BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism Exists

.. . Since the debate has a 2000 character limit, such an act normally warrants a complete forfeit but instead ill simply ignore it and proceed with countering con's arguments. Reverse x5 racism does exist since as the con actually pointed out for me, there are laws that hurt people by trying to prevent anyone from being discriminated against by discrimination and anti-discrimination laws. Every law that tries to make everybody equal in terms of race always causes some people to be discriminated against unfairly, whether it be those who the laws were trying to protect, or the ones who werent. Its kind of like half-lives in decaying elements (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). If you take away half of an amount of a material, the material will never fully go away into nothingness since in theory there will always be some of it left even after a large number of half-lifes. In the same way, no matter how many anti-discrimination laws there are, there will always be people who will be discriminated against due to loopholes in the discrimination laws themselves. "there is no actual argument in support of the topic and as such I have nothing to oppose except to state that I disagree"You were the one who just stated that all anti-discrimination laws cause someone to always be discriminated against, which was going to be my actual argument had you not gone ahead and posted arguments in an acceptence only round -_____-"Therefore I am justified in standing firm in my opinion that it does not exist. "Well thats just your opinion then isnt it? No matter how many anti-discrimination laws there are, there will always be people who are left out or discriminated against by those anti-discrimination laws. And if you correct it by passing another law to counter the first law, then people will still be left out and discriminated against. Therefore 5x Reverse racism exists.
Resolved: Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Racism Exists

To break it down, your argument states that there are laws that hurt everyone by trying to be balance out and be fair to everyone based on the color of their skin. I disagree. Though a long and rather roundabout explanation is given to address the confusion given by the topic, there is no actual argument in support of the topic and as such I have nothing to oppose except to state that I disagree. I see no proof given of this 'reverse reverse reverse reverse reverse racism'. No law, no case that would lead me to believe in its existence, and quite frankly I can think of nothing to back it based on my own knowledge and the knowledge of those around me. Therefore I am justified in standing firm in my opinion that it does not exist.
God Doesn't Exist

Oh shoot I've been gnomed I dunno Im just fighting for my mom cause shes Christian and I got nothing to do. Im an atheist so I guess you just convinced me to stay as one woohoo! Anyways Im just trying to get my debate skills better and decided to try this for the first time guess theres smart people out there. Well I guess this site is a good one I'll improve my debate skills yay! Anyways, You win because I can't think of any more dumb arguments. . . .
God Doesn't Exist

Right, Lets start with the first thing in human history that we know of: the big bang. Now, Most theorize that before the Big Bang, There was nothing. So how does nothing turn into something? Seriously. If there is nothing, No particles or atoms or forces to move anything around, How does something so big and spectacular happen out of seemingly nowhere? Also, When the big bang occurred, Only a handful of elements(Hydrogen, Helium, And Lithium) that are merely energy and matter. So how does matter and energy turn into living life forms like us humans today? If you are so good at science, Explain that. Yes, I agree that we have made thousands of technological advancements, From manipulating DNA to fingerprints. However, We literally have no idea how to create life! We were no closer to creating life than we were a thousand years ago, Which suggests that God probably exists, As he may not want us to create life forms that he does not see fit for living in the universe. Even Charles Darwin, The guy who explained how humans evolved could not explain how evolution began. Which, In the end, Is the core question. My second point concerns the four fundamental forces in the universe; Gravity, Electromagnetism, And the strong and weak nuclear forces. All these forces and values were determined 1 000 000th of a second after the big bang. If you change any of these forces ever so slightly, And the universe as we know it will cease to exist. This means that if you take everything into consideration, The odds of anything existing would be so small that it is equivalent to flipping a coin and expecting it to land "heads" 10 quintillion times in a row. This really suggests that there is a God out there to make the Universe. You said that there are diseases and wars and such, But take into consideration that literally every single British and American troop in WW2 was Christian. This also meant that if they fell in battle, Than they would go to Heaven. Either way, They serve a good cause and get something good out of it. You also said that God is omnipotent, So why do we do things(like prayers) for him? Well, The short answer is that We really don't understand him. If he does have infinite power, He probably also has different ways of thinking than us. Just because your pitiful little mind can't think of what God thinks doesn't mean you just screw it and assume he doesn't exist. Maybe he wants us to control our own fate, Maybe he doesn't. But the further you go into Science, The more evidence there is that points to God's existence. The Bible is also not full of inconsistencies. Give me one example, Just one example, To point to where in the book defies what was said or done before.
God Doesn't Exist

The Christian God doesn't exist. There is absolutely no evidence of God's existance except for the Bible, Which isn't enough to prove God's existance. The Bible claims that God is omnipotent, Omniscient, And omnibelevolent. If God is omnipotent, Could he create a stone that he couldn't lift? If God is omniscient, Why do we have to pray to him? If God is omnibelevolent and omnipotent, Why do wars and diseases exist? The Bible is full of inconsistencies and the existance of God is illogical.
The New Deal Worsened the Great Depression

Now, before I say anything, I would like to state that I did know that the UCLA study by Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian was a different study than Regime Uncertainty. I was going to address the points, however, due to time constraints I was unable to. As much as I would like to address Regime Uncertainty, as well as some of the other claims that my opponent has made, I cannot. This is because I cannot add any new arguments to keep rounds even. Instead, I will give you several reasons why you should vote con. There are four major voting areas in which I will try to convince you to vote for me in. These are grammar and spelling, conduct, arguments, and sources. Let’s start with grammar and spelling. I really don’t think that this field is very important, and I think that both my opponent and I had excellent grammar and spelling, so feel free to vote either way, or neither. Conduct I also leave up to you. My opponent states that because I forfeited round 3, due to significant time restrictions and a power outage that you should vote pro. However this is totally up to you. This just leaves two areas; arguments, and sources. Both me and my opponent had great arguments, but I think that mine tops his for several reasons. Firstly he did not address several of my points, and then decides to straw man me instead of giving an in depth reason of why this is wrong. However, in his defense, I may have not been totally and absolutely clear on what I meant. Also instead of debunking my major arguments, such as the number of reliable papers that contradict the slightly flawed UCLA study, or that those same studies have said that the new deal helped the economy recover, he goes after small things such as some of the quotes I have made. This leads me to the sources that we used. I personally think, although you may not, that I had not only more, but better sources hands down. All you really need to look at is the numbers. I had 11 economic papers, that my opponent made no attempt to critique, versus two economic papers, and three overall sources one of which was flawed in several ways. Finally, I would like to thank JimmyTimmy for accepting me into the debate, as well as apologize for not posting round three, as well as taking long to post this round. As most of you probably don’t know, this is my first debate on this site, and I would much like any feedback on how I did, whether good or bad. Vote as you see fit (Hopefully Con)
The New Deal Worsened the Great Depression

Why the New Deal Extended the DepressionThe Great Depression was unique in that is more severe and longer than any other depression or recession in American History. This debate is not about what originally caused this Depression, but about what affect the New Deal had on the Great Depression. The New Deal was the economic program that the Roosevelt Administration pursued in an attempt to end the Great Depression. It consisted of a variety of tax, spending, and regulatory measures. Ultimatley, these measures led to a worsening of the Great Depression because they led to "Regime Uncertainty". Basically, private investment failed to make any type of significant recovery during the New Deal years. This can be attributed, largely, to a feeling of uncertaintly among investors. As part of the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt enacted numerous laws that edged on violating private property rights. This, on top of the strong anti-investor rhetoric of Franklin Roosevelt, led to a lack of willingness to invest on the part of private investors. A 1939 Forbes Poll of Business executives shows that 64.8% of Business Executives. "The policies of the administration have so affected the confidence of businessmen that recovery has been seriously held back". Numerous other New Deal polls show similiar results among Business Leaders. Another key policy that hurt the economy was the artificially high wages that were set by the New Deal. The NIRA set extremely high wages in various industries, which kept unemployment high for years longer than it needed to be. UCLA proffessor Lee Ohanian researched the New Deal and found that New Deal policies, particularly the wage setting policies, extended the Great Depression by 5 years. Even thought the NIRA was declared unconstitutional, Roosevelt was able to continue the wage setting policies through unions and other acts. This kept the unemployment rate artificially high for years. Responding to My Opponent My opponent bases his argument on the fact that Output increased and unemployment fell during the New Deal. He is correct about this, but it does not mean that the New Deal helped. Economies tend to grow faster when recovering from Depressions. However, the Great Depression was marked by years of economic output well below potential output or trend. So, even though the economy grew fast, it didn't grow anywhere near as fast as it needed to get back to the pre depression trends. The fact is that even though unemployment fell during the Great Depression, it still remained very high through the New Deal. The fact is that the economy should have grown faster than it did during the Great Depression, just to return to the pre Depression trend. I look forward to responding to my opponent's next set of arguments. Sources:. http://www.independent.org... . http://newsroom.ucla.edu...
The New Deal Worsened the Great Depression

I argue that the New Deal worsened the Great Depression.Con must argue that the New Deal HELPED END THE DEPRESSION... So, Con CANNOT argue that the New Deal had no effect at all...A Couple of Key Points that are NOT included in this debate:1.) This is not about what ended the Great Depression, only about the New Deal's effect on the depression2.)This is not about the value of the Social Welfare State and Regulations created by the New Deal, only on the effect of the New Deal on the Great Depression3.) Monetary Policy is NOT considered part of the New Deal in this debateThe New Deal IS defined as the Economic Program of the Roosevelt Admin (Tax, Spending Programs, Welfare Programs, Regulations, etc.)... WW2 was NOT part of the New Deal... Here is the debate structure:RD 1: Pro Sets Terms. Con Makes Initial Arguments that New Deal Helped End Depression.RD 2: Pro Responds/Makes Arguments that New Deal Worsened Depression. Con Responds/Makes Arguments.RD 3: Pro Responds. Con Responds.RD 4: Pro Responds. Con does Reasons for Voting.Con can make no New Arguments or responses in Final Round (to keep rounds equal)...Read and Obey entire Terms!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Boy Scouts of America should allow Gay Scouts/Scoutmasters to remain in the program.

I understand my opponent could not post last round do to wether problems and a power outage, I will pass on this round without arguement so the forfieted round will not give me an unfair advantageit will reduce the debate to just 2 rounds, but its not like the 3rd one is ever anything other than repeating the points already said.
The Boy Scouts of America should allow Gay Scouts/Scoutmasters to remain in the program.

Axiom 1: The Boy Scout Oath is taken as cardinal importance to the Boy Scouts of America or any Boy Scout organization around the world for that matter, teaching the Oath and instilling it as part of the values and character of the boys in our program is our end goal. . http://usscouts.org... Axiom 2: The Scout Law is taken the same way, and really all other scouting slogans and sayings (be prepared, do a good turn daily, leave no trace, the outdoor code, ect…) . http://usscouts.org... Pro could argue all he wants about how my organization would benefit from doing something if he wants too. He could make cases about what an action would do for our PR, or increase in membership, but if the actions do not line up with and promote the creed than they are for nothing and pointless. If we opened up to let Girls in our organization it might allow for more members but that really makes no sense considering the nature of our program and who it targets. However we argue over this topic, scouting is the common ground we have for this debate, and our cases need to use the language of scouting. My opponent, being the Pro to this resolution, has burden of proof. A change in the current status always requires sufficient reason for doing so and that position is the one my opponent argues from this debate.
The Boy Scouts of America should allow Gay Scouts/Scoutmasters to remain in the program.

Hello Marauder- I noticed that the two of us are both associates of the Boy Scouts of America. I also noticed that you are a conservative church-goer, who is opposed to gay marriage. For this reason, I am making the (possibly incorrect) assumption that would be opposed to homosexuals being accepted openly into the Boy Scouts of America. If this is the case, then I would like to debate the issue with you, and I'll happily give you the first argument. I believe that it would be beneficial to the Boy Scouts of America to include Gay youth and leaders into it's organization.
The Boy Scouts of America should allow Gay Scouts/Scoutmasters to remain in the program.

sigh, it seems weather problems have not just kept Pro from posting but have stalled out the debate enough longer than he has the ability to hold interest in it. kind of glad I had not waisted any effort on this debate yet.however, should anyone ever come across reading this debate cause there looking into my past debates cause they think my arguments are an awsome read, or there just interested in topics related to the Boy Scouts, fear not, I plan on posting a rant of my opinon on this topic for the final round. cant really call it an argument when there has been no one to argue with, so for this final round my case shall be only have the honor of being called a rant. ;)
Baptism is the Point at which a believer becomes a Christian,

1."Would you agree that a saving belief is an obedient belief?" Of course saving belief leads naturally to obedience. But be aware you must have saving belief in Christ 1st if you didn't have saving belief in Christ you wouldn't bother to obey anything he said belief precedes actions. 2."At what point does belief save?" At the point of confession Romans 10:9-10 NKJV 3."Please explain Matt 7:21?" We must do the will of the father in heaven the works we do are evidence of whose children we are if their evil were children of the devil if their good were of god merely calling god are father isn't enough everyone likes to think of themselves as gods children although their not. Besides your quote from Ed Wharton's Church of Christ your argument can be reduced to water baptism is obedience to the gospel you rip peter out of context so i'll ignore that now time for my questions 1. Why would someone have the desire to obey if they didn't first have saving belief. 2. I agree god wouldn't give us something to obey if he didn't give us a way to obey it and baptism isn't something all can be obedient to what about the theifon the cross he didn't have that ability to obey it.
Baptism is the Point at which a believer becomes a Christian,

I will be arguing con for this debate baptism is not the point at which a believer becomes a christian. atlhough i agree with my opponent for baptism total immersion is valid and infant baptism is not in consideration here. My argument Hi my name is Andy i want to thank my opponent for Challenging me to debate this topic. I have probably not had as much formal training in these matters as my opponent but i have done self bible study for three years now. One area I am probably not as Skilled at as my opponent would be the greek. I agree debates are fun if conducted with right attitudes. Its funny so far you have quoted a few of my favorite commentators. I concur were supposed to have a belief of action although 2 points 1. So far nothing you've said proves baptism is a prerequisite to salvation. 2. Does action lead to salvation or is action the fruit of salvation John 15:4NKJV??????
Baptism is the Point at which a believer becomes a Christian,

Conclusion My opponent seems to imply over and over again I am some sort of false teacher " We know that God warned us through the pen of Paul, and Luke, and Matthew, and John, over and over and over again that false teachers would come into the Church and outside teaching as doctrine the commandments of men, leading many to hell with them. Jesus Himself said, let the Blind lead the Blind and they both fall into the ditch together. The Blind that are leading are people who profess to be from God and yet are ignorant of his word, and the people who follow the blind are ignorant themselves ." Although I disagree with him on this issue I haven't tried to imply that about him. He asked me about my view on at what point a person becomes saved and I told him at the point of confession. When one confesses to god they need Christ. And repent of there sins adding to the work of Christ saving us by his gospel is a works. And baptism is a work I argued this in my last round and it was completly ignored. One last question to you "9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." Romans 8:9 (New Revised Standard) Teaches if we have the holy spirit we belong to Christ were saved "44 While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days." ???????? Were these people saved when V 44 or 48????????
You can be a Christian and believe in evolution

I was contemplating about putting scientific facts in my debate, but since this is a religious debate, I don't need to. If you're a Christian then you don't need scientific facts, you just need the Bible. (1) You can be Christian without interpreting the Old Testament in such a literal sense. I interpret the Bible in such a literal sense because it is the only true word of God. Just because the Bible was written long ago, doesn't mean we can"t still learn lessons from the Bible, that we can't still teach from the Bible. It's the only book we can actually know is true. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. " (John 1:1) Just like the song "The Word" by Sara Groves. (2) Having contradictory views doesn't mean that you cannot hold those views; it just means that holding those views is illogical. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that your views aren't the same as the Bible, then? 1. I specified quite clearly on how the first chapter of the Bible shows that evolution can't be compatible with Christian teachings. If God wanted man to evolve from an animal, then why did he even create man? Why not just create the apes and leave it at that? The Bible says that God just spoke and it happened. That is how he created the plants and animals. All he had to do was speak and it was so. 2. What you're saying is that evolution doesn't happen overnight, it happens over millions of years, so why haven"t any apes changed into a human yet. If it takes millions of years, at least a few apes should be human, right? Nothing about evolution makes sense. Scientists can change results to promote their agenda, but they can't change what the Bible says, what God says. Evolution was just made up so people didn't have to admit that God actually made us. Just like the Big Bang Theory, no one wants to admit God made the universe, He made us, He made animals, and He made everything. So many people in our society today don't want to believe in God, they don't want to admit that there is someone better than them, that someone made them, that they will have to face Him one day and actually admit He exists. Evolution involving man and apes has never existed, it's just another lie for people who do not believe in God. :)