BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Celebrating Diversity" is a program of white genocide/Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

It describes the basic operation of the white genocide program that so-called "anti-racist" elites have imposed on every "Western" i. e traditionally white country. These so-called "anti-racist" elites say that we must "Celebrate Diversity",even though this "Celebrating Diversity" results in fewer and fewer white people in existence. The Mantra: Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY! Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries. The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them. Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i. e. , intermarry, with all those non-whites. What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries? How long would it take anyone to realise I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem? And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this? But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
"Celebrating Diversity" is a program of white genocide/Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

org (also known as "ddo"); and to accept this challenge. In all fairness to my opponent, since he is new, I would like to make him aware of some of the things expected of debators on ddo. Ad hominem attacks will count against the "conduct" point on the ballot, and will cause voters to lose respect for the debator's position. (Those attacks also don't help one's argument). From my discussion with leaders on ddo, I have come to understand that ddo welcomes ALL viewpoints as long as the members are respectful of other members. My opponent made two statements in his title:1. "'Celebrating Diversity' is a program of White genocide"2. "Anti-racist is code word for anti-White. "I recommend that he choose one of those statements as the resolution for this debate in the next round, as using two statements makes for a broad resolution that may be more difficult to prove in 5 rounds. He may want to use one of the statements as a supporting statement for the other or to save it for another debate. Since my opponent did not know to do so, I shall organize the debate along the lines of a typical debate organization for ddo:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArguementsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Responses to RebuttalsRound 5: Summary/ConclusionNo new arguements will be admitted in the final round, as they can not be answered. I recommend my opponent structure his second round thus:Resolved: XYZDefinition of terms:X- asdfjkl;Y- qwertyuiopZ- zxcvbnm,. /Opening Argument:ParagraphContention 1Contention 2etc.
"Celebrating Diversity" is a program of white genocide/Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

Summary/Conclusion My opponent still claims that deliberate demographic replacement policies such as mass non-white immigration and "assimilation" which are only targeted at white countries,and which everyone including the United Nations agrees are making white people a steadily-shrinking proportion of the global population,are not acts of genocide. The international genocide law that my opponent has confirmed that he is aware of is very clear on the matter. Any policies targeting a group for destruction are acts of genocide. If my opponent`s position is correct any government on Earth can target their population for acts of genocide and as long as they can misinform and/or coerce their populations into not opposing the government`s genocide program they would not be violating the international genocide law. No group of people anywhere on the planet would have any international legal protection from a corrupt and tyrannical government using it`s state power to target them for genocide. Speaking on the government policy of assimilation from the 1880s to the 1960s, Sir Ronald Wilson, President of Australia's Human Rights Commission, said, It clearly was attempted genocide… It was believed that the Aboriginal people would die out. . http://www.hartford-hwp.com... So-called anti-racists say that white people dying out as a result of "Celebrating Diversity" in all white countries and ONLY white countries is a good thing. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
should animals be used for scientific research

Pro has not upheld his BoP. His various contentions are merely conjecture. Let's take a look at them one by one.- "it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research"First, Pro doesn't go into detail on what exactly these types of scientific investigation even are. Is he referring to testing hair products or cancer drugs, we don't know. Secondly, since Pro has been so incredibly vague on the nature of scientific research which he is referring to, he has in no way actually backed up those assertions.- "You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals"This is also unsupported. Why can't we test on humans? On the contrary, it would seem to be a better idea since (a) humans would seem prima facie more comparable to other humans in determining the result of experimentation and (b) humans can actually give their consent, freeing one of the various ethical dilemmas brought on b forced testing on animals.
This debate will be boring or stupid.

My opponent has failed to offer rebuttals for my argument. I argued that the debate is both stupid and boring, therefore it is not stupid or boring. This argument drop should be counted against my opponent, and I should be granted the win. The final round is too late to bring up new arguments, so finishing this debate is a formality. Just like having sex with my opponent's mom once I hand over a twenty dollar bill is just a formality. Black lives matter
This debate will be boring or stupid.

It is my opponent's contention that this debate will be boring or stupid. I say that this debate will be boring and stupid. First off, we have everything my opponent and I have written thus far, and it is all stupid, and everything we've both written has been boring. I'd also like to point out that, my opponent announcing I have BOP, doesn't make me automatically have BOP. I say that he has BOP. He is the one arguing the proposition . I'm also writing this debate using the H1 tag , so the debate isn't only boring and stupid , but also annoying.
Video games make a positive impact on today's society

Video games do make a positive impact on today's society for many reasons. Video games calm players down. Many studies have shown that video games, even violent ones, can calm people down and make them more relaxed. Many video games have been specifically created to calm people down. A study published in The Journal of Youth and Adolescence shown that a link between violent video games and relaxation exist. Video games are used as an outlet for stress in many people, adults and kids alike. Sources: . http://www.webpronews.com..., . http://www.cbsnews.com...Video games increase creativity in kids. Studies have also shown that a link between video games and creativity in drawing pictures and such exist. These studies have stated that children who play video games show more creativeness when doing things. Video games have also been shown to increase problem solving skills. Sources: . http://psychcentral.com...Sorry about the late response, I was busy all weekend. Good luck!
answering is music

"music is music"Yes it is. "im saying answering is music. . music has an origin"Therefore answering has an origin? It does, so the origin of an answer is our thought, and therefore the origin of music is our thought. But how does that prove that music is an answer? They originate both from the brain, but coming from the same place does not equate to being the same thing. All mammals come from a womb, but are they the same? "1. why would i ask my enemy to challenge me if it wouldnt be. . no answer needs answering"Umm no. See what I was saying is when someone instigates something you do not like towards you. Something that denies your wishes. Then that thing is not music to our ears. Also some confusion over this sentence: "When your enemy says yes to your challenge to kill you, is that music to your ears? " What is meant here is say your enemy has the power to kill you in the next second. If you hear him say he wants to kill you after your defense, then is that music to your ears? No. "2. why would weapons be the answer. .. and why would discharging your weapon be" This proves you didn't read point 2. I was saying imagine if you tweaked point 1 to inanimate objects. In some scenarios, still, an answer is not music to the ears. "3. if judgement is the answer to my murdering spree"I feel like you are combining Orlando and this point. If you were the one who committed the murder spree and your judgment was death, would that be music to your ears? "4. science is math and observation. . "Right which has nothing to do with answers to questions. Therefore answers are not music. Common logic. "you can agree with others that problems are answers"I never asserted the true nature of answers because I am not required to. I simply proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that music does not equal answers. Round 2 of the war has ended. My opponent has not adequately proven without a doubt that answers equal music. All my opponent has offered is a simple affirmation, and defensive responses that make little sense.
answering is music

Hey vi. It's me, your worst enemy. I'm ready for Round 2 of the war. Are you ready? So this time your challenge is that of a claim. "answering is music", and "ye". Gotta admit we have hit a whole new level of concise haven't we? Let's see why a vote for Con is needed.1. Answering people is not always music to their ears. Now obviously this resolution can be interpreted in many weird ways. I choose to take it for this point, as meaning that Pro is defending that every answer a human makes to another human, is music to their ears. However as many of us know this is simply not true. When your boss at work denies your vacation, is that music to your ears? When your co-worker refuses to do his job, is that music to your ears? When your spouse refuses to have *** with you, is that music to your ears? When your kids refuse to do what you ask, is that music to your ears? When your enemy says yes to your challenge to kill you, is that music to your ears? The answer to all of these is, NO. It is not music to the ears to be denied what we wish for out of others. Rather it frustrates, angers, and drives us crazy to have this happen. So if the resolution is interpreted this way, my opponent already loses.2. Receiving the answer of weapons is not music to the ears. If we interpret this resolution to mean when a weapon retort is fired as a response to a challenge, is that music to the challenger's ears? The answer is once again a no. When a gun is fired at you for touching something, is that music to your ears? When a bat is swung at your head for missing a chore, is that music to your ears? When a ship is shot by a torpedo, is that music to the crew's ears? Was the shooter in Orlando music to the club's ears when he was "answering" their beliefs? Once again, a solid NO.3. If you are judged is that music to your ears? If the resolution is taken in this light what is the answer? Well, if a co-worker judges your body openly is that music to your ears? What about your spouse judging your cooking. Or your mechanic judging your car. Or your Pastor judging your soul? Your kids judging your work ethic? Or just about everything else you do? Is this music? Once again, a NO. Oh wait I forgot, I should provide a definition of music shouldn't I? Here. "the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuityb : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony 2 a : an agreeable sound" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Note the words agreeable sound. When is the only time my opponent could uphold the resolution? When someone answers a question with actual music. But since that is not how conversation is conducted 99% of the time, my opponent must concede the inability to prove that "answers are music".
Women and Men Should Share Bathrooms

People, when your child asks to use the restroom In a public place, say it's a boy age 6. Walks into the bathroom and see's a full grown woman putting a tampon in. We need to face it. Some people are weird, and how are you going to explain to little Timmy what he saw? You can't. Schools have implemented health class for a reason. So as a kid grows he can slowly learn what he is and who she is. Also understanding creates curiosity. If he see's her in the bathroom he will only get more curious. And can lead to premature inter course.
Women and Men Should Share Bathrooms

Judges please dont penalize for the missed round. here are closing statements. .. Perverts The opponent has claimed that some perverts will take the chance the attack people in the bathroom or to peep, however where are the statistics backing this? I say that since we will have more people in the bathroom at one time the chances will go down for sexual assault. And who wants to rape or peep on someone who is pooping? That’s just not attractive The Kids Think about the kids when you make your decision as the judge. Do you want your children running around with FEAR of the other sex simply because they have been portrayed as mysterious creatures, separated by boundaries such as bathrooms. No…no people, we want an America, a generation of children who will proudly claim the rights of each gender and who will be unfearful to pass gas with their gender opposites! Please remember the millions of dollars that will be saved from integrating males, females, transvestites, and trans genders. Remember the happy looks on grandpa and grandmas face as they are able to help their spouse use the restroom. Think about equality and most of all think about our rights as citizens guaranteed by the 14th amendment which declares that all citizens are guaranteed the rights of citizenship including due process and equal protection of the laws. And the civil right act which calls for equality of all men before the law, remembering that men refers to all mankind. For peace, liberty and justice for all…. .TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Women and Men Should Share Bathrooms

folks the ideas presented are so fundementally simple in nature. In america we gave blacks the right to vote before women sadly segregation of the bathrooms is now the same and we need to take the propers steps to integrate women into our bathrooms. This is only right. The 14th amendment and the Civil Rights act declare that this segregation is unfair and thus goes against our very foundation. My oppponent has claimed that people simply wont be able to accept the change however Where he sees failure I SEE HOPE! we need to create a new america where we are not afraid to poo by each other! where nothing gets in the way of equality! Should slaveryi not have been repealed because people werent used to not having slaves?? the answer is no my good friends...Seconly my opponent has said perverts will attack but i say if they are going to have the will to attack at all then no seperate room will stop them, and finally there shoulndnt be any costs because we both use the same toilets ect...vote freedom!
Women and Men Should Share Bathrooms

I see where you are coming from, but how will people react to this suddenly change of acceptance? Also think of how much it will cost to 'merge' the bathrooms in public places such as theaters, and restraunts. Also, what happens when our 'lonely friends' who enjoys others appearances, take that opportunity to preform an act against the other person in the bathroom area. And finally will people appreciate or accept using the same bathroom when for generations we have been taught otherwise?
Women and Men Should Share Bathrooms

This will be a simple deabate over the pros and cons of same sex bathrooms. Round Will Only Have 10 Min Between Each Response! This debate is about thinking quick and analytically and secondly about use of rhetoric to be persuasive. This should be a fun, simple 20 min round. comment if you want to play. .. Rules: A. ) Last round is rebutal no new arguments just summary of things already stated B. ) Nothing may be copy-pasted from another website except source linksC. ) BOP is shared for conveinence in such a short round Case:Segregation! Seperating men and females is clearly derogatory and is the exact same as black/white segragation! If we want equality of the sexes we must be able to equally share our toiletry rights. Reduces sexsismIf women and men used the same bathroom we would no longer consider each other with the US vs THEM attatude resulting in gender equality in the workforce and in the bed. Tranvestites and TransgendersHow many poeple have been sued simply because they dont provide special bathrooms for people who are both genders? Millions of dollars could have been saved with unisex bathrooms! Elderly folksCan you imagine the heart break and suffering of an elderly person as they watch their loved one stumble into the bathroom with nobody to help them wipe? how many elderly people have fallen on the floor simply because their partner couldnt be there to help them? Peolple. We need to see past our own discomforts and take a major step towards gender equality in life. Was in comfortable to get rid of slavery? ? NO, the same goes here.
democracy and communalism can go hand in hand

"Listen sir,India maybe overpopulated but things are certainly changing" In another 10 years India will become the most populated country on the planet. Media won't stop anything. "-in the sense that the media is playing a very important role in uniting people of all backgrounds aginst corruption and educating them along scio-economic and political lines." Corruption is everywhere, even in India. Thats why people in India live so poorly.
World Goverment

My opponent says that he concedes the debate to me. I don't know whether that means he gives up or if he's simply stating that his opponent (I) will probably win, but frankly,I would be disappointed if this debate ended so soon. Either way, I thank my opponent both for his concession and for willing to see my point of view with an open mind. However, I think my opponent may have misunderstood what I was and am trying to say. My arguments weren't about war. A United world may, within future generations where the conditions of world politics is considerably different than it is now, form peacefully. What this IS about is freedom. Under a highly sophisticated Global Government, freedom cannot and will not be maintained indefinitely. If the Global Government is technologically primitive (without EMPs this is highly unlikely), then surely it could not maintain its hold over our vast world. To properly win this debate, I should at least provide an answer to my opponent's contentions, regardless of whether or not he will respond to this. 1. World Peace Yes, there may be world peace. However, in order to achieve this, countless potential insurgency and terrorist groups from different religions, races, political ideologies, segments of the globe, and time periods must be suppressed. To do this would require a Government with vast surveillance capabilities. Effectively, a Government that knows everything. To quote/paraphrase a certain source which I will not identify, "a Government which knows everything can control everything." In other words, this Government would remove all freedom. 2. Just Another Step? Going from a Confederation to a Federation is actually a huge step. For instance, while states under a Confederation may have some rights and responsibilities, they are not allowed to do anything which supersedes the authority of the Central/Federal Government. For instance, if a World Government like this were to have formed prior to 2001, the U.S. would've needed permission from the UN to take military action against the Taliban. In fact, the U.S. wouldn't have its own army, so it'd have to ask the UN to take military action against the Taliban. Can you imagine all the world's other nations having the authority to decide whether your nation is defended or not? What if the majority of nations dislike your nation, as most nations hate the U.S.? I mean, if the U.S. relied completely upon other nations to defend us, we'd be an Islamic theocracy (I do not mean to offend my opponent) or a Nazi occupied territory. With my contentions having been stated and my opponent having conceded to me, I close my statements for this Round, and quite possibly the debate.
World Goverment

I am going to begin with my positive case, and then address LogicalLunatic's contentions. I should inform the voters that there is a shared BoP. Model: This is what I present as the model. There be a Confederation formed from all the states of the world. P1: World Peace If a world government is formed, while there may be collision there would no longer be any inter-country wars. As the government will have representatives from all over the world, all international war would stop. Let us take the issue of Pakistan and India, if they had one administration then the electricity provided by the rivers would not be fought for, because the entire confederation would receive electricity. P2: Just One Step Further If you look at it the United Nations is all ready a form of Confederation, the only change you would bring is that everyone would be equal, and that every state would be a part of it. The United Nations would form a sort of supreme government over the smaller, now pseudo-governments. Another example of a confederation is a European Union. I would honestly continue further but I read some of Logical's contentions and I swear to God that did change my beliefs. I thought there would be a way around it but just in writing my argument I realized that the threat of neo-imperialism will remain and where I thought war would end the countries which are currently stronger would take the most power in the world government and less powerful countries would be ignored. I can imagine the USA, China and UK making a government and leaving out lets say Russia which could cause wars of great proportion. I think this is the first time DDO has changed my opinion on something. I humbly concede the debate to Logical. I should NEVER debate political issues, I am better at philosophical ones. Ajab