BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump Is Not A Racist/Sexist

You make the argument that actions speak louder than words. Then here are some of his actions 1. After a black kids parents were murdered Donald Trump paid the bills for the funeral 2. After several major airlines refused to fly a Jewish boy and all of his medical equipment Donald Trump flew him to a life saving surgery. 3. Donald Trump sewed the state of Florida after finding that a club there was segregated he then bought the club and made it open to all. 4. If he is so racist why is his wife not white? also I assume when you call him racist your referring to his Mexico and Muslim comments but 1. Mexico is not a race 2. Muslims are not a race also everything that he is doing with the border wall is within his right as president also he does not continue to make sexist comments please provide proof of these comments
Trump Is Not A Racist/Sexist

There are many holes in your argument that doesn't make sense. You said that "Trump isn't a racist or isn't sexist? " Are you aware that Trump has made many sexiest comments during his presidential campaign? We are all aware of the "grab them by. . . . " comment. Is that not sexist? If it isn't, Then explain to me why it's not? I'm guessing that maybe you're republican, And you watch Fox News all day. When it comes to racist, Trump is a full-fledged racist because he's made many racist comments throughout his life, But actions speak louder than words. You said, "who cares what happened 10 or more years ago? ". . . OK, So if someone sexually harassed a female family member of yours 10 years ago, Would you say who cares? Nope, I'm sure you wouldn't. Yes, Trump comes from a racist family, And it's documented, But 99. 9% of all white people come from racist families. I agree that everyone has said something in the past that has offended other people, But Trump continues to say negative things to this very day. If you disagree with that, Then you're completely lying to an audience on a public forum. As the old saying goes, "once is an accident, Twice is a coincidence & three times is a trend. "
Trump Is Not A Racist/Sexist

Now i watch the news quite a bit and it seems to me that they want you to think that our president Donald J. Trump is a racist/sexist but I am here to argue that he is not. From what I can tell from watching the news and reading different articles the so called proof that trump is a racist/sexist is normally taken out of context and the proof that is makes him a sexist is small comments he may have made 10 years ago. Who cares what happened 10 or more years ago just because he did something back then doesn't mean that those are still his opinions today. And I am almost sure that everyone here has said something to offend someone of a different race or gender does that make you racist, Would you call yourself a racist. . . NO you would not so why do you call Trump that? Especially after ten years, Even when there is proof that he is not racist/sexist from years before and after what he may have said that makes him racist/sexist. to my opponent I thank you for taking the time to come up with a well thought out response please be respectful of me as I am of you Thanks and Good Luck
The Bible Is Not God's Word

You can not prove if God does exist or not, its all about your faith. The errors in the Bible I can not prove to be false, but if someone wishes to believe in them I, nor you have the right to say they are wrong. If they wish to believe in these fake texts let it be so. I am afraid that you just might have proven that God does not exist. After this debate ends I want you to find the reason for all those testimonies and all those visions, because if they are true you can not say God, his will, etc. are fake. I rest my case when you prove that!
The Bible Is Not God's Word

You can see my opponent has the facts, but the problem is in the beginning when we found the scriptures and started to translate them to different languages we had to change/ replace some of the words. Also since each church has it's own edition there of course going to be mistakes with all the editing. Plus since no one notices, when they make another edition it stays in there and another mistake might come up. With all it's adding up my opponent is able to make a hypothesis that maybe God isn't real etc. If you have any comments please add.
The Bible Is Not God's Word

Now in your [a-b] columns you talk about God and his only written revelation and how if to exist, would see to it that it was clear and authoritative, and make it lack the appearance of merely human authorship. Well you don't know what he would do if he existed, but since you are an atheist (no offence) I understand your closed mindedness. Now your [c] column is the main article and when I say this it will include the [d] column. The Bible talks about sin and how it has corrupted everything, well all of the messages might have gotten in the writers minds, but since all of our bodies are corrupted then you will not be able to make a perfect book. If you like to read books or write them you will understand the most when I say you most likely will never be able to write/ read a perfect book. Have you ever heard of something imperfect create something beautiful, machine, human, etc. Now the [e] column uses the [b&d] columns for a connection I will not include them. The Bible is mostly about faith, that's it. We will never be able to prove if God is real or not. If you have any comments on my argument please comment.
The Bible Is Not God's Word

The bible is said to be God's word, but was written by human hands. It is supposedly God's will, testament etc. We can not say any of the bible versions are true or not, because one reason they were translated to languages that didn't have all the Hebrew words and had to replace some of the words etc.,and another reason is, they are not complete. There are books that are not in the bible, that should be. When you write a book you don not leave some of the chapters out, when you write a book series you do not leave some of the books out. The bible is a collection of books if you like it or not, you shouldn't leave some of the books out just because you think so or because you can't live up to their expectations. The bible was written by people who we are able to prove did, but not all. The problem we can not solve is if God is real or not, if the events acured, or if the bible was actually written by people who were told what to write, or if they just were influenced by something/someone. Today, there are many arguments on things that can not be proven like this one, but I do say that the bible is real and it is God's testament/will. I will do my best to prove that it is real for several personal reasons and to try to solve on of the many unsolved questions.Thank You Works Citedhttp://www.thelostbooks.com...http://reluctant-messenger.com...http://www.ivpress.com...; etc.
The Bible Is Not God's Word

The topic of the debate."Is the Bible the Word of God?" The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue.Mr.Infidel is possitive, my opponent is negative.The scope of the debate.That there is sufficent evidence to believe that the Bible is God's word.The length of the debate, in number of rounds.Arguments begin in round 2There are a total of 4 rounds.The maximum length of each statement.8,000 characters.The time limit between statements.72 hours.______________________________For technical purposes, the Bible will be defined as the standard 66 books that are accepted by all Christians. I will be using the New American Standard Version (NASB); however, if my opponent wants me to use a different version he may do so.If certain circumstances arises and you need more time, you are free to request that the opposition waits to make his/her posts. Summary of my arguments:The Bible is Not God's word because: It contradicts itself on many occasions; The Bible contains historical, mathematical, and scientific mistakes; and The Bible contains ethical defects. I may change or remove some of those above arguments. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. Good luck! :-)
Society Makes Body Image Too Big A Deal

Society is biased and want everything perfected. People are affected by society everyday. In high school it is all about looks and who is better at something or who is prettier. We should all just look at someones character and judge them on that not how we look. Society has us comparing our lives with other peoples lives. People say they are over weight when they aren't because society has put out there that a size 4 is over weight. Society changed what sizes are plus sizes and what are skinny sizes. Sizes 12 and up are considered plus sizes and under 12 is considered skinny.
Society Makes Body Image Too Big A Deal

while it is true that society has based some thing solely on appearance, there are many other factors to take into consideration. as con stated, People do change there appearance. but that is for there own self good. we are here today, to argue how SOCIETY is based. Society itself is judged mostly on skill. like someone could say, you don't judge a doctor on how there hair looks. we judge them on skill and that is my argument for this debate. skill is what our society is based on. yes, it is true that people are judged on their appearance, but that is there choice to let that get to them. It should not be the deciding factor on how you look, use your talents instead of your looks. its better for you, and society. thank you for posting this argument and good luck on the rest of this debate.
Society Makes Body Image Too Big A Deal

while that may be true in the eyes of someone with that standpoint, that is simply not the case. there are people out there that judge people upon looks, but that is only a small portion of the population. even though the 12's have become "plus sizes", society isn't going to get rid of you just because you have a bigger waist. society is going to judge you/ remember you based off of your skills and how you contributed to the community. Stephen Hawking isn't known for what brand of shoes he wore or how his hair looked. he is known for his contributions to science. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mike Zuckerberg, any of the presidents of this era. they are all examples of people who are known for what they have done to the community, not what they looked like.
should we use nuclear power

you do make a good point but you forget it is believed that a nuclear fission reaction produces ten million times as much energy as when a fossil fuel atom is burned and they can run for a year straight if put the nuclear power plant on say the man made islands that china is building for example than if they melt down then all it would only effect that island and not living things. scientist are most likely to be working on ways to make nuclear power plants safer but until we do make them safer we shouldn't depend on them as much as we do i do agree they are very unsafe but they are also very helpful
Resolved: Affirmative Action to Promote Equal Opportunity in the United States is Justified.

Sounds good. So far, I have defeated every one of my opponents points, despite not introducing a single point of my own. Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity simply is not justified because there is no return on the financial, moral, and time investment and loss. To promote equal opportunity amongst all minorities and majorities simply isn't possible in a state like America. To majorities, this simply isn't fair! Why should the wealthiest end up paying for the poorest! ? Obviously, I can see them wanting to help them out, but to be forced by the United States Government and the Internal Revenue Service to pay anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of their income for poor people that, in most cases, steal, thieve and cause havoc through America's beautiful cities, such as New York and African American immigrants. Another example of this treacherous minority activity is religiously. Millions of mosques around the nation are flooding the land and bringing major problems to cities and towns of this great republic. In the majority of towns flooded by Islamic mosques, Christianity accounts for over 50% of the population, according to CNN. com. Through these examples, one can obviously see why this opportunity is not taken up, and all this work that majorities put into supporting minorities is literally useless and has no large effect on the strength of this nation. Over in Detroit, where blacks have demanded higher pay for their (supposedly strenuous) work of handing a door to a machine in the car production lines, has led automakers like Ford and GM downhill rapidly. Currently, in fact, the United States government owns a majority stake in that business. Resolved: CON : Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is juustified.
Resolved: Affirmative Action to Promote Equal Opportunity in the United States is Justified.

Thanks for repelling your arguement. Since we only have 1 round left we will use the next round as a final voting topic or main focus. My opponent doesn't provide any points on his side of the arguement. So we must be voting on who proves affirmative action is justified under "equal opportunity". My opponent first point states that present affirmative action is more important than the past. Well I would say that from the 1960's, during the Civil Rights Act, we used affirmative action too move the minority forward and to equal their oppourtunity. The reason why affirmative is justified is because we have used it in the past and we must use it now. Providing every other minority is false because when educating someone for life skills we have to equalize every oppurtunity in order for it too be justified. Justification in stance is what is just and equal in todays society. Today no one person is fair or treated equally because we discriminate whether by gender, race, or ethnicity. So affirmative action is justified because we must provide an equal opp. to every single person in the US. The constution arguement is justified and relative to the topic because if your denying someone the right too vote, under our const. we must provide an equal opp. to that person. DIVERSITY IMPROVES EDUCATION OUTCOMES NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and American Civil Liberties Union, Amicus Brief in Grutter v. Bollinger et al., Supreme Court Case No. 02-241, 2002, http://www.aclu.org..., accessed 2-4-10. Indeed, studies show that meaningful cross-racial interaction in institutions of higher learning has significant social and educational benefits. The more racially diverse a student body, the more likely that students will socialize across racial lines and talk about racial matters. These interactions have a positive impact on student retention, overall college satisfaction, and intellectual and social self-confidence among all students.* Faculty have also reported that racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom helps students broaden the sharing of experiences, raise new issues and perspectives, confront stereotypes relevant to social and political issues, and gain exposure to perspectives with which they disagree or do not understand. We stand as a nation of one. Not multiple groups. thanks
Resolved: Affirmative Action to Promote Equal Opportunity in the United States is Justified.

Sorry that I missed my debate turn, I have been overloaded with academia work these past weeks and, currently, should be focusing my attention on my education rather than an enjoyable debate. I apologize, and thank my opponent for a great constructive! To state that, in specification, "blacks" or African Americans should be supplied additional merit or preference for success as they have been previously "demerited" is to ignore the "now". Equal opportunity, as you explained clearly by defining "opportunity", is "a good position, chance, or prospect, as for advancement or success." The turn "opportunity" into "equal opportunity is to simply hold this to be true in regards to any race, disabled society, or challenged society. To supply supposed "blacks" an advantage is to turn "affirmative action" into action that holds African Americans in its preference. This, obviously, supplies Asians, Whites, Oceanics, and Latinos an obvious disablement and disadvantage as far as their ability to succeed goes. By supplying one minority an advantage, you henceforth supply every other minority and majority a disadvantage and therefore promote "unequal opportunity". The present ("Affirmative ACTION"), not the past, should be held as the looking glass for our discussion and to bring up past disadvantages or unequal opportunities is to continue former disputes between ancestors with their children today. Another important point that my opponent made was the point of legacies. Although he/she pointed out that many schools do have legacies, he or she did not cite any sources to prove this to be true. I would appreciate any sources if possible. Another important point to make is that numerous amounts of great educational institutes have either developed in the past 70-so years or ignore the idea of favoring the children of graduates over minorities. My opponent then went to point out that "we need affirmative action", but did not prove that it was "justified", as part of the debate topic. Furthermore, my opponent went on to point out that "everyone" should have the right to vote as amended in the constitution, however, everyone is supplied the right to vote definitively and affirmative action to justify this is unnecessary in this day and age. In his or her next contention, my opponent made several grammatic errors as I struggled to follow along. However, he made a second reference to the constitution and how it pertains to the deprivation of privileges in accordance with race, religion, etc. Again, this point did not pertain to the set debate topic. Thanks.
Wild animals should not be kept in zoos

Rebuttals: I wouldn't necessarily say that animal habitats are bad, no. A little enclosure actually means a lot to a certain specimen. Zoos are safe places for animals especially endangered species, I believe that I have clarified this aspect before. Now, you say that the animals would often get ill due to the limited amount of space a habitat possesses, I could tell that you have ignored one of my factors in this debate. Scientists and veterinarians conduct a lot of research on the species so then they could produce medicine for them in case they get sick. Have you considered wildlife safaris, a wildlife safari is a zoo where animals are able live wildly, these animals don't live in cages. Meaning, they have much more freedom, and some of these animals, specifically, herbivores provide food for themselves independently. Safaris often include animals like elephants, lions, giraffes, zebras, and antelopes (1). Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... Secondly, there are multiple reasons the Captive Breeding Programs rarely put animals out of the wild. For instance, these animals might be endangered by poachers. These programs conduct more research on these animals to keep them from extinction. The animals' original habitat/country might endanger them for multiple reasons (i.e. war, fire, climate change, population, etc.). Captive Breeding Programs are literally a blasphemy for animals. These programs saved species like, Gaum rails, California condors, Partula snails, Spix's macaws, and many more (2). Sources: [2]:http://nationalzoo.si.edu... Your final entry states that less than 10% of people come out of zoos with a greater understanding of animals. This could also be applied to historical expeditions, not many people come out of museums with a greater knowledge of history. But zoos provide something that no book can provide. People could sense the animals. For example, some zoos allow people to touch the animals, the people could sense the animals' breathing, their actions and so much more.
Wild animals should not be kept in zoos

Zoos keep their animals in enclosures too small for them. A scientific study was done to determine the minimum amount of space required for animals to be healthy. It was found that the bigger the animal the more likely it was to not have sufficient room. Animals that weigh more than 220lb have 1000 times smaller enclosures than the absolute minimum. In the wild they would have even more room. Tigers and Lions have 18,000 times less space than in the wild; Polar bears have 1,000,000 times less space. The lack of range for these animals is very damaging. They have a 65% infant mortality rate, higher than in the wild. Elephants live for 16-18 years in captivity, in the wild they live 50. Animals to not benefit from being in captivity. Sources http://nique.net... http://www.captiveanimals.org... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.captiveanimals.org... Zoos do have a captive breeding program, but it's rare that zoos successfully reintroduce animals back into nature. Specialized centers are responsible most animals released back into their natural habitats. Zoos get a surplus of animals. They euthanize up to 5,000 a year of these surplus animals. Even if they did release their animals into the wild some of them are inbred. White tigers often have crossed eyes, kidney defects, and club feet. They also can spread diseases not naturally found in the wild to an already struggling ecosystem. Sources http://www.care2.com... http://www.slate.com... http://www.bornfree.org.uk... Less then 10% of people come out of zoos with a greater understanding of animals. That measly amount does not justify the cruelty animals undergo, not when people can easily educate themselves on the Internet. Even the most well funded of zoos do not educate. Sources http://www.livescience.com... https://www.thedodo.com...
Wild animals should not be kept in zoos

-I will be arguing as the contender, meaning that I agree that keeping animals in zoos is perfectly okay. Considering the facts that zoos have been improving significantly for the past of an estimated years 1,000 years.Definition:Before we start, I think it is important for me to define a few key factors in your debate.Zoo: "a place where many kinds of animals are kept so that people can see them"Entertainment: "the act of amusing or entertaining people"Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com... Argument:Yes, we could all agree that zoos have been improving greatly for over these past 4,000 years. Originally, the first zoos that were built had animals mistreated. These zoos had metal cages/rods and cold rooms built out of cement for animals to live in. Yes, we could both come to the conclusion that animals were entirely mistreated back when the zoo business had begun. As we look at zoos today, we could clearly see that animals live in habitats that were specifically constructed for each bread of animals to maintain its necessities. The miniature habitat that animals live in specifically contain all necessary resources/necessities for their survival (diet included, but not in habitat). Another factor to consider is the acquisition of animals. Back then, animals were "abducted" per say from their natural habitats. Now, animals are acquired through the Captive Breeding Program and from other zoos. Captive Breeding Programs are actually a safe place for animals. These programs protect species that are nearly extinct or endangered by poachers. Captive Breeding Programs saved Pere David's deer from extinction.Zoos are also great places for scientists to conduct research. Scientists are able to find medicine for animals with this type of research.Sources:http://animals.howstuffworks.com...I will admit, that there are bad zoos out there that mistreat their animals. Zoos are able to educate people. For those of us out there that can't really afford a trip, zoos are great places for animal education. Most zoos hire zoological interpreters to teach people about a specific animal. In fact, it's direct education. People are able to sense the animals through smell, eyes, hearing, etc. it basically gives you the general outlook of the specimen.Sources:http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com...