased, yet all of it's information is factual. (text in quotation marks was taken word-for-word from the source) "When the US Government rounded up Japanese-Americans in 1942, they used the supposedly private census data to tell the soldiers how many Japanese lived on each block. The Census Bureau handed out the data needed to put them into prison camps or otherwise be harassed. Reams of information came from the "strictly confidential" census. In 1943, a direct tabulation of "Every Japanese person living in Washington, DC", including name, address, sex, age, marital status, citizenship, profession, and employer, all taken directly from individual census records, was provided to the Secret Service. Throughout the war, individuals "of interest" to the FBI and Secret Service were looked up, and their private information was released for purposes of government harassment. " This is old history. However, it was used later on during the WW11 to round up Japanese-americans into concentration camps that were renamed "internment camps" This is an example of racial discrimination and genocide, and the us government was using supposedly private information to discriminate a race. There is also a penalty for resisting the census: up to a 5,000 dollar fine. A government where people are required to give private information to the government that could be used against them. Seems pretty totalitarian to me. The website is: www. toad. com/census. html There are also a lot more facts about the census there. Good luck, and thanks again, my worthy opponent!
The movie Black Panther promotes racial equality

First of all, British people are white people. So, when stating (British, not Americans) isn't fair; after all, Americans also have tried their hand in colonizing other countries. Second of all, Americans have also been oppressors- if you need examples of that, I'd be more than happy to show you examples of it. I can predict that you'd mention "Oh, but that was the past"- the past still affects present, in more ways than one. Also, there are some recent events that also show that the United States of America, which is mainly consisted of white people, still lives in its oppressive state. If you need examples, again, I'd be more than happy to give you some. Let me bring you back to your last statement: "Also, nearly everybody in Wakanda is a xenophobe. That's pretty racist." If you remember the movie, it wasn't the irrational fear of *white* people, rather the fear of other countries outside of their own. Yes, there were some who were afraid of white people, who were different from their own; but once again, the main fear was countries/nations outside their own. Moving on to Killmonger- he was the antagonist in the movie. Let me say that again; He was the ENEMY of the protagonist., T'Challa, who hasn't shown any type of racism towards white people. If you knew his history, he's the man who stops at nothing for victory, who sold his soul to Mephisto, and yes, a person who possessed a spirit of racism in himself. But his statements don't dictate the views of the people, since he's their enemy. Before you watch the movie, read the comics. Just a recommendation, so you can understand why some things are said, and why the events of the movie unfold the way the do.
The movie Black Panther promotes racial equality

Racism- a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another. "You claimed that the focus of your claim was that the movie was racist towards white folks- but that wasn't the point of the movie at all, which is why I mentioned the fact that the point of the movie was to show a many different cultures, not to show racism to white people." It doesn't matter if it showed different african cultures, It still bashed white people. "How does that promote racism toward white people?" Showing different african cultures isn't racist, but calling a white person colonizer or oppressor is racist, since you're degrading/showing prejudice towards them based on their race. "Furthermore, throughout the history of time, white people HAVE been the "colonizer" and the "oppressor"; although it isn't on the scale that it was before in modern times." It doesn't matter if white people (British, not americans) were the colonizers or if they were oppressors towards us, that has past and is generally considered a horrible time period. White people (now americans) aren't slavers, they're not colonizers, so by calling them that you're insulting them. "Quite honestly though, if you're going to cry victim due to some racial insensitivity in a movie, whether white, black, or whatever color of skin you may be, you may as well cry victim for nearly all the movies throughout the history of cinema, since nearly all of them feature a tidbit of racism throughout them." Once again, we're talking about Black Panther, not other movies. "Also, if you could direct me to examples of your claim, I'd be most appreciative." I already have? Killmonger calling the museum lady colonizer in the beginning and him calling white people oppressors. Also, nearly everybody in Wakanda is a xenophobe. That's pretty racist.
The movie Black Panther promotes racial equality

You claimed that the focus of your claim was that the movie was racist towards white folks- but that wasn't the point of the movie at all, which is why I mentioned the fact that the point of the movie was to show a many different cultures, not to show racism to white people. How does that promote racism toward white people? Furthermore, throughout the history of time, white people HAVE been the "colonizer" and the "oppressor"; although it isn't on the scale that it was before in modern times. Quite honestly though, if you're going to cry victim due to some racial insensitivity in a movie, whether white, black, or whatever color of skin you may be, you may as well cry victim for nearly all the movies throughout the history of cinema, since nearly all of them feature a tidbit of racism throughout them. Also, if you could direct me to examples of your claim, I'd be most appreciative.
The movie Black Panther promotes racial equality

"Black Panther does not promote racism towards white people; rather, it focuses on the rich and diverse mix of cultures from African origins" Yes, they show a variety of different cultures, but my claim wasn't that Black Panther doesn't show African cultural diversity, it's that the movie promotes racism towards white people. "And yes, I daresay that Western cultures are usually ignorant towards other varieties of cultures." I was specifying white people, not a general western culture. "However, I can understand your claim; there are some scenes in the movie, that paint white folks in an unfavorable light, and to an extent, it is unfair-" So . . . you agree with me? "however, I question the movies that previously have painted African-American people in a less favorable light, yet have gone by without notice." We're talking about Black Panther, not other movies. Throughout the movie, the characters have said some pretty racially inappropriate (borderline racist) things to the white people like colonizer and oppressor.
The movie Black Panther promotes racial equality

Black Panther does not promote racism towards white people; rather, it focuses on the rich and diverse mix of cultures from African origins. And yes, I daresay that Western cultures are usually ignorant towards other varieties of cultures. However, I can understand your claim; there are some scenes in the movie, that paint white folks in an unfavorable light, and to an extent, it is unfair- however, I question the movies that previously have painted African-American people in a less favorable light, yet have gone by without notice.
Non-Denominational churches are not the most reliable churches

! Non-denominational churches are by definition not a denomination. He also didn't look at my "" on the word written in my second speech. I know that the Bible wasn't written the way people wanted it. They took the books that WERE ALREADY WRITTEN and then used what was taught/preached to piece together the Bible and left out that which wasn't preached as often. .. which was determined by what people wanted to hear. Then he goes on to say how the Bible isn't literal in certain areas. I'm not here to debate the Bible and apparently my opponent isn't hear to even debate the topic at hand. The fact that "the Bible isn't literal" is an interpretation up for debate, and holds no weight/relevance in this debate. It merely seems that my opponent is trying to argue his viewpoint right and not that non-denominational churches aren't reliable, WHICH HE ALSO DOESN'T GIVE ANY WAY TO JUDGE. He gives no way to take his side seriously in a debate aspect, he also doesn't give any reason to believe his side right. He merely says "In my opinion. .. " It is not my job to convince you, it's to debate you! Not anywhere in this entire debate has he given a reason to believe his viewpoint. But not only that, I would like to go on further down what he said last. Addressing the point about corrupt leaders, that's an easy red herring. Nowhere does he link non-denominational churches to corrupt leaders and not only that, common knowledge tells you that corrupt leaders happen in many aspects of basically everything and religion is no exception. I don't mean to offend anyone but in Catholicism, there have been problems with their leaders; that's just fact. But when was the last time anyone has heard of a non-denominational preacher getting in trouble for *fill in whatever you want? * There is no weight in him saying the "corrupt leaders" comment. And lastly, his last paragraph is the worst of all. He makes an appeal to authority, (himself), fallacy and then next sentence has a fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
Non-Denominational churches are not the most reliable churches

In truth, non-denominational churches are a denomination. Also, the Bible was not written in the way people wanted to hear. That one statement you made destroys the entire meaning of the Bible. Prophets like Jeremiah were beaten for the words they said. Saint Peter and Stephen were also persecuted for the words they said. Non-denominational churches are Protestant since they do not hold to nearly any Orthodox/Catholic teachings. Non-denominational it's take the Bible very literally. Not everything in scripture is literal. Otherwise, in Revelation when it says John saw a lamb looking as if it had been slain, he saw just that. This is a little off topic but, when there is a corrupt pastor, no one holds them accountable. There is no chain of command. Non-denominationalism is too apathetic in my opinion. Every time I go to a non-denominational church, I only see people who want to hear what they want to hear. Therefore, God's word is totally destroyed.
Non-Denominational churches are not the most reliable churches

Okay, so since my opponent gave no way to judge "reliability" we must look to mine; same can be said for terms used in this past round like "accurate. " Going on to the actual debate. Non-denominational churches best promote Christian ideals because they don't preach any specific interpretation thus directly teaching the Bible's word. With the most direct teaching of God's word it best promotes Christian ideals and does so better than denominational churches. Also, going off of what my opponent said in the first round, "They seem to only preach what people want to hear," I'll accept this and then show why it still fights for my side. When Christianity was first getting started, preachers merely preached what they wished. The success of a preacher had to do with what the people wanted to hear, therefore what people wanted to hear got preached more often even when Christianity was first starting to gain popularity. This was how the Bible was "written. " Preachers would take the books/verses that were most often preached and then used those to form the Bible we know today. That's how the Apocrypha came about; it's not that they're less accepted, they just weren't as popular when Christianity was starting to spread. Non-denominational churches would then be best exemplifying Christian ideals because of the fact that it gets more traditional if you will in terms of the way the sermon is structured and because of this it's more accurate of the way Christianity was and ought to be. Also, going on to what he said about how when more denominations are created it gets less accurate; that would only be fighting for my side. Non-denominational is just that, NON-DENOMINATION-based, meaning that it's less separated from the original stem of Protestantism meaning it's not only more closely following the Bible, but also better promoting Christian ideals and not those watered-down by divergence from Protestantism. Lastly, I would like to restate what I said earlier. My opponent gives no way to judge "accuracy. " So going back to what he said last round that those that break-off more are less accurate; 1) he gives no description of what he means so we have no idea what this point is actually saying and I have no way to refute it completely; however, 2) all he says is, "I believe.
Non-Denominational churches are not the most reliable churches

I guess since this is an acceptance round I would merely like to clarify that the topic is non-denominational, not "non-denominational." A point can't be made in regards to potential bias in the churches themselves as to a "non-denominational" church being more Methodist-based or any other like example. Secondly, since we as humans can't technically test end results, (you know, after death and what-not), we must view reliability as how well it promotes Christian ideals.
Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

But this isn't a sufficient reason to uphold the sanctity of life in the first place. Just because the adoption is an option, what nonsense?! You are saying that it is okay because you are pro-life to then oppose abortion because adoption exists but not that the reasoning behind it is valid because adoption exists?! What reasoning is there to uphold sanctity of life to BEGIN WITH?! What a nonsense?!
Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

"Just because the options include adoption doesn't mean that this is a sufficient reason to be pro-life. "My opponent offers no evidence to support this claim. Also, this claim was already addressed in a previous argument, but I will restate the refutation. A person who has the potential to be pro-life cares about the life of the unborn child, and does not want to see that child dead as a result of an abortion. As putting a child up for adoption is an alternative to abortion that preserves the life of the child, it is, in fact, a sufficient reason to be pro-life.
Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

I would advise my opponent be as straightforward as possible, as this can be helpful in reducing misunderstandings. What you attempted to convey in your opening speech, “that just because one thing is an option isn’t a reason to vehemently oppose the other option,” was unclear and was never explicitly said. That being said, there were a few problems with the rest of his argument. Refutations: "I am yet to see a sufficient rebuttal to this point as all my opponent has tried to do is disregard it altogether as invalid which it is most certainly not." I never once said that my opponent's points were invalid. However, they had nothing to do with the resolution, and were therefore irrelevant to the debate. The resolution is that “Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life,” and my opponent only argued that “Just because there is an option available to deal with already-born children doesn’t mean we must force women to create them.” His point only states that we shouldn't force women to create children. This, however, does not address the resolution, which deals with adoption being a sufficient reason to be pro-life. None of my opponent’s arguments show that a pro-lifers reason to be pro-life should not be that adoption is an option. His arguments are simply Pro trying to say that he does not think that adoption is reason enough for his views to be pro-life, not whether or not it should be a sufficient reason for someone who is a potential pro-lifer to see adoption as a sufficient reason for being pro-life. As his points are irrelevant to the resolution, they should be disregarded, just as a point about term limits for elected officials, in this debate, would be disregarded. “Additionally, the “case for con” that my opponent raises is that because the resolution was not “Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion.” That this somehow justifies that Adoption is a sufficient reason to be pro-life. This is absolutely false because the are unrelated.” In the case for Con, it was never raised that because the resolution was not “Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion,” it justifies adoption as a sufficient reason to be pro-life. If the readers will look at my Round 2 argument, they will see that the statement was, “I would like to remind my opponent once more that the resolution that he is defending is ‘Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life,’ not ‘Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion.” This does not attempt to justify that adoption is a sufficient reason to be pro-life, but only asks Pro to remember what he is supposed to defend, as he has the burden of proof. This being said, Pro has not refuted my point about the thought process of a pro-lifer, so that point still stands. I look forward to Pro's response.
Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

I see there is a misunderstanding here.What I attempted to convey in my opening speech as that just because one thing is an option isn't a reason to vehemently oppose the other option.I am yet to see a sufficient rebuttal to this point as all my opponent has tried to do is disregard it altogether as invalid which it is most certainly not.Additionally, the "case for con" that my opponent raises is that because the resolution was not "Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion." that this somehow justifies that Adoption is a sufficient reason to be pro-life. This is absolutely false because they are unrelated.
Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

Refutations:1. "Adoption is one way to deal with a lost or neglected child"The resolution that Pro has adopted is that "Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life. " This argument has nothing to do with the resolution, and therefore does not contribute to fulfilling Pro's burden of proof.2. "The child has already been born to parents who, may not have chosen to give birth to it and perhaps wouldn't have had to put it through all that pain if they had had the option to abort it. "Once again, this point bears no relevance to the resolution, and therefore doesn't contribute to fulfilling Pro's burden of proof.3. "Just because we have the option to deal with already-born children doesn't mean we must force women to create them. "Once again, this is not relevant to the resolution. This is simply expressing the opinion of Pro that adoption should not be forced upon women. The resolution deals with whether or not adoption is a sufficient reason to be pro-life, not whether or not adoption should be forced on women. Case for ConAs the thought process of a pro-lifer deals with the safety of the child, if there is a way to effectively save the life of an unborn child, a person that has the potential to be a pro-lifer will consider that a reason to be pro-life. I would like to remind my opponent once more that the resolution that he is defending is "Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life," not "Adoption is not a sufficient alternative for parents considering abortion. "Pro has yet to argue any points relevant to the resolution.
Adoption is not a sufficient reason to be pro-life.

I would like to remind the readers once more that the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that adoption is not a sufficient reason for being pro-life, and all that I need to do as Con to win this debate is show Pro's claims to be inaccurate. That being said, here are the definitions we will be using during the debate. To adopt will be defined as "To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child (1). " Sufficient will be defined as "adequate for the purpose; enough (2). " Reason will be defined as "a statement offered in explanation or justification (3). " And it seems to me that pro-life in this context is referring to being opposed to abortion, so that is the definition that will be used for this debate. I look forward to the debate. Sources: 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Communism, while perhaps impractical, represents a Utopian society

What man wants, above all else, is to be equal. To share the same amount of opportunities as his neighbor. However, this is simply not the case in a normal society. There was a need for order, for unity, and for equality to the extent where one man was not held higher than the rest. When men like Karl Marx and Frederich Engels began thinking, the only viable solution, and the proposed one, was Communism. When first introduced, Communism was a brilliant idea. Many people thought it would work, rather, longed for it to. What it represented was something that man in that time needed. What man needed was that equality. What man also needed was not the slavery he was confined to. Different from the slave we normally refer to, these proletarians were subject to hourly or daily slavery. Ultimately, we see the final plan as being a work for the common man, for every man, for the entity and not in part. However, Those put in production of this wonderful idea skewed it and caused it to be more Dystopian than Utopian. For that reason, we must look to this resolution in the hypothetical rather than the realistic because, with the corruption of man, we find that something intended and representing a Utopian society should be must be a hypothetical discussions. Furthermore, under this hypothetical scenario, we must assume that the full intent of Marx and Engels were fulfilled and that a true Communist society exists.
There is most likely no life after death

Where do you get off claiming that there is no life after death ? Do you know where the soul goes after it leaves the body after we die ? I don't think anyone can explain that . We as humans try to find answers to these kind of questions. The Bible has given us an indepth look at what we find is the true word of Jesus and God. John who was one of the 12 apostles saw for himself what we did not see he saw Jesus after he came back from being dead to show us that there is life after death. There is scientific evidence that the garments that Jesus wore back then cured a man of leprocy and thus told the world that he existed 2000 years before our time . There are missionaries who are trying to let the world know that there is life after death. Do you think that divine intervention is real? So if your claim is real what is next nothing? Science has proven that there were patricles on these garments that can not be explained away . Leading scientists of the world have done extensive research on these garments. As evidence I propose that there is life after death . You asked where Heaven was well look at our universe and you will find where, and what Heaven is. The vatican has the original documents which scientists and researchers have seen and authenticated they are proof that spirits and souls do exist.This is also an unknown energy we cannot explain but now know exists.