BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's okay for non-blacks to say 'nigger'.

I want to clarify my position. In certain circumstances, using the word "nigger " is appropriate by somebody is not black. That being said, I do find the word to be extremely derogatory and shouldn't be used by anyone. Context: in court cases, it's important to deliver crucial evidence within the full context. If a non-black person committed a racist hate crime, and the person committing the crime used the word "nigger" on tape, it is important to NOT censor this to convey to the jury the full context, hate, and audacity of the person saying it. His behavior wasn't okay, but hearing the word said from a non-black person was acceptable in this context. Hateful words should never be softened when people should take full responsibility for them and be condemned for it. Definition: in this debate, you've used the word to convey that it is something non-blacks should say but you've used the full word as part of clarification. In this circumstance and non-black person is justified for this kind of usage.
Hillary Clinton will not win the Presidency of the United States

"The question I think we are now talking about is that Hillary Clinton can not win the general election because of the degree to which she polarizes people (her high negatives). This is not true, and it as been proven to be not true as early as 2004 when Bush won a second term despite a high negative rating." Kerry had just as high of a negative rating as Bush. None of Clinton's potential Democratic primary or Republican Presidential opponents have nearly as high of a polarization. I see your argument, however, you failed to consider John Kerry's own unfavorability. Assuming Clinton loses the NH primary tonight, she is all but doomed to not even make it as far as winning the Democratic nomination. Real Clear Politics poll averages in NH currently stand with Obama leading by 8.3 points. NO nominee in the current era of primaries has ever lost the nomination after winning both NH and IA. Even past these two, SC is Obama's most favorable state, where the two post-Iowa polls give Obama an average lead of 16.0 points. The latest national poll conducted by Gallup has Obama and Clinton tied. He will gain even more momentum into Super Tuesday, only 4 weeks away, where voters will realized that Obama not only is a legitimate candidate but he will also be more of a household name. Great debate, thanks for your time. -The Colonel
Hillary Clinton will not win the Presidency of the United States

Well first of all I would like to attack the idea that Hillary Clinton is far more liberal than her Democratic opponents. If you look at the policy positions of the Democratic candidates you can see that they all agree on pretty much everything. The question among the Democrats is no longer WHAT but HOW and HOW MUCH. A good example of this is nationalized health care. All three candidates are in agreement that this policy is a good idea, but each have different plans on how to bring this about. Another point is the Iraq War, all three democrats want to end the Iraq war, and again the question becomes how. Hillary Clinton certainly is not the most liberal candidate on this issue, as she does not support a unilateral withdrawal. Second, although Hillary has high negative poll numbers her remarkable fund raising has shown that she is quite capable of raising support. Hillary Clinton does not poll as well among independents as Obama, however she still does well in mock national polls against Republican contenders. Her high numbers in the polls also show that she has support as well, she consistently polls with a double digit lead nationally, and in many key states like Michigan and California as well. I conclude this statement by saying that Hillary Clinton's massive fund raising ability, tried and tested political machine, and her policy experience will be of great help in her primary election, they would also help her compete against any likely Republican nominee. She is not the nicest person, but being a d*** is a quality that served FDR, JFK, and LBJ quite well as they compelled Congress to bring about change. I think Hillary Clinton stands as good a chance as anyone at being the next president of the United States.
Hillary Clinton will not win the Presidency of the United States

Hillary Clinton is the most overrated and unlikeable opponent in the 2008 Presidential Race. Her exposure to the American public since 1992 has fueled a Clinton hatred that reaches far past Bill. Her policies are far too liberal, she has been unable to reach out to the majority of moderates and independents, and Hillary's extremely high unfavorability rating will prevent her from ever winning the 2008 Presidency.
Phones should be taken from kids and teens as soon as they arrive in school

The solution to the problem of the kids screwing around with their phones to keep a really good eye on them, and if you catch them (which will happen if the teacher is keeping a good track on the kids and looking for the ways they can hide like, like in bags on their laps or under their desk), you punish them with a warning first, then a referral on the second offense. Then if they can't keep their act together, the third offense to the rule of no phones unless permitted by the teacher will be met with the loss of phone privileges for a determined amount of time (a month or more in the school) to tell them that this will be handled seriously if they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. The more they get in trouble, the less they learn. It is truly on the kid if they want to actually get things done, and most people after seeing how hard the teachers will look and the punishments for having them catch you, won't screw around with the phones, and if they did, they would get the punishments as mentioned, making them learn that they need to stop looking at their phone if they want to slide by a class or two without failing the classes. If they truly don't want an education and want to screw around with their phones and stuff, they will be caught by a teacher and punished for not doing what they are supposed to do, leading to a domino effect on their lives really, considering they will get in more and more trouble with the offense, and might go on to do worse and worse stuff in the school due to their hatred of the school. You may think it is far fetched, but yo never know with today's crazy generation who will get mad over any tiny thing they don't like. The argument that phones aren't learning tools isn't true at all. They are more convenient than tablets and other things due to their portability. They are so much easier to carry around rather than having a big ol' tablet in your hands, while you can have your phone right in your pocket easy to take out and use. Before we end this thing, I would like to thank you for taking your time to debate with me over this topic and I hope that you have safe travels on here and in your life. Thank you again for accepting the challenge!
Phones should be taken from kids and teens as soon as they arrive in school

Regardless of if kids want an education or not, they don't need to be on Facebook or Twitter during class. Kids are in school to LEARN, not to socialize and screw around on their phones. It won't matter if a lesson is "more interesting" teens are teens and will still screw around on their phones so long as they have access to them. Teens and kids these days truly don't understand not being able to use their cell phones. They don't need them in school because they are not learning tools. Tablets and IPads are a different story, those are more practical for educational use.
Phones should be taken from kids and teens as soon as they arrive in school

This argument is why I said that we should take more steps to actually keep the teens in the USA on track with their work. The statement on most teens not wanting an education is not true, it's the way it's taught in most classrooms that make it uninteresting. Most classrooms just have packets to do or notes to take (I admit I have those types of classes, they suck and it's not fun doing them, but I do them anyways). Classes should teach with more interest attached to them. Make the class an online thing that's sort of fun at least, or a least gets the attention of the kids and stops them from screwing around with the phones and such devices. There might be an argument of school is meant for an education, not fun, but if you want the kids to want to learn the material, you need them to have some interest towards the subject, and phones ad other devices like Tablets can help them with this sort of thing. If you look at what kids are looking at these days, it's going to be mostly screens. I agree they should get off of them sometimes, but they should be able to be on them for the interest of the class and learning the subject rather than wanting to screw around on the phones like you say they would. If kids and teens have the ability to learn with phones more (NOT all the time, I think they should have to not use them sometimes, like in a math class when there is an app of some sort that can solve problems for you and such). They should be able to use them for research, projects, and note taking, but they should limit it to that. For assignments like mental math and math that's supposed to be done by pencil and paper (calculators can be used as well, I will account for that), they should be out of sight of the teachers, and the teachers should take part in watching f they try to get to their phones rather than sitting at their desk shopping on Amazon or looking on Facebook or such things like that. Grading would be an exception, but would say to save that for a later time, or when you have someone who is reliable enough in the class to watch over the rest of the students for phone use (Yes, there are students like that). I hope you can see at least some of m reasoning on why kids should en able to have phones in the learning environment WITHOUT being disruptive.
Phones should be taken from kids and teens as soon as they arrive in school

Phones may have an educational aspect to them, but teens cannot be trusted to use them that way. Teens simply want to go on instagram, facebook, twitter, ect and screw around. Most teens in the U.S. have little to no interest in learning and being educated. Phones are a distraction and shouldn't be allowed at all in school. In countries like Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, China and Japan, those teens never use their phones in school and aren't distracted 24/7.
Phones should be taken from kids and teens as soon as they arrive in school

You say yes to this as I know. I would like you to explain how you think. I think phones can help out with the education of kids and teens due to their usefulness in the class for projects and assignments. Yes, I know there is an issue with controlling them, but there are consequences if they are used off topic. The teacher should check regularly if they have actually gotten anything done rather than just glancing over at them. Either way, I would like to see why you think that kids and teens shouldn't be allowed to have their phones with them on the school premise. Thank you for taking your time to read my explanation.
Women in Combat Arms (2)

Thanks for accepting, hoping for a good debate. == Argument == 1. Equal standards - There is no question that the average female is physically weaker than the average male. But what are we to make of above average females? If a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, then on what basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard to be a US Army Ranger involve completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a 35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are women who have completed and even exceeded both of these standards. Notably, 3 women to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming many of their male peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good enough" to qualify men for combat, are not changed, and women prove they can meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to exclude those women solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if women meet the same standard as men, there is no justification for denying them the job. 2. Women already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this debate was the fact that women have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There are numerous accounts of women performing with courage and valor under fire. Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for running through enemy small arms and mortar fire to protect and treat wounded infantrymen [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have and did so with distinction. 3. Other countries integrate with no problems - many modern armies are already gender integrated, including Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of their gender integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in military performance they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National Geographic, "A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit 'superior skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (many of them NATO members) have integrated with success, then there is no reason why the United States should be a special exception. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com......... [2] http://www.homeofheroes.com......... [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com.........
how many donuts are too many donuts

This just in, donuts can occasionally contain cleaning solution, which can make you violently ill [1]. Pro knows this, and is trying to cover it up. Pro is actually the owner of Dunkin Donuts, the largest donut chain in the world, with more than 11.300 restaurants in 36 countries [2]. Dunkin Donuts is the third largest company in the world, with immense political influence and has funded 83% of the Trump campaign [3]. Exeprts claim that by 2030 Dunkin Donuts will be the emperor of the world. Say NO to donuts! [1] http://www.mirror.co.uk... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://pbs.twimg.com...
how many donuts are too many donuts

I used to think so too, but recent research has shown that too many donuts may be unhealthy for you. A team of researchers at Standford University set out last year to answer just this question: "How many donuts are too many donuts." They fed standard Krispy Kreme glazed donuts to a group of rats, one donut at a time. A control group was not given donuts. The study found that even one single donut increased the rat's chance of immediate death by 50,000%. [1] Across the pond at the University of Oxford, researchers wanted to take Standford's findings one step further. They wondered if even zero donuts might be too many. Drawing upon the Glutenberg method, developed by Jan von Glutenberg in 2011 [2], of baking donuts within a human stomach using materials naturally occurring there, the Oxford team fabricated one donut each inside a group of humans and induced vomiting, thereby causing them to effectively ingest one negative donut each. Later a panel of doctors* unanimously judged the negative-donut-eaters to be healthier than the control group. [3] In conclusion, it would seem that the correct answer to the question "How many donuts are too many donuts" is zero. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com... [2] https://i.ytimg.com... [3] http://static.parade.com... * Assumed to be doctors, since they were wearing stethoscopes.
Golden Goose postwar

Well, you might be eager to check out the variety in SAS shoes. So, wondering where to buy these from? You can visit the SAS shoe outlet store to buy a piece with proper trial. You can also opt for online shopping, if you know the right size for yourself. For railroad employees, it was a time of uncertainty. The wellestablished unions representing the "running trades"engineers, firemen, brakemen, and conductorsand other skilled workers such as telegraphers were able to hold their own in the turbulent postwar economy. Other employees, including blacks, women who had temporarily taken "men's" jobs during the war, and those without union representation, suffered wage cuts or dismissal as the [b]http://www.goldengooser.com... [/b] companies tried to cut expenses. Never be afraid to try the tennis shoes on. So many people waste hundreds of pounds on shoes that look good but do not meet their needs. Even try moving like you would on a court to see what effect the shoes have on your own individual feet for comfort and support. Arthritis is a painful and debilitating medical condition that can affect the joints in almost any part of your body, including your feet. If you enjoy jogging or running, arthritis can keep you sidelined because of pain and discomfort. However, knowing what to look for [b][url=http://www.goldengooser.com...]Golden Goose[/url][/b] in a running shoe can help you stay active in the sport you enjoy. The 1900s was the beginning decade of the 20th century. It was also classified as the "Machine Age", for during this time period, an amazing amount of inventions were created, that would set the tone for future generations. It was in the 1900s, that Marie Curie discovered radioactivity and Plank disclosed the Quantum Hypothesis. It was a different Steve, though, who took over Apple in 1997. He had a wife, Laurene Powell, and a young family, and had mellowed again. The battle for global domination had been won by Gates, but Apple could still show its acumen. The simplest solution for shoe storage is a shoe rack tower. This stackable storage solution allows for 20, 30 and 50 pairs of shoes, and easily fits inside your current closet or wardrobe with a slim shape. This organizer is easy to assemble, so you can do it even if your man isn home.
Time Travel Into the Past Might Be Possible (Not Requiring the Help of God)

"Alright, you're basically arguing that backwards time-travel is impossible. Time travel into the past might be possible. Time travel into the past might not be possible, but it might be possible. You have to prove that time travel backwards is, in fact, impossible. Good luck. " I can do this. If time travel backwards was possible, we would have time tourists. . http://en.wikipedia.org... They would be everywhere, therefore ruining the space-time continuum, and, as you can see, there are no time tourists. It does NOT read in history books, "and at the Battle of Lexington, there was the shot heard round the world, in addition to several men in odd clothing with strange devices described similar to video cameras are today. " It just doesn't happen. By the logic of backwards time travel, this means it never will happen. "Here are a few theories about traveling backwards through time: Wormholes" This would require for the actions that happened in the past to be recorded; something that they do not do. "Traveling faster than light" This requires infinite energy: a physical impossibility. "Special spacetime geometries" These do not exist, as your source has stated that it requires things that don't exist. "Tipler cylinder" This requires it to be infinite, something again not physically possible. "Science fiction also provides more less reality-based possibilities that haven't all been necessarily unproven, such as the example used in 'The End of Eternity'. " And what would this example be? You don't even know it. "Also, science fiction has predicted many things that seemed impossible then, but is standard now, such as wide-screen TVs, the atom bomb, magnet trains, robot houses, Internet forums, etc. For all we know, time travel might be one of those things that we're going to come across later. " Except that those things are possible (as proved by their creation). Reverse time travel is not (as proved by my statements). "Thank you, and good luck with your rebuttals! " And the same to you.
Time Travel Into the Past Might Be Possible (Not Requiring the Help of God)

Thank you for starting this debate. Alright, you're basically arguing that backwards time-travel is impossible. Time travel into the past might be possible. Time travel into the past might not be possible, but it might be possible. You have to prove that time travel backwards is, in fact, impossible. Good luck. Here are a few theories about traveling backwards through time: Wormholes Traveling faster than light Special spacetime geometries Tipler cylinder Science fiction also provides more less reality-based possibilities that haven't all been necessarily unproven, such as the example used in "The End of Eternity". http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, science fiction has predicted many things that seemed impossible then, but is standard now, such as wide-screen TVs, the atom bomb, magnet trains, robot houses, Internet forums, etc. For all we know, time travel might be one of those things that we're going to come across later. Thank you, and good luck with your rebuttals!