BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The emancipation of slaves did not truly free them

Hello, thanks for starting this debate. I would like to start my argument by stating that while the slaves were not completely freed by the Emancipation proclamation, it allowed a beacon of light to shine through the ill-treated human beings, who were abused beyond the regular human mind is capable of imagining. Freedom can not be put on a scale, therefore to say that the slave were not truly freed by a bill that was not designed to free them all. Rather, the bill was created to inspire. The emancipation proclamation freed northern slaves, however southern slaves were not feed. This in part was due to the fact that the south did not recognize them selves as America. Therefore, the emancipation proclamation would not have effected the southern slaves. In the north, slaves were truly free, but at that point it was not a war on slavery- it was a war on racism. This would lead to landmark supreme court cases such as Brown v. Board. In the south, Slaves were eventually freed because of the emancipation proclamation- just not as sudden as we would have liked. I would now like to define freedom as:" the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc." And I would also like to define Human rights as: "Rights that belong to an individual as a consequence of being human." Under this definition, the slaves were technically free. However, it would not be until later that amendments like the 12th, 13th, and 14th, which established fundamental rights to African Americans would be established. These amendments would give no freedoms- but rather Human Rights. Definition 1: http://dictionary.reference.com... Definition 2: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The emancipation of slaves did not truly free them

One line throughout an entire speech is hardly enough to support an argument, however that situation still does not prove your point, and therefore, is irrelevant. Yet again. About your first point: I do not believe that "whipping would bring the slave to anger and would eventually lead the slave to rise up against his master. " The point of the whippings and beatings was to break the slaves down mentally, and to fully brainwash them into believing they were in superior simply because of skin color. In no way did the slave masters ever beat a slave so the salve would revolt. This is a ridiculous claim. Moving on to your second point: This point is irrelevant because the first lynch ever recorded happened well over 20 years after slavery was abolished. On top of this, I still do not see how this relates to the overall topic of the Emancipation Proclamation. Finally, your third contingency: The north was fairly shy on plantations, so when the Emancipation Proclamation was passed, the former slaves did not have very many places to go, and the majority of them were not going to go back to the place they had been beaten, and starved for all of their lives. You also failed to recognize that the slaves were technically not forced to go back to plantations, therefore this argument does not disprove my points, rather it disproves yours. The emancipation proclamation provided a beacon of hope for slaves trapped in the south, and it freed slaves in the north. The beacon of hop would later be the reason pecan pie the 12th, 13th, and 14th amendment were passed, which would ultimately be the reason why the emancipation proclamation 'freed' the slaves. Thanks you for participating, and thanks for judging this debate!
The emancipation of slaves did not truly free them

I said explicitly,"I believe while the emancipation proclamation absolved the viscous bond between slave and master, the form of slavery evolved into systemic systematic form of policies and fundamental structure that refused the slaves of true freedom." So I did mention the emancipation proclamation which takes away your final argument about how abstained from the resolution as a whole. So I will start off with the definition argument. I see as you have given no scenario in which your definition should take precedence, I gave a situation in which slavery has moved from physical to mental meaning that freedom in the form of making decisions free from restraint has not been met which defaults to pro in terms of voting because African Americans are slaves to a perpetual cycle. Response to A you corroborated my point that masters were killing slaves so they needed a new method to control slaves. Think about it whipping would bring the slave to anger and would eventually lead the slave to rise up against his master. However whipping was used as a method of discipline the masters had to break the slave to ensure that the whipping not be brought back upon them in the form of violence. It pertains to the topic because we are discussing freedom this just serves as an inception of mental bondage which is used as a foundation for evidence in my case. Response to B - I never said that the emancipation had anything to do with lynching .I brought up lynching as another liaison from argument to my overall main point. The methods lynch used ultimately over time left slaves incapable to think autonomously on their own. It is very relevant just wait and see You supported my point that African Americans were more valuable then than they are now. Let me tie all these loose ends together to make a seamless argument. Slaves were broken on the plantations. After the emancipation proclamation was issued freed slaves returned right back to the plantations. Do you think that they wanted to, it was not because they wanted to, it was because they had to. Think about, freedmen who have to return back to the plantation to continue their meager existence only with some amendment declaring their freedom. Does that sound like freedom to you? A limited amount of options to continue the form of slavery in a more discrete way. This new form of slavery will need more than an emancipation to set us free this time. It will take enlightenment. This is why the emancipation did not truly free the slaves. Good Round
The emancipation of slaves did not truly free them

Since the counter definition that was given was not proved to be better in this situation, my definitions still stand. I would like to go through your points and then analyze the major flaws. I will section your argument into several different sections, and order them alphabetically. Section A. You said, "slave masters had to kill the slaves to discipline them which was not very cost effective", however slave masters never killed slaves purposely for discipline. This would be pointless, and economically stupid. Most of the time, the only punishment was given through whips, and beatings. I do not believe that any of the arguments given in section A pertain to the topic, but I will move on anyways. Section B. There was a lot of talk about lynching, and it's history, however I would like to point out that the Emancipation Proclamation never said anything about lynching, so this argument is also irrelevant. This section also talked about The separation from body and mind. However, this is more in line with torture, which is a legal action of many governments today, therefore, this is not necessarily a violation of freedom under my definition, but rather an issue of human rights. Section C. In this section, you said, "Back then we were producers but now we are just consumer nearly trapped in a perpetual cycle." I understand this to be true, and it is very unfortunate. Perhaps the worst of all is how many people now a days feel like African Americans would be better off still as slave. I would like to state that you did not mention the Emancipation Proclamation, or how it pertained to freedom, and therefore you abstained to the topic. Thank you for this time to speak, I have finished speaking for round 2.
The emancipation of slaves did not truly free them

Thank you very much for responding and God Bless you. Now on to the debate haha. I believe while the emancipation proclamation absolved the viscous bond between slave and master, the form of slavery evolved into systemic systematic form of policies and fundamental structure that refused the slaves of true freedom. This is why I offer a counter definition of freedom being "the power to determine action without restraint." So, back in the inception of slavery, slave masters had to kill the slaves to discipline them which was not very cost effective. After years of futile effort slave owners called for the assistance of the fierce Willie Lynch. This is were we get the term " lynching". Willie Lynch had a diabolical method of dealing with slaves. "Kill" the mind leave the body. Destroy any bonds that exist between the slaves to keep them from joining together to keep them weak and controlled. His methods worked all to well. After slavery was over, the slaves went right back to the plantations to return to the daily grind. If any now freed african american sought to rise above his current state lynch mobs and the kkk would be right there to tear him down. Education to freed black's was very limited which ultimately limited the career oppurtunities these freedmen could pursue. Eugenics ravaged "white" thought to try and prove that blacks were inferior to white's. The saddest part about it is that we as black's were more valuable as slaves then most of us are today. Back then we were producers but now we are just consumer nearly trapped in a perpetual cycle. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Stealing is a natural part of survival

" I used the words "property" and "stealing" as an equivalent to describing natural occurences, and to expose the hypocrisy of human society. Because human law does not acknowledge any relationship between property and nature, it is neccessary to assume an equivalent of "property" and "stealing" in order to distinguish a comparison." If such is necessary, your position is untenable. There can be no equivalent of the terms "Property" and "Stealing" when dealing with mindless organisms, any more than one can "Steal" from an unowned mountain by mining it. "Otherwise, human law is not applicable in the context of nature and the methods that organisms use to survive." Correct, it is not. Nature is anarchic, valueless, and nonteleological. "Therefore, property rights, and any other jargon relating to human law is irrelevant if not being used as a comparison. " Sounds like a concession to me-- you just conceded the resolution cannot be true, only a comparison. " Furthermore, the word "natural" in the title of the debate is defined as something that exists in or is formed by nature, without human skill. This indicates that the title does not relate to humans and or their activities. Therefore, it is irrelevant to refer to "stealing" amongst humans in this discussion." There is no other kind. You have already admitted "stealing," violating property rights, does not occur and is incoherent when applied to nonhumans.
Stealing is a natural part of survival

"Property rights can only be originated from natural materials where one has willfully and through the use of their rational faculty , enhanced the value of something. This is achieved on the body by conceptualizing, i.e., filling that body with all sorts of useful information, among other ways." I used the words "property" and "stealing" as an equivalent to describing natural occurences, and to expose the hypocrisy of human society. Because human law does not acknowledge any relationship between property and nature, it is neccessary to assume an equivalent of "property" and "stealing" in order to distinguish a comparison. Otherwise, human law is not applicable in the context of nature and the methods that organisms use to survive. Therefore, property rights, and any other jargon relating to human law is irrelevant if not being used as a comparison. Furthermore, the word "natural" in the title of the debate is defined as something that exists in or is formed by nature, without human skill. This indicates that the title does not relate to humans and or their activities. Therefore, it is irrelevant to refer to "stealing" amongst humans in this discussion. "Stealing" occurs in nature regardless of the risks, because the rewards substantially help the organism to survive.
Stealing is a natural part of survival

" Theoretically, any human is the owner of their own body. Assuming the equivalent of all other organisms," Bad assumption. Property rights can only be originated from natural materials where one has willfully and through the use of their rational faculty , enhanced the value of something. This is achieved on the body by conceptualizing, i.e., filling that body with all sorts of useful information, among other ways. Other earthly organisms do not do this, they have no rational faculty, and so can have no rights, no property. They live, so to speak, like animals :D. Obviously, stealing from a human being is bad for your survival, it makes them want to kill you. Since nothing can be stolen from anything which is not human (i.e., a rational animal as opposed to a nonrational one), as it is not stealing to take that which is not subject to property rights, stealing does not fit into survival.
Stealing is a natural part of survival

The primary method of survival on planet Earth is by means of exploitation. As defined in biological terms, exploitation is the proccess by which an organism consumes another organism in a harmed/benefit relationship. Plants are the exception because they receive energy directly from the sun, however, herbivores, carnivores and parasites all exploit/consume other organisms for survival. Dictionary.com defines "stealing" as: "1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch." Theoretically, any human is the owner of their own body. Assuming the equivalent of all other organisms, there is no distinction between "stealing" an organism's body as opposed to their possessions, because both are defined as the property of that organism. Humans live by the means of exploitation. Animals are slaughtered, plants are ravaged, thus enabling survival. It may be argued that humans have permission or right to do this, as opposed to stealing possessions from each other. However, this is only true in the context of human law. In the scale of nature, a law enforced by a single species is cannot determine what is universally right or wrong. Surely lambs and chicken did not give permission to humans authorising their slaughter and consumption? If not, humans have effectively "stolen" the property of said animals. The same applies to any other organism that lives by exploitation. "Stealing" also occurs naturally amongst members of the same species. For instance, it is a common sight to see birds stealing food from one another at the park. In fact, any organism is likely to steal from another of the same species if the opportunity arises. E.g. if a wolf leaves an animal corpse unattended in a shared dwelling, it will undoubtedly be consumed by its fellow wolves living there. By observing the behaviours of animals living in an undisturbed natural cycle, it can determined what is a natural occurence on planet Earth. Stealing is an act of nature, between and amongst species, whether morally right or wrong. It forms the basis of exploitation, which is the only method of survival for many organisms. Therefore, stealing is a natural part of survival.
The Earlys 50 Rams had the greatest offense in NFL history

Thank you for providing the statistics for the individual players and I knew you were going to say something about the year difference between the 1950 Rams, 1998 Vikings, and 2007 Patriots (Broncos fan and I agree the Patriots had the best offense). However, I have one team that is known throughout NFL history as having one of the best offenses and defenses in the entire NFL history, the 1972 Dolphins. 1972 Dolphins - Quite possibly one of the best known offenses in the history of the NFL, the 1972 Dolphins were successfully able to have a perfect 14-0 season and they were able to take home the Superbowl trophy. Led by famous QB Bob Griese, the Dolphins became the only team to have reached this milestone and have kept that record even today. Compared to the Rams who were not able to accomplish this feat (yes I know the Superbowl wasn't around back then), the 1972 Dolphins quite possibly had the best offense in the NFL. Also, you said I couldn't use stats from the 2007 Patriots which says that I basically can't use stats from future teams which is favoring you in so many different ways.
The Earlys 50 Rams had the greatest offense in NFL history

I was not aware you wanted statistics for each individual player. Norm Van Brocklin finished the season as the 3rd leading passer (2061) and Bob Waterfield finished the season as the 10th leading passer (1540). Van Brocklin finished with 18 passing TDs good for 2nd in the league while Waterfield finished with 11 which was good for 7th in the league. Van Brocklin and Waterfield had the 2 highest passer ratings in the league that year. While they were definitely a pass heavy team, this didnt stop Dick Hoerner from having the 2nd most rushing TDs in the league with 10 and Dan Towler tied for 5th with 6 rushing TDs (despite getting the 5th most carriest on the team). They had 3 Wrs in the top 10 in receiving yards (Fears, Hirsch and Davis). Offensive lineman have no statistics. Tom Fears lead the league with over 1100 receiving yards (given the amount of games and the era this is very impressive) aliong with 7 TDs while Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch who was one of the most elusive runners in NFL history finished the season with 687 receiving yards and 7 TDs. Why did the 1955 Rams drop from production from the teams just shortly before? Well it is simply because they lost players, the 1950 Rams and 1955 Rams had only 3 of the same offensive starters. Also, im talking about the early 50"s Rams not in the later decade so anything after that is irrelevant. I thank you for choosing the 2007 Patriots. Despite all of the recent rules that heavily favor offenses, they still were over 2 PPG behind the 1950 Rams! And its not like the Rams ran it a lot, they passed a lot despite stricter rules, for example no pass interference. You said the 1950 Rams scored 100 points less than the 2007 Patriots well yes but thats because they played 4 less games. That is why you have to look at average. When considering what they did and add to the fact the era in which they did it beats the 2007 Patriots offensive production. While yes Tom Brady may have had a better season than any singular player on the 1950 Rams, as a combined team effort the 1950 Rams had a better overall offensive year. As for the 1998 Vikings, first of all Randall Cunningham is in no way a future hall of famer. The 1998 Vikings averaged 34.75 PPG which is almost 4 PPG under the 1950 Rams despite playing in a more offensive friendly era. That right away discludes the 1998 Vikings from contention. Lastly, you CAN NOT COMPARE STATS STRAIGHT UP FROM ERAS ALMOST 50 YEARS APART. The era has changed so much. Also, the Rams threw a combined 29 TD passes which woulda lead the league had that been 1 person and which is extremely impressive considering the era. To conclude, the 1950 Rams are the greatest offense the NFL has ever seen. Unforunately, like some of the other best offenses ever like the 2007 Patriots, 1984 Dolphins and 2013 Broncos they were unable to win it all. They came just 2 points away. But just talking about offense, there is no doubt in my mind the 1950 Rams, or early 1950s Rams when generalizing, are the greatest offense the NFL has ever seen and it may be awhile before we seen one better.
The Earlys 50 Rams had the greatest offense in NFL history

The first thing I would like to point out about the horribly worded argument that you made, "They had 2 HOF QB's." You tell us that they were in the Hall of Fame but you provide no statistics from the 1950-1951 seasons to prove that they had the best offense that the NFL had. You do offer statistics on point wise by saying that they "averaged 38.83 PPG which, as you said, is still a record even to this day. You later go onto say more about the Hall of Fame offensive members but you still give no statistics to prove your claim, all you say is that they were inducted into the Hall of Fame. You later go on to say that "The 50's Rams had 4 on the top 5 scoring offenses in the 1950's (50,51,52, and 54). While this is impressive, this was the 50's and things changed after that and the Rams were put on a downhill slope as they fell down from the top and were replaced by better offenses. 2007 Patriots - The 2007 Patriots had one of the best offenses of the 2000's as they averaged 36.81 PPG and finished their season 16-0 with a lost Superbowl to the New York Giants. The 2007 Patriots scored a total of 589 points in the entire season compared to the 50's Rams who only managed to score 466, 100 less than the 2007 Patriots. The Patriots undoubtedly have one of the best QB's that the NFL has ever seen, Tom Brady, as he has thrown for 54, 649 yards, 400 touchdowns, etc. compared to the 1950 St. Louis Rams QB, Bob Waterfield who only threw for 11, 849 yards and only had 97 touchdowns in his entire career. Now before you say this, in 1950, Bob Waterfield threw for a total of 11 touchdowns, Tom Brady threw for a total of 50 touchdowns in 2007 which set an NFL record until it was broken by Peyton Manning in the 2013-2014 season. 1998 Vikings - The 1998 Vikings became a huge powerhouse at the ending of the 1990's as they had a 34.75 PPG record, 556 points in the entire season, and they finished with a 15-1 record, their only loss was their division game, NFC divisional championship. The QB at the time, future Hall of Famer Randall Cunningham. In 1998, Cunningham threw for a total of 34 touchdowns compared to Bob Waterfields 11 touchdowns. I will now turn the debate over to pro for his final round of debating
The Earlys 50 Rams had the greatest offense in NFL history

The 1950 Rams averaged 38.83 PPG which is still an NFL record. They scored over 168% of the league average that year (23.057). They had 2 HOF QBs. And they used both (unlike 80s 49ers or 60 eagles). Keep in mind the 2007 Pats who play in an offense friendly league are a little over 2 ppg behind the 1950 Rams. The 1951 Rams averaged about 32.5 ppg which is good for top 15 of all time. The 1950 Rams set 22 offensive records that year!!! The 50 Rams had 3 All-Pro OLinemen. 2 HOF WRs. 2 HOF QBs as mentioned above. Scored 60+ pts in a game in back to back games (highest combined scored -135- of back to back games in NFL history by a large margin). The 50s rams had 4 on the top 5 scorint offenses in the 1950s (50, 51, 52, and 54). Not only were rules not offense friendly the fields were much worse. They had grass fields and many were converted baseball fields leading to muddy infields at times which is bad for footing. They had a run game too with former Heisman winner Glenn Davis who averaged almosg 8 yards a carry!! They tied the record for most 50+ pt games in a season with 3.
atheism is theism, and science is a religion

Information is false? Your information is false,mine isn't. I don't know how can you describe a term like "information" as false as it cannot be unfalsifiable or falsifiable. The same goes for matter. "just answer me this, am I holding a rock in my hand? you have to imagine it" First of all this analogy is completely different from the standard "god" beliefs. That's because you holding a rock is completely possible and you are not braking any physical laws. The same cannot be said for "god" as it is supernatural and cannot be explained under our physical laws,neither by science or logic. Second of all,that analogy is not helping you at all. You still did not provide valid arguments for your claims. Hard,ain't it?