BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

#1) an example of courts being powerless when combating is in south Boston when black kids were sent to a white school and still faced racial discrimination and violence due to prejudice opinions. #2) Drop-out rates are relevant to this debate because courts should use schools to focus on academics and academic statistics, not to fight discrimination. #3) There will be discrimination because if there are groups of students of different racial and cultural backgrounds that do not respect each other discrimination will occur.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negative assertion #1: Court ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good; it should be left to the communities. Evidence: Even though courts order that schools be desegregated people in the schools are still separate. Schools are also assigned by neighborhood, and neighborhoods may not be diverse therefore students still end up going to schools with people of the same racial background. Also mixing kids up within their neighborhood may also create of lack of cultural diversity. Negative assertion #2: Courts are powerless to combat prejudice Evidence: Although a court can forcibly mix people up they cannot make people like each other, courts cannot change people"s opinions. The only thing that courts can do is to desegregate. Negative assertion #3: Schools should not be used as battle grounds to address inequality and discrimination Evidence: Schools should focus more on academics, discrimination does not speak to dropout rates. Fighting discrimination and inequality in schools can lead to protests and boycotts during school hours which makes kids miss the opportunity to receive more education. This can also cause kids to become violent in their opinions.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Assertion#1: Courts should have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools. The reason why this is important because students and society will benefit when more children attend racially integrated schools. Because of integration the percentages of a student being bullied because of their skin color will lower.ir Also, the environment will be safer for the students and no group will have more power than another, everyone will be treated equally. Assertion#2:To create a desegregated school system ,a judge should be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. Kids have to choose a school that is in their area which might not be in their neighborhood.Also,there aernt enough larger good quality schools in every neighborhood.This new plan could resegregate based on neighborhood. Assertion#3:Race should be used as a basis for school assighnment . Violated some students right to equal protection.This does not violate the 14th admendment designed to be inclusive rather than exclusive.Also population of each public school roughly reflects the city racial composition.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Pro)

You came here to knock the topic. It would help if you had some kind of argument other than declaring the topic plainly sick and moving on. Most werewolves would be humans most of the time so clearly, if being different makes one unsexy, a werewolf in an off period would just be human. Therefore werewolves make better lovers than zombies. I'm sure many of the readers would have loved to have had this topic, but instead, you took it just to whine about it. Boo. Thank you for reading.
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Pro)

No one is lame enough to screw a zombie or a werewolf. There's like no point in comparing them. If you'll screw them you'll screw a dog or a goat. It's also pretty weird to call either of these sexy LAME ALERT!!! EVERYONE VOTE AGAINST TATARIZE! :) I'm not even promoting sex with zombies, so don't even vote for me because I'm con. Just vote against the side of the instigator Thank you
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Pro)

Boooo! Copy-Paster, stole my con argument and pasted it in. He gets no props for that. http://www.debate.org... This topic isn't lame or boring. It's actually awesome. There was a private discussion among a large number of members the other day concerning an upcoming tournament and when this topic was offered it was given rather rave reviews. Most debates on the site are pretty dry and a bit of spice, humor, sex, and zombies makes any topic a good topic. To come in here and take the debate out of spite and to be a bluenose is rather silly. I can pretty well guarantee nobody is going to spite vote against me for offering this debate topic. It's a great topic. In fact, I offered one prior to this last set and it was taken within seconds. The debate topic seems to have all the hallmarks of a fun and clever topic where neither side has a clear advantage and both sides can aptly argue the point. It's about mythological creatures which means there's no right answer and it's about sex which means it's a fun topic. You could have voiced your disapproval in a comment without ruining the debate. .. Once you go Lycanthrope, to other sex, you say "nope".
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Pro)

Werewolves make terrible lovers. First they are violent animal like creatures that wouldn't stop long enough to have sex with you prior to ripping your throat out. You'd have to tie the beast up and then that's just bestiality and rape. That's not sexy! Zombies however are perfectly sexy. In fact, they are so sexy that within the last few years they have made not one but two movies about zombie strippers. http://www.imdb.com...... http://www.imdb.com...... Having sex with a zombie it doesn't matter what kind of lover you are... she's always moaning. Rather than care about your body or your technique the only thing that matters to her is your brains. A zombie is a real gentlewoman. Further, you don't have to worry about her dying or growing old because she won't. A little potpourri and she's just a sexy, passionate lover for life! http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... And I copied your other debate basically This is a ridiculous topic. People should vote for me not only because you tried to double enter but because this topic is the dumbest and nastiest topic I have come across. People should just vote for me out of spite :)
Werewolves make better lovers than zombies. (Pro)

Werewolves are an animal in the sack whereas zombies just kind of lay there like a dead fish and occasionally try to bite you. And not one of those sexy give you shivers kind of bites but actually eat your fricken neck. It's a total turn off. Further, zombies claim they want your for your brains. But they don't seem to do anything but groan... and not in a sexy way either. No conversation no lusty toss you against the wall and howl. It's kind of sad. Werewolves clearly make better lovers than zombies. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
You can be racist to any race, any race can be racist to you.

Ok, my opponent created a few arguments to respond to what I said, as well as concede a few points. 1) My opponent conceded that the institution has a racial bias against nonwhite minorities, and also ceded that white/white-passing people gain a higher status in the U. S. A due to their skin tone. However, they also created an example of Races A and B. Here are the flaws in their logic. a) "Group A, for some time, has been racist to group B" Though this exemplifies prejudice, it does not establish who the group in power is, and this is not an accurate portrayal of our racial history. I'll provide a more realistic sample. "Group A enslaved masses of Group B individuals and imported them into their homeland, now known as Grouparia. Group A used tactics that forced the masses of B's into submission. Only due to pressure from Eurogrouparians (or the French/British in this case) did Grouparia decide to free the slaves. However, half of Grouparia didn't want to free the slaves, and when that half was beaten in war, they still contained a strong anti-B rhetoric. This continues into segregating the two groups (and sneakily using Group A powers, rhetoric, and utility to make sure that Group B couldn't get the upper hand). A few Group B individuals were lucky enough to be able to stage protest and eventually ended this. However, in the status quo, due to rhetoric left back from slavery, Group A still has power and an institution to back its racism. Group B is the minority and they have yet to receive rights" ^^ That is a history of race relations that further suits this. Simply put, Group A has had institutional power over Group B and still does, however they still use rhetoric against each other. Group B has to deal with name-calling and an institution. See next point. b)"both people are harmed nonetheless" Pro should not ignore ratios and magnitude for the sake of their argument, by covering it with saying both sides are harmed they ignore the profound racially biased institution in place and equate it to name-calling. By doing this, Pro conveniently ignores thousands of years of insitutional racism and doles equal punishment to an opressor and a victim, which is quite about the best way to increase inequality. c) "racism [is]- discrimination against a race" Pro conflate discrimination, racism and prejudice. We are only here to discuss definition and in this context because anti-white prejudice must counter the institution, it cannot be enforced, and thus it is not discrimination, for discrimination is the act of enforcing power to promote bigotry. This applies to the sexism argument as well. Misandry exists, but it is only in the context of institutional misogyny, something we are not here to debate. As pro ceded, we are not in a post-racial society. There is an institution that harms POC, and saying that name calling on both sides means that white people are victims ignores the institution in place.
You can be racist to any race, any race can be racist to you.

I agree with the fact that certain races have greater sufferings than other races in terms of discrimination, and that the definition of racism has changed over time. White people are often privileged, and that is a fact. Although I agree with the eye for an eye interpretation of yours, both people are harmed nonetheless. The second receiver of the eye-poking is still a victim in this sense. Here's what I'm trying to say- any race can be discriminated by another race, and that is racism- discrimination against a race. Just like the idea that you can't be sexist to a man- you can. It's just that people don't see it that way because women often suffer more. There was a period where all white people were being discriminatory against other races, but that period is over. An example- there are 2 communities of people, those being A and B. Group A, for some time, has been racist to group B. Over time, only 40% are still racist, but a person B hurts one of the non-racist people of People A. This is, rather than revenge justice, (which I believe in) simply assuming one's behavior based on their community's actions. So yes, there is a difference between racism and being offensive to a race. This is based on my generation"s knowledge, and how I believe it should be perceived as.
You can be racist to any race, any race can be racist to you.

I accept your challenge. Thank you for providing a debate, and let us hope it is constructive. :) (I'm assuming that this is from the perspective of a white individual, because of the bipartisan sides of race in America, consisting of the white and the people of color, and the Pro using you vs. every race implies this.) To begin, let's assume this: Racism is bad, and there is an institution that goes against non-white people in the U.S government. Also, to clarify one thing: The dictionary definition for racism does not apply to a complex system that has held hands with history since the dawn of cultural diffusion. But, for the sake of this debate, racism should be contextualized to an institutional prejudice against a group due to their racial features. This is the optimal definition of racism for a few reasons. 1) Racism only has true power in the form of an institution that governs a minority. Everything else is a form of race prejudice, but it isn't institutional, in the context of the country that set the standard for racism around the world: the U.S. 2) This is because of white privilege 2a) As quoted, "Many people misunderstand what white privilege is. They think it means that we whites don"t struggle. That"s not the case. It means that the quality of our struggles are different than other racial groups" because we"re considered the 'default' group by an overwhelming majority of the systems we interact with." (Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com...) Using this logic, white people are the default, and because of this, you can not apply an eye-for-an-eye concept. If you were to bash someone's head in, and then do a little bit of surgery to fix it, you are still not truly equal, because your face is the default, untouched face. Now, imagine that you /did/ take out their eye in this situation, and they took out yours. You are still not equal, because of preexisting conditions that led us to a point where problems still exist. Let's trace back to the center argument. Because racism is defined as only institutional, and because there is no institutional racism in place against white people, racism only exists when it is applied to minorities. And yes, all minorities, because the system of institution implies that white people are the ideal form of citizen, and are in any way supreme.
You can be racist to any race, any race can be racist to you.

I strongly believe that you can be racist to anyone, and anyone can be racist to you. If somebody makes a joke such as "white people be like" or the N word, "vanilla softies" or "Ching Chong" or anything offensive to a race, shocker- it"s RACIST! Racism applies to everyone. Let"s have a healthy, mature talk about this.
You can be racist to any race, any race can be racist to you.

Hi, some finals points to make before voting. Rebuttals: A) My reply was linked to my first constructive, where I made a counterargument against the Group A/B idea, and restated it not only to prove that it wasn't a sufficient analogy, but also that such an implication when executed properly was further evidence as to why the Contenting argument is correct. Furthermore, direct points against what was said were made to address the arguments. I even added quotes for the purpose of clarity. These are direct rebuttal arguments. When my opponent considers racism and prejudice on and the same and creates an instigation based on that assumption, the contending argument is that they are different, and there are reasons and purposes as to what racism contributes to and as to what prejudice contributes to. Put simply, because my opponent didn't argue against my argument, racism contributes to an institutional prejudice, while prejudice contributes to nothing. This makes them different. B) The institution is not led by a single human or a select few. We, as a representative democracy, elect officials to represent our values. In doing this, we created an institution of bigotry and racism. While no rational American is directly racist nowadays, many have done plenty to contribute to institutional racism by doing exactly what Pro does in this statement, by absolving blame from a race and assuming that there is no actual problem to solve. People contribute by saying we live in a post-racial society and by ignoring police brutality and wage gaps. They contribute by saying nothing, and by keeping their eyes shut. C) Ad Hominem argument that is meant to be patronizing. Contender understands and has directly clashed with argument, so there is no basis to this. Now, to highlight some issues to vote on: Pro has ceded that institutional racism exists, however their only rebuttals to Contending arguments were that we are post-racial, and bases a lot of their argument on this (See the entire Group A/B point). Because of their ceding, Pro cannot use these points; they are invalid in this debate. Second, to quote Malcom X "If you dig a knife nine inches into my back and pull out six inches, that's not progress". Assuming institutional bias (which we have in this debate), the only thing worse than no change is a regression of civil rights, displayed when anti-black or anti-POC prejudice is presented by individuals. These contribute to institutionalized racism by linking prejudice to current and past law. Third, Pro ceded that people receive privilege for being white. Because they said this, they understand that if we were to commit acts of prejudice against white people, they still have a shield of their privilege, and in this case their privilege allows them to be shielded from institutional bias, especially considering that the institution has provided such bubbles.
You can be racist to any race, any race can be racist to you.

A) The reply you said had nothing to do with what I said. B) The state/country as a whole did this. Did every single person? No. Even if it was, things have changed. Not everybody is racist now. Of course some still are, however, but don"t hate apples because you tried a rotten one. C). I don"t think you understand my argument at all.
Who is better, Gaara of the Desert, or Minato Namikage

first off i would like to say i agree with my opponent with the idea of no more arguments in the last and final round. i would like to point out that it is mentioned that gaara's sand automatically goes to where the damage is about to take place, regardless of gaara's will. you say the rasengan is equal or more powerful than the chidori, but i argue the case you made about the rasengan and the sand. the chidori makes the hand a blade that can slice through anything including lighting, while the rasengan is pure charkra made to blow apart. two completely diffrent concepts. this is what one of my links had to say. Suna no Tate (Shield of Sand - The automatic sand shield that acts independant of Gaara's will. Whenever Gaara is danger of harm, it flicks up to guard him from damage. It can withstand nearly any standard attack, whether it be shuriken projectiles, needles, or even explosions. It has been defeated by Lee's high-speed taijutsu, in which the sand shield can't keep up. speed is his only weakness, and i doubt Minato is faster than Lee. if you do get past that you got to deal with the armour of sand. Suna no Yoroi (Armor of Sand) - The armor of sand is an extremely thin, but dense layer of sand that lies directly on Gaara's skin, protecting him should the Suna no Tate fail to protect him. However, this requires an immense of chakra to compact the sand together, and it slows the user down as a result of the extra weight. Thus, Gaara only uses it unless he absolutely has to. But the effectiveness of the jutsu is undeniable--it can more often than not render an attack absolutely useless. It's also why Gaara appears 'cracked' when he gets attacked. so in effectiveness, (and i ask my opponenet to go to my link below and read his attacks,) no matter where Minato teleports to and lands, gaara has the advantage. plus if he went shakaku form, Minato would have his hands full. you say gaara would'nt know about Minato's space-time jutsu, but Minato is famous for his space time Jutsu, so gaara would know about it being kazekage. i think that in this battle Gaara has the upperhand. also all gaara has to do is wear Minato down. now i await your argument http://gaara1989.tripod.com...
Who is better, Gaara of the Desert, or Minato Namikage

As pro,it is my job to prove Gaara is better than Minato. OK for starters, Gaara is untouchable in MOST cases, (with the exception of Sasuke's Chidori and Diedara's Clay Bombs,) because part of his sand automatically covers his body and protects him from anything touching him. Also he is the host, ( or Jinchurikki) for Shakaku the sand demon, thus having a lot more chakra than most ninja. he can fight both on land or in the air, and has a absolute defense. only another Jinchurikki can keep up with him. plus Minato's Rasengan would be useless against Gaara, seeing as it won't be able to penetrate his sand. so with these arguments and others for next round i ask my opponent to rest his case.
Who is better, Gaara of the Desert, or Minato Namikage

Anyhow, as Con, I will be stating that Minato is a better fighter than Gaara. I am assuming this first round is for acceptance. I will provide a definition of better below. Better: of superior quality or excellence, or morally superior; more virtuous. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Thus, for this debate, I must substantiate that Minato has a superior or more excellent battle style that can overcome Gaara's, or that Mina fights more morally than Gaara does. I allow my opponent to make his argument in the next round. With that, I hand over the next round to Pro.
Democracy in the contemporary world has become an obligation for all countries to adopt

Con provides no arguments [1]. He simply presents some definitions.I argue that all countries should apply democracy and have democracy control their government.This is because:A) God gave humans free will.B) Democracy must be adopted in order to advance a country.C) Democracy is only fair for individuals in society.D) Democracy is vital for a good government.E) People will only truly support a democracy. D) All other governments are lies. E) Democracy is vital for the proletariat.F) People demand freedom.G) People have every right to freedom.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
In any decision, logic ought to be preferred to emotion.

Rebuttals:1) MarriageMy opponent claims that when choosing a partner in marriage, one should rely on their emotion instead of their logic. I completely disagree with this. Simply look at any gold digging case. Rich men will marry beautiful women, and the women will use them for their money. All of these people are blinded by emotion, and use no logic whatsoever. If the people victim to this would think logically instead of emotionally, they could easily see how they are being used. Logically you are able to tell if a person is deceiving you, while otherwise you would be blinded by emotion.2) CharityMy opponent says that logically a person would not help a homeless person and give charity. He states that not doing so would leave you with a guilty feeling. While it may leave you with a guilty feeling, not giving money is the superior decision. Why? Because this kind of charity is a useless cause. Suppose you gave the homeless person 5 dollars. What would that actually do to help him? You are treating the symptom, not the problem. This person will probably not be able to efficiently use this money (they already lost their house over this), and so you are not actually helping him. If our homeless person needs to get help, I would suggest them to go to one of our governments useful homeless assistance programs, listed here [1].Also you keep your money, making it a win for you.3) Rushed decisionsSomehow, my opponent is under the impression that rushed emotion decisions are good decisions. I'm sorry, but I think that most people would disagree with you on that. Rushed emotional decisions often involve the emotion most prevalent at the time. This could be anger, fear, embarrassment, or sadness, and I've already posted in the previous round how terrible these emotions could be in decisions. I also think that my opponent overestimates how long it takes to make a logical decision. While yes, sitting down and analyzing the situation and alternatives is useful, a logical decision can be made in seconds by simply disregarding emotion and doing the best outcome. In conclusion, logical decisions are better then emotional ones.Vote Pro!References/Works Cited[1] https://www.hud.gov...