BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
i think some stereotypes are kinda true

Firstly, you state the word "majority", which means over 50%. For your two assertions to be true, over 50% of Mexicans have to be in construction, and over 50% of Black people (you haven't stated African American, so I assume you are talking about Africans as well, since black does refer to people from Africa) act ghetto.I have found statistics, much to your dismay, that 51% or more of the Mexican population does not work in the construction sector."Among Mexican unauthorized immigrants ages 16 and older who were employed in 2012, 19% worked in construction and 13% worked in a wide range of businesses like legal services, landscaping and car washes. By comparison, among unauthorized immigrant workers overall, 16% worked in construction and 22% in services. " [1]This happens to be JUST illegal immigrants in the United States from Mexico. However, it can be safely assumed without any usage of statistics that over 50% of the population of Mexico itself does not work in the construction sector. As for African Americans, acting ghetto has to be defined in a set perimeter, and you have not yet defined it. You see, it is terribly difficult to define the word "ghetto" as shown from one person, and then try to smear it on another.And lastly, for your last remark, if you cannot understand some of the words I use, as I have dumbed them down just for you, then you are a lost cause. Sources:[1]http://www.pewresearch.org...
i think some stereotypes are kinda true

i'm trying to say that i believe that a majority of black people act ghetto and MAJORITY of Mexicans are construction workers. It's kind of true. i mean look and listen around. and who are you to say i'm wrong you don't have statics on this information so don't try to be a know it all. and yes i know your supposed to be expressing your opinion. i don't think people would waste their time looking for statics because it would take forever so who knows i could be right and you could be wrong. (oh and if your finding things off of the internet to seem highly educated and make me confused with those big words its not working)
i think some stereotypes are kinda true

A stereotype is a poorly constructed generalization that is applied on an individual, just on the premise that they are representativeo of a certain group, or that a certain group is representative of them.By defnition, a stereotype is false, unless it applies to all individuals. Your first assumption is that the majority of African Americans are ghetto, which I disagree with. You have neither provided proof or have the ability to provide proof. Generelizations are irrational and misguided phenomena, as they are based on a fixated premise that represents a larger group. Additionally, your assumption that 9/10 times a stereotype ends up being true is false. Firstly, religion: most religious stereotypes are false, especially based upon how people look, dress, act, or talk. All racial stereotypes are false."African American" is not a race. It is a demographic in one nation, in this case being the United States.There's a fine line between truth and stereotype, as well as their place and frequency of application.You have not listed any specific stereotypes, other than of Mexicans and African Americans, therefore it is awfully difficult to focus an argument or to rebutt yours.However, I will say that stereotypes are statistically wrong. Your "argument" in Round 2 was barely an argument. You practically just gave me definitions of what stereotyping is, rather than what is truthful or statistically correct. Sources:http://www.usnews.com...;
Free will can exist under God

Okay, I had just wrote this big long thing, but I lost it all so I will simply write a very condensed version. Most of what you wrote is irrelevant. Look at the debate title: Free will can exist under God Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love. John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. Joshua 24:15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. God does love children: Matthew 18:2-6 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."If anyone causes one of these little ones"those who believe in me"to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Free will isn't the same thing as being all powerful Free will, by my definition is: The ability to make your own choices, in such a way that is not controlled by God or another figure. Not the ability to do every and anything. That little girl still has choices. Here are a few: To forgive or hold on To accept god, or reject him To suffer in her treatment, or find joy beyond it.
A world without negative actions would negate positive ones.

[3] "What if all of the reasons why they did this to avoid negative results never happened?" This is impossible to do because the emotion of boredom exists. Boredom is a negative that people will avoid. In a perfect world without negatives, boredom and negative emotions will not exist. People will only have the capacity to feel positive feelings and nothing else; therefore, positives can not be negated as negatives do not exist in the first place. Positive emotions can not fade away as that would be a negative result of having no negatives. [4] "Because plenty of very wealthy people always say money does not buy them happiness..." Most of the individuals who say this are most likely deluding themselves. If they were to suddenly go bankrupt, they could possibly be depressed to the point of suicide. http://www.businesspundit.com... [5] "Because if we have the same thing too much we get put off it or we get bored of it" This is yet another variable that depends on the individual. There are people that exist today that are very much happy doing the same things each day for long periods of time. [6] "But what if you never had those reactions, would you no longer also enjoy water? You would still have it to live yes, but would you enjoy it?" Yes simply because of the feeling of thirst you would enjoy drinking water. "What if you didn't need it to live? Would you still bother having it? Would it not be a pointless act?" This debate is if negatives can negate positives, you can't simply take away the positives of water to argue that having no negatives negate positives. The need to drink water makes drinking water a positive. Even in this scenario, individuals can still enjoy drinking water just as some individuals enjoy eating dirt today. Perhaps they would simply enjoy the taste of water even if it has no purpose. It being a pointless act is irrelevant as a person who would still enjoy drinking water would cause this act to no longer be pointless.
A world without negative actions would negate positive ones.

Obviously there are other reasons as to why people do things. But i'm saying if whatever reason they did it ie to get in shape, release energy, save money cos it made them happy etc...what if all of the reasons why they did this to avoid negative results never happened. i.e you would never get out of shape. money became pointless as everything was free. you could get any job without taking any test etc. Would people not get excited about anything if they could have everything without any negative outcomes at all? Because there are plenty of very wealthy people who always say money does not buy them happiness, so what if having everything in the world forever, inc perfect health etc was possible and you could never have a bad date, argument, fight etc What would make people happy? As for the eating thing, lets take water for example. That is good for us but we don't always just have only water. Because if we have the same thing too much we get put off it or we get bored of it. But what if you never had those reactions, would you no longer also enjoy water? you would still have it to live yes, but would you enjoy it? and what if you didn't need it to live? would you still bother having it? would it not be a pointless act?
A world without negative actions would negate positive ones.

This will also be my first debate as well. [1] "If it wasn't possible to fail a test, would a pass bring you happiness? " This will ultimately depend on the individual in question. Personally, if I passed a test that was so incredibly simple, I would feel prideful enjoyment as the test has reminded me that I have mastered that material. "If you never had any reason to spend money on bills etc. Would winning more change anything? " This statement is slightly confusing. I believe you mean, "If you never had to spend money, would earning more money change anything? " Again, this ultimately depends on the individual. There are people who simply enjoy hoarding objects, no matter what purpose they serve. These specific individuals would enjoy earning more money. "If you never get ill and out of shape, would you feel good about working out? " Does this mean you can still improve your shape? If so, you can easily feel good about working out. In the case of staying at the same level of fitness forever, certain individuals will still enjoy exercising possibly if they have a lot of pent up energy they have no where to direct. [2] If I enjoy tasting food, where is the negative? If our world consisted of food we only enjoyed eating, would we stop enjoying eating food? Of course not. Why? Because our tongue is wired to enjoy the taste of certain food. Your brain does not calculate the exact negative level of an event, and then give you emotions opposite of that negative. For what reason would it need to do that? I understand that there are negatives in life and overcoming those negatives makes your positive feelings stronger, but this happening commonly does not mean it is true for every time you feel an emotion.
A world without negative actions would negate positive ones.

First off, this is my first debate so just want to say thanks to the creators of this site. Ok, I read another debate on here asking a similar question and the winning argument was basically "There are different levels of happiness, so someone can always be happy and content but this does not mean they are always ecstatic or overjoyed. i.e to get an A on a test wouldn't bring the same happiness as winning a million on the lottery" But what I was left thinking was does this then not mean for each degree of happiness is there not an equal degree of sadness? and without it's opposite is the positive null and void? If it wasn't possible to fail a test, would a pass bring you happiness? If you never had any reason to ever spend money on bills etc would winning more change anything? If you could never get ill and out of shape would you feel good about working out? So for us to enjoy whatever degree of positivity an equal negative must be just as possible. If there was an 8 on the happiness scale, would it matter if there was no -8? Thanks for your time.
Adolf Hitler was a good guy

I will just copy and paste the definitions that i have posted in the comment's section: good's definition on google is "to be desired or approved of" I will be using GOOD as in GOOD or BAD (heaven or hell; right or wrong; left or right; bottom line it means morally right); Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. I will ease us into this round with the following. I ask the con to first provide rebuttals for my indications below and then prove his/her/it's point. Failure to comply will result in point deduction. 1. Hitler's intent of change was due to the Treaty of Versailles where Germany was stripped off: [1] A) Territorial (lands have been taken from Germany and given to the allies) B) Military (army reduced to 100K man with no tanks and no airforce as well as being guarded by the french for 15 years) C) Financial ( germany loss of industrial territory and the imposed sanctions to cripple the banks resulting to bankruptcy; write 6.6mil check to the allies) Concluding from the above, Hitler's actions can be seen moral as he only wanted "good" for his country. He did not want a Germany that was a slave to the other European Countries. 2. WW2 has created a boom in military development which in turn allowed major advancement in other areas of specialty (medicine, communication, logistics etc. ) [2] I will keep this one short because the primary sentence is self-explanatory, but in case it isn't continue reading. If Hitler did not start our current technological stage might not be at this level. [1] . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
donald trump: part III

wait... i couldn't really tell what you just said. are you going to pick on donald trump like i set you up to do, or are you going to tell us what a good person he is? i don't think you can do that if you're the con. you can't "defend him against attacks and prove that he will make america great again." that's MY job. so just sit back, relax, and enjoy. judges, i warn you, this debate is going to illicit some serious laughter. alright, here we are, a democrat pretending to be a republican(me) and a republican forced into being a democrat(you). here's a list of why the don is really a very good guy. 1.he's not QUITE as bad as hitler. okay, i admit, the two are VERRRY similar, but old donald is a lot more adorable, don't you think? hitler has black, dark, menacing hair, he has cuddly orange. plus, donald hasn't killed any minorities(even though he may soon). 2.the donald is honest. he's the guy who lets his profanity out without thinking, you know? he lets his words flow like niagara falls. even though he does have the vocabulary of a third grader, his profanity is that of an adult. he's very honest on his opinions of minorities, of women, of the poor. at least he doesn't lie about it. he goes all in. we need an honest guy on that golden throne. 3.he's very experienced. it's wrong to say that business and economy are separate things, even though they are. business skills are really all you need to be the leader of the united states, right? you don't need military tactics or diplomatic skills or knowledge of american laws or even love in your heart. you just need to be rich. his story isn't exactly a rags to riches story. it's more like saying that you need wealth to become president, and that nobody who grew up poor will ever make a change in the world. that's a darn good message! 4. his mind control rays are so beautiful! i await your next argument. and please, don't try to say anything good about mister orange. i got that covered. you keep your own role.
donald trump: part III

Hello judges and voters! I'm assuming that the resolution to this debate is as follows Resolved: Donald Trump will be a bad President of the United States of America. I NEGATE this resolution and therefore am on the Con side of this debate. I will defend Mr. Trump against attacks while at the same time prove that he will Make America Great Again! I will leave this round for acceptance and proceed to arguments during the next round. I urge my opponent to clearly lay out their claims and not engage in any metaphorical or riddle filled rhetoric. Good Luck and thank you!
donald trump: part III

i love rapists! rapists make the world go round! sure they're sick in the head, but i just think they're fine and dandy, don't you think? rape is what this great country is all about! i also love guys who say they'd date their daughter. foreigners should really think of "incest" when they think of our fine country, you know? it just makes sense. racism is good too! the hood of a kkk member and the american flag go together like the american flag and apple pie! don't you think?
0. 999. . . Is not equal to 1

You may use any ways, Including philosophical reasoning to argue your case however it must be related to the topic. I will be arguing to convince people that 0. 999. . . Recurring is not equal to 1 and please do not use the argument such as 0. 333. . . Is equal to 1/3 as it falls under the same category. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The common proof used to prove this is:let x = 0. 999. . . 10x = 9. 999. . . 9x = 9 x = 1 1 = 0. 999. . . The key fault lies in 10x = 9. 999. . . In general when we multiply or divide by 10, 100, 1000, Etc. We are told to we move the decimal point left or right (respectively) however this was a simplification of the original method which requires there to be 'infinite' zeros before and after the decimal point. If we only look at the decimal point part please explain how you get 0. 9 * 1000 = 90. 0 purely by moving the decimal point without considering those 'invisible' zeroTherefore it should really have been:let x = 0. 999. . . 9 10x = 9. 999. . . 0 9x = 8. 999. . . 1 x = 0. 999. . . 9 x = 0. 999. . . 9The. . . Z is to keep track of last digit based on inductive paterns and the zero always exist ruleHere what you started off is what you ended with many would say. Yyy. . X makes no sense as there is infinite y so you will never reach x. If you can't reach it does not necessarily mean it does not exist. The function f(x) = 2x also has infinite values however you can still transform it, As a matter of fact, There is no way you can apply any operation to any set of numbers without using the recurrence proof or infinitesimals numbers to get 0. 999. . .
0. 999. . . Is not equal to 1

Sorry I just realised I mistakenly wrote 1000 instead of 100how do you get 0. 9 * 100 = 90. 0 purely by moving the decimal point without considering those 'invisible' zeros? This is the SECOND time you have ignored my question and once again stated the same point. In my case, I already mentioned that there are always zero left and right hence when you multiply or divide you move the number left or right respectively just like how you transform function. "The entire number moved one “slot” to the left on the place value chart. This looks like moving the decimal point in the number to the right. "source: https://www. Homeschoolmath. Net/teaching/d/multiply_divide_by_10_100_1000. PhpIf 0. 9999. . . . . . Does not equal one, Then there should be SOME NUMBER between them. 1 does not equal 2 because there is a distinct number between them. That number could be 1. 5, 1. 72, 1. 2, Etc. However, We can't find any distinct number between them. When we subtract them we get 0. I did mention a number epsilonHowever, As this proof is usually argued with real numbers in mind is why I mention the integer case "1. 5, 1. 72, 1. 2" a not integer so they can not be used when finding an integer between 1 and 2. This is exactly the same as when people say:"epsilon is not part of the real numbers, Therefore, It can not be considered when looking for a real number between 0. 999. . . And 1"The 0. 000. . . 1 is actually in your subtraction prooffirst simple subtraction: 1. 000 -0. 999===== || \/ 0 9 9 10 1. 0 0 0- 0. 9 9 9========== 0. 0 0 1notice how for the two zeros on the right of the decimal to be 9 requires the left most to be a 10 to produce the 1 after subtraction hence giving the result as 0. 0011 - 0. 999. . . Proof: 1. 000. . . - 0. 999. . . ======= || \/ 1. 000. . . 0- 0. 999. . . 9======== || \/ 0 9 9 9 10 1. 0 0 0. . . 0- 0. 9 9 9. . . 9 =========== 0 . 0 0 0. . . 1 <= The number you disagree withIn order to get the answer of 0. 0000. . . . . the number you disagree with must exist as there has to be a rightmost 0 which becomes a 10 for all the others to become 9. if you reached 0. 0000. . . . . in any other ways please show your full methodsubtraction method source: https://www. Skillsyouneed. Com/num/subtraction. HtmlPS: Sorry about the formatting of the calculations but I hope it's still understandable"If there was a race which can record infinite precession ad 1st place price is 1M <currency> and 2nd place was 100K <currency> and third 1K <currency>, In the first race two players tied with 0. 999. . . Seconds and 1. 0 seconds because of what you said then they re-raced and the person who scored 1 second last time won. Is this fair on the person who should have won first time round with 0. 999. . . ? "
0. 999. . . Is not equal to 1

Because there is no end to the 9's in 0. 9999. . . , There are no 0's that follow it. If 0. 9999. . . . . . Does not equal one, Then there should be SOME NUMBER between them. 1 does not equal 2 because there is a distinct number between them. That number could be 1. 5, 1. 72, 1. 2, Etc. However, We can't find any distinct number between them. When we subtract them we get 0. 1-0. 9999. . . =0. 0000. . . . . There is not end to the zero's so. . . 1-0. 99999. . . =0 Any number subtracted from itself equals 0. When we subtract 0. 99999. . . . From 1 we get 0. Hence why 1=0. 999. . .
0. 999. . . Is not equal to 1

I have a few proofs why 0. 9999. . . =1 Algebraic proof: When refuting this you assume that there is an end to 0. 9999. . . , But there isn't. When you move the decimal point to the right of 0. 999. . . You don't eliminate any 9's because it is infinity. Thus, Infinity-1 equals infinity. X=0. 9999. . . 10x=9. 99999. . . . . 10x=9+0. 9999999. . . . . 10x=9+X 9x=9 x=1 Proof 2: 1/3=0. 33333. . . . 2/3=0. 66666. . . . . 3/3=0. 999999 Because 3/3 equals 1 1=0. 999999. . . . . Proof 3: If 0. 9999. . . . Does not equal 1, We should be able to find a number between them. Let's subtract 0. 9999. . . . From 1. 1-0. 99999. . . . =0. 0000. . . . . The dot dot dot means infinitely many 0's. So 1-0. 999999=0. 00000. . . . OR 1-0. 999. . . . =0