BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racism is responsible for world's anarchy.

a. The world is on fire and to see that, all you need to do is to open any international news channel. Or if you prefer to actually travel the conflict zones (include wars and poverty stricken areas), you'd find far worse than whatever limited TV reporting tells you. b. Humans are social animals and they usually operate in groups. And I don't deny the fact that other groups don't target whites for racism in their own majority areas. However, on a larger scale i. e. global wars and conflict zones, this racism has spilled over a global arena and since majority of white-dominated nations are stronger in the terms of weapons, hence the world's poorer nations (and their non-white populace) is suffering their attacks in the name of war on terror or to just guard their political or economic interests. Even inside these white-majority nations, there is a huge problem of racism from political and economic point of view. For example, despite the fact that blacks are 10% of the USA population, more than 50% of the people behind jails are black. You can't fix an individual racist mind to fix this issue. It has to be dealt with on a parent level, group level, neighbourhood level and most importantly on a national level in these white-dominated nations. c. If you remove this racist mindset (individually or collectively), there will be far lesser and more controllable evils left in this world which are compounding the issue of anarchy in this world.
Racism is responsible for world's anarchy.

If Pro is to succeed in this debate, he must show that a) the world is in anarchy (I do not wish to impose my own meaning, and so will wait for his), b) that racism is a person (because only people can be subject to responsibility) and that c) racism is the prime cause for that anarchy. I shall oppose both a, b and c. I await my opponent's arguments. INTJPhilosopher
Atheism v. Christianity

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Christianity.For purposes of this debate, we will be taking a literalistic approach to the Bible and will be using a Calvanistic doctrine of the Bible.If my opponent disagrees or would like to add any clarifications, please do so in round 1.Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds: (1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statement ONLY (3) Rebuttal(4) Rebuttal(5) ClosingOther notes:(1) 72 hours to argue;(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
No Child Left Behind

Since the Jessica forfeited the previous round, I'll do likewise out of fairness (haha); nevertheless, I just wanted to briefly OUTLINE the educational reform plan that was on the http://www.nycfamilies.org... website that I cited abovehand: <<<"(1) First and foremost, our organization proposes that the Mayor (and City Council), since he has control over the schools, transfer direct ownership of the 1,500 public schools (the land, property, and resources) to the United Federation of Teachers' Union (UFT)—whose board members are elected by the teachers—Free of charge so that the teachers can have private Ownership and Control of the school system. "Naturally, of course, once the public school teachers, indeed, own the school system as their own private business, they can then build investment capital by breaking up these—as we like to call them—"Union School(s)" into a billion or so shares on the Stock Market, keep about 75% of the shares to maintain control, and then sell the remaining 25% to investors at a designated price—(i.e. $10 per share, etc.). "Once the capital is used to renovate the schools at the teachers' sole discretion, the UFT charges tuition for students to enroll. In this case, public school teachers would No Longer be working for a miniscule wage and have to engage in time-consuming contract negotiations with the city for a "just wage," but would rather be working for a profit dividend of $100,000 or more. "(2) Second, we propose that the City of New York grant an Educational Pell Grant (in the same way the Federal Government gives financial-aid grants to students to attend college) of approximately $5,000 a year to Every Single Resident--[who has an income of below $100,000 per year]--in the city to attend a private school of his or her choice---[NOTE: $5,000 is the average price of private school tuition, but if the price goes up, the government would raise the grants proportionally equal to the price of tuition]. "(3) Third, once the City implements those critical education reforms that would revitalize the NYC public school system, the City will have "killed two birds with one stone," so to speak, because the educational quality of the school system would have been corrected while saving the working and middle-class taxpayers half (50%) of the education budget. Therefore, our organization, which represents Parents & Teachers, strongly encourages and recommends the City to return any savings back to working families via tax cuts, or to pay down the city's outstanding deficits, which will impact future generations to come.">>> Thanks again and Merry Christmas.
No Child Left Behind

Hi Jessica, Thanks for accepting my challenge, and I apologize for the long delay. First and foremost, I just want to commend you as a DEMOCRATIC supporter of Barak Obama of supporting Pres. Bush's signature "No Child Left Behind Act"(haha)!!! Also, I would like to commend your opening arguments for they are very well articulated. The irony is that I AGREE with you, but I'll just "play the Devil's Advocate" for now(haha). (1) (a) While the NCLB Law is commendable for raising educational standards amongst inner-city children, there is one FUNDAMENTAL FLAW in the law. That is that it basically PENALYZES the "failing schools" which are predominantly in inner-city communities while rewarding the SUBURBAN schools that achieve better test scores and standards. (b) Now, while many on the Left--specifically Barak Obama (haha)--have criticized Bush's landmark education reform bill as "racist" b/c it is taking money AWAY from Black/Hispanic schools that fail and REWARD the predominantly White schools that pass, I "beg to differ" with this assumption. The reason is that under the provisions of the NCLB Act, the Black/Hispanic students trapped in these FAILING schools get a RIGHT to transfer to the better-performing schools. (c) This is actually GOOD b/c it encourages COMPETITION and public school choice which improves the overall lot and quality of the educational system. (2) (a) However, their is a fundamental problem with THIS solution: namely, b/c it is basically encouraging INTEGRATION. Now, don't me get wrong. I for one STRONGLY agree that it is socially productive for Blacks and Whites to integrate, but the fact of the matter is that MILLIONS of Whites in the suburban communities do NOT like this. I don't mean to point at the "Big Elephant in the room" but racism is STILL alive and well in America just as it was in 1960. The only difference today is that it is much more SUBTLE. Nevertheless, this does NOT mean that we as a country have not achieved such momentious progress as the very fact that Barak Obama is running for President (haha). (b) As an UNFORTUNATE result, these Suburban White communities are just NOT going to appreciate the fact that all of these "truckload" of Blacks and Hispanics are "bombarding" their schools, and they will just simply find "loopholes" to make the children's stay unpleasant and/or ulterior ways to expel them. (c) Case in point: the problem that we have learned as evident of the recent "Jena 6" debacle is the fact that it will only be COUNTER-productive if society and/or government tries to FORCE people to integrate. On the contrary, it must happen NATURALLY through persuasion. cf. http://www.storyarts.org... (3) Therefore, I found an organization on the internet that actually encompasses REVOLUTIONARY reform of the public education system in the country that we might find it productive to discuss. cf. http://www.nycfamilies.org... Thanks and I hope to hear from you soon.
No Child Left Behind

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)test scores released in 2005 show improvement of students. The tests showed that more progress was made by 9 year olds in the last five years than in the last 28 years combined. Reading scores for African American and Hispanic 9 year olds reached an all-time high. America's 13 year olds earned the highest recorded test scores ever. But besides just improving scores on tests, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) also allocates more attention to minority populations in our schools. NCLB seeks to narrow the racial and social gaps that exist in our schools to create common expectations. Schools are required to focus attention on traditionally under-served groups of children. For example, children from low-income families, students with disabilities, African Americans, and Latinos. Also, NCLB increases the quality of education by decreasing the quantity. Schools are required to implement "scientifically based research" practices in classrooms. Info from http://en.wikipedia.org...
No Child Left Behind

Since the Jessica forfeited the previous round, I'll do likewise out of fairness (haha); nevertheless, I just wanted to briefly OUTLINE the educational reform plan that was on the http://www.nycfamilies.org...... website that I cited abovehand: <<<"(1) First and foremost, our organization proposes that the Mayor (and City Council), since he has control over the schools, transfer direct ownership of the 1,500 public schools (the land, property, and resources) to the United Federation of Teachers' Union (UFT)—whose board members are elected by the teachers—Free of charge so that the teachers can have private Ownership and Control of the school system. "Naturally, of course, once the public school teachers, indeed, own the school system as their own private business, they can then build investment capital by breaking up these—as we like to call them—"Union School(s)" into a billion or so shares on the Stock Market, keep about 75% of the shares to maintain control, and then sell the remaining 25% to investors at a designated price—(i.e. $10 per share, etc.). "Once the capital is used to renovate the schools at the teachers' sole discretion, the UFT charges tuition for students to enroll. In this case, public school teachers would No Longer be working for a miniscule wage and have to engage in time-consuming contract negotiations with the city for a "just wage," but would rather be working for a profit dividend of $100,000 or more. "(2) Second, we propose that the City of New York grant an Educational Pell Grant (in the same way the Federal Government gives financial-aid grants to students to attend college) of approximately $5,000 a year to Every Single Resident--[who has an income of below $100,000 per year]--in the city to attend a private school of his or her choice---[NOTE: $5,000 is the average price of private school tuition, but if the price goes up, the government would raise the grants proportionally equal to the price of tuition]. "(3) Third, once the City implements those critical education reforms that would revitalize the NYC public school system, the City will have "killed two birds with one stone," so to speak, because the educational quality of the school system would have been corrected while saving the working and middle-class taxpayers half (50%) of the education budget. Therefore, our organization, which represents Parents & Teachers, strongly encourages and recommends the City to return any savings back to working families via tax cuts, or to pay down the city's outstanding deficits, which will impact future generations to come.">>> Thanks again and Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays!!! "Let the PEOPLE Vote (haha)!!!"
An unjust government is better than a state of anarchy.

Words in all caps are that way for emphasis. My response will be brief and I will only provide a small response to my opponent's points against. On an unrelated note I just took the AP Calculus exam and it was FREAKING HARD. I don't think I scored high enough for college credit... ///"There are/have been governments that execute their citizens for no significant reason at all." -Only if being a threat to the government is not a significant reason. Do we have the right to execute terrorist leaders?/// What I'm actually referring to is the HOLOCAUST. I could provide many other examples such as Stalin's Soviet Union [2] and Mao Zedong's China [1]. ~ ///"There are still established governments that have the potential to be even worse for the society than any government that could rise from what was once an anarchistic society." -No, if you trace them back all governments have their roots in anarchy. There is no reason that an established government has the potential to be worse than one of mob rule resulting from anarchy./// I'll concede that the first few governments emerged from anarchy, they would have had to. Thus by the transitive property technically all governments have roots in anarchy, but most governments today are the product of splitting off of an existing government to gain independence. Much like America. ~ ///"Your arguments so far have simply been "what if" statements with no substantial backing." -No. Somalia and the United States were both used as examples. I use more specifics than you, not that it matters./// I'll be honest, I didn't see anything about Somalia or America used to substantiate one of your points or refute mine. You mentioned America in round two, but that's it. I also haven't noticed significantly more specifics. I do tend to read fast so I could have missed them. Oh well. ~ ///1: If you're free from taxes you're also free from such burdens as roads, medical aid, retirement funds, legal remedy, and the ability to contract with anyone./// I'm running out of time, so I'll only provide examples of roads being privately funded, but all of those things can be provided by the private sector [3]. ~ ///Yes you could take drugs. There will be no system in place to help you once you've destroyed your brain and a incapable of normal function./// It should be my right to destroy my brain and be incapable of normal function. ~ ///Yes, you could do things with your body (until you're killed by someone else who can do whatever they want with theirs.). Could you please explain what you mean here?/// Sell organs for profit, I don't mean that I sell my heart and they take it out right then, but body parts go for A LOT of money. I could sell my remains to a medical institute for posthumous study [4]. And with that I'm pretty much out of time, at least I don't have enough left to refute the rest of my opponent's post. Let the voting begin. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.boneroom.com...
An unjust government is better than a state of anarchy.

I am sorry for violating my semantics rule. In my local debate communtiy semantics is connotated with the defining of words that shouldn't mattter to the round. Nonetheless your objective critique is correct. My appologies for mis-speaking. Rebuttal: Short lasting ---------------- In your case, you yourself stated that this transient anarchy would not last long. Are we to expect it to last for 24 hours? 48? It is quite obvious that a state of true anarchy would be replaced by government in a short amount of time. In this short amount of time, any number of awful occurrences can happen. Your house may get burned down, or maybe members of your family are killed, and for what? So this state of anarchy is replaced by government hours after? This brings me to my next argument. Violent transitions ---------------------- In your single contention, you said that the group with the most guns would take control. I'm glad you say that, because that means you agree that the transition to government is violent. Anarchy inevitably leads to a violent and generally undesirable government. From anarchy comes violent government, and from violent government one transitions to a more desirable government. With that said, is it worth the pain of transition? Anarchy is a short and violent process which turns in to something else that is violent. Why is it violent? because of the freedoms allowed to mobs, sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. The need for resources and the strive for survival will drive the already dangerous to act in ways that are detrimental to all else. Further conflict ------------------- Look closer at the violent transition argument. Are we to assume that the group with the most guns will rule uncontested? This transient anarchy will undoubtedly lead to a multi-government conflict that just promises more violence. Personal freedoms ---------------------- A good portion of your case was dedicated to anarchy giving everyone unlimited personal freedoms. Tell me, what can you do with these extra freedoms that you can't already do in a government such as the United States? And is it really enough to justify a violent anarchy, with violent transitions, and violent results? Being the pro side, I would say no. Value of personal freedoms/ Progress ------------------------------------------------- Further on the personal freedoms argument, it would be smart to refer back to my second contention that discusses progress. It is true to say that anarchy causes a reversal in progress. What purpose do unlimited personal freedoms serve when you can't go out the movie theater? What about a grocery store? Maybe an airport? Since anarchy restricts ones ability to use their "unlimited personal freedoms" then they are far less valuable than freedoms given in an unjust government. I very much look forward to my opponents response.
An unjust government is better than a state of anarchy.

That just made it much easier for me to negate the resolution. It is my contention that the beginnings of an anarchistic society would be better than one ruled by an unjust government. This is because an anarchistic society offers unlimited personal freedom. Though, this ideal society would not last for long. Eventually the individual/organization with the most guns would use those guns to force the rest of the society into submission. This creates, you guessed it, a government. If we use your arbitrary interpretation of the meaning of unjust then all governments are unjust. This means that the longer an anarchistic society goes on the more it reverts to a state controlled society. Since all state controlled societies are unjust this means that an anarchistic society is better than one controlled by an unjust government until a government forms from the anarchy which makes them equal. In conclusion an anarchistic society is better than one ruled by an unjust society at first because of the personal freedoms that it offers, later on in the anarchy's life it inevitably will revert to one with a system of government. Making the two equally bad/good. Both of these scenarios negate the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's response.
An unjust government is better than a state of anarchy.

A debate absent of semantics is largely preferred. So, now for some definitions. Unjust: not just; lacking in justice or fairness [1] Government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc. [2] Anarchy: a state of society without government or law. [3] My opponents first response should be an agreement or disagreement on definitions. Second round will be posting cases. Third round will be refutations. Final round will be concluding refutations/case rebuilding. To whoever accepts: let's make it a good one. Source: [1][2][3]- Dictionary. com
There Is A Moral Proof Of God!

So, if I'm correct, burden of proof is on Pro, right?In that case, I feel he has failed to fulfill it.My opponent's arguments are unsound and can almost be considered baseless assertions. He has done nothing to defend his premises, has provided no sources, and has not provided any proof that morals came from God. There is almost nothing to refute.Rebuttal to premise 1My opponent is only saying that if there are morals, they must be objective and they must come from God. However, he hasn't done anything to defend this and doesn't make a strong argument for God or the existence of completely objective morals. I could say that morals were a human conception that evolved over time to give us the laws and morals hammered into us by society today. This alternative seems much more plausible than assuming that since morals exist, that there's a god behind them with no evidence to back it up. Rebuttal to premise 2 Again, my opponent has not yet proven that morals are objective, and that they come from a god. Therefore, logically following from the last rebuttal, this point is rendered moot.Counter Argument I am not making a counter argument, seeing as there is seemingly no argument to counter. They appear to be baseless assertions.ConclusionNo offense, but my opponent's arguments do not hold any water. They are assertions based entirely on the premise that if morals exist, God exists, without any evidence or cited sources to back them up. My opponent has not shown that morals are absolute, objective, or come from a God and I await his response to show otherwise.
There Is A Moral Proof Of God!

I know my opponent is an intelligent person, perhaps that is why it baffles me that s/he has not engaged the debate properly. It seems that my entire thesis was not even read. Allow me to first address the issues: 1. I do say that the fact that morals are objective should be understood by common sense but I also give a logical argument, which I copied off of Immanuel Kant so it cannot be completely illogical. I presented sources if my opponent had any problems, I gave the link to an essay within which I clear my point of summum bonum, and moral ontology. I ask the readers to look at my above arguments. Now let us deal with this counter argument that has been presented: Euthyphro's Dilemma was presented to us by Plato, the most simplest solution is that morality comes from one God, not many. The reason Euthyphro was put into such a mess was because he could not answer what would happen if some gods favoured something and others did not favour it. God is by definition omni-benevolent, the opposite being Satan. Secondly the fact that you find murder or thievery bad is because of God, and how you have an innate sense of virtue. The fact that I did not write a long argument is because I am incredibly sick, and was hospitalized for most of the night. I only did write this because it would be rude to my opponent to quit in between. Ajab