BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S media is responsible for many anti white hate crimes.

I am going to confront my opponent. You need to source your stats, or stop using them. In other words, you need to stop using them. You can't source them. They don't exist. Your inherent racism is incredibly apparent in your utter disregard for any objective reality. It's as if you aren't even reading my rebuttals or attempting to rebut them at all. You're just waiting for your turn to talk. If you aren't interested in an actual debate of idea's, than why start one in the first place? Don't misunderstand me, my disgruntled attitude does not come from our disagreement, but my aggravated disposition in the fact that all I need to is reiterate. Speaking of which, I must once again point out that your claim of "black people [being] twice as likely to commit a hate crime" is empirically untrue. Of the 48% race related hate crimes, 22% were anti-white, while 66% were anti-black. If I were nice to you and allowed you the claim that Hispanics are involved in white statistics, than the different is that much greater. Other than what has already been said, there is no other statistic pertaining your talking points involving race. Examples alone are not evidence enough when discussing the population as a whole. Just the same, your examples are easy to refute considering your claim that "the media [is] covering these crimes up," and before you use the old fox news trick of "that was just a question," no, it wasn't. It was a strong suggestion that that is the reality with a first grade attempt at obscuring a blatant fear mongering propaganda. More to the point, how did you hear about these stories in the first place? Were you there? Knowing about so many crimes that "[weren't] reported," maybe you should be investigated. The reality is that a quick Google search will get you outrage from both liberal and conservative outlets. http://www.bjs.gov... http://www.bjs.gov... http://www.fbi.gov... http://www.fbi.gov... http://www.bjs.gov... https://www.google.com...
The U.S media is responsible for many anti white hate crimes.

The embodiment of liberal evil, as my opponent would imply, treats white suspects with more favoritism than black victims. "Son in Staten Island murders was brilliant, athletic -- but his demons were the death of his parents." That is a real headline referring to a white suspect. Match that with a headline referring to a black victim saying "Latest homicide victim had history of narcotics abuse," and realize that this is a recurring theme in media, and you'll see exactly where the bias lays. When you look at the latest FBI statistics, you see a 23% higher white on black homicide rate and a 44% higher anti-black hate crime rate -- a far different observation than a " statistically .. more common [black on white]" crime rate. As has been implied through and through, the bias of my opponent is made obvious by the misleading and plain wrong information he's pulled out of god knows where. The part of it that is concerning is his argument that media should refrain from in-depth coverage of anti-black hate crimes. You'd think, with how he obscures the state of things, that he may truly believe that CNN says there's a protest before it even happens. But even that is being too nice when his suggestion is that CNN not cover it at all, which points out the incredible irony that, as he pretentiously claims that we live in a liberal Oceania as displayed in 1984, he calls for our media to become a conservative propaganda outlet. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.fbi.gov... http://www.fbi.gov...
The U.S media is responsible for many anti white hate crimes.

The U.S media is responsible for many of the anti white hate crimes that have been happening in the last couple years. By under reporting black on white crime which is statistically much more common than white on black crime the media has painted a false picture is America. In this picture all white Americans are racist and profile African Americans and all police men are evil and out to get black people . I won't deny that black people along with Hispanics, Arabs and south Asians have to deal with more racial profiling and more police brutality than whites. The media makes it seem as if racial profiling is the biggest race related problem America has. It's not. America has seen a wave of anti white hate crimes. Many of these crimes are in revenge for Trayvon Martin or Mike Brown. If the media hadn't race baited, over reported these stories and under reported black on white crime many of these "Trayvon revenge attacks" would not have happened. In mobile Alabama Mathew Owens was beaten with rods by a group of black adults for Trayvon. Christopher Simpson was walking home in Milwaukee and was beaten by black men for Trayvon between 26th and cherry street. In Sentabia Mississippi a jogger was abducted and beaten. The attackers asked him of he knew who Trayvon martin was. They dumped him off in Coldwater Mississippi Andrew and Mathew Bohanon were killed in Jacksonville in the Golden Corral parking lot over a free Zimmerman sticker by a group of black people. In Houston Texas a women named Georgia was driving her daughter to the hospital but a mob of Trayvon Martin protesters blocked her. When she rolled down the window one assaulted her. Dave Brian a reporter was attacked in Oakland as he covered some Trayvon protests. A marine in san Bernadino was beaten by Trayvon supporters In Baltimore a gang of African Americans beat a Hispanic man as he walked his dog "for trayvon" In Grand Rapids 37 year old Jacob Paleski was beaten by Trayvon supporters The worsted Trayvon attack was the killing of 27 year old David Santucci. He was shot for trayvon. He was a nurse. Because of the media race baiting he won't get to continue the profession he loved so much. I have just named some of the Trayvon revenge attacks. There are many other attacks including the beating of Ralph Weems a marine in Mississippi as justice for Mike Brown Like I said before if the media didn't over report these white or Hispanic/white on black murderers these hate crimes would not have happened. Black on white murderers are more common than white on black murderers. A black person is 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white person than than a white person if to commit a violent crime against a black person. A black person is twice as likely to commit a hate from against a white than a white is to commit a crime against a black person. Still the media blames all white people for the poverty of many black people today and ignore the cases of black on white violence.
LD debate is better than CX.

First, I was stating that the Great Minds that you stated made observations about the tangible world, and used those observations to do whatever, instead of using someone else's observations, which is what LD debaters do (generally). Second, wouldn't you be excited to do CX after all that preparation? Thinking, "Oh, yes, I have a great idea for this policy, now let's go do this!" CX gives you more time to make better conclusions that, in the end, result to a better debate. CX topics also tend to be more in-depth, which would facilitate the need to spend more time on research. In conclusion, I regret that there was a 1000 word limit. It made it so I could not make my own points, unless I failed to refute my opponents. I hope that you can see that over the course of the debate, I have proved that CX debate is just as good as LD, and therefore the Resolution: LD Debate is Better than CX, is negated. Please vote in negation when voting. Thank you to the voters as well as PRO.
LD debate is better than CX.

This 1000 word limit really sucks :) Anyway, my opponent claims that being factually intelligent is better than being logically intelligent. I would refute that saying that yet again, there are so many more people revered for logical intelligence than factual intelligence. My opponent also stated that LD-ers only care about what other people think about them. I'm not sure I understand why that is, so if you could elaborate that would be great. Secondly, yes it is true that you get to know a topic better in CX, but as you stuck with that same topic over the course of a year, you may become bored with it and eventually it will lead to CX not being as enjoyable as it should be. Whereas in LD the topic cycles every two months. Enough time for you to get to know the topic and debate it at a few tournaments, but it doesn't become boring. Now my opponent seems to make out LD as a non-quality debate. But my opponent has not given a reason why, elaborate please www.nflonline.org
LD debate is better than CX.

I'm not going to have time to present my own points, am I? I stated that FACTUALLY LD doesn't make you smarter. It doesn't try to teach you facts, it uses opinions and logic to try to come up with the result. Plato, Sun Tzu and the rest were all great minds because they knew about the tangible things in the world, not just what other people think about them, which is what LD debaters do. And you stated that you get 5 time more topics in LD than CX? Yes, but it gives you less time to prepare, therefore you don't get to know the topic nearly as well as you do in CX. Quality debates are based on the knowledge of the topic by the debaters, no? You stated in your first argument that each debater gets more time debating than in CX, but that doesn't mean that LD is a more enjoyable debate. Then I brought up student congress, in which you have less time to actually talk but you still have fun from listening to others. Therefore since I have clearly proved PRO wrong, please vote neg.
LD debate is better than CX.

First of all, my opponent stated that learning about values and philosophy do not make you smarter than learning about policy. To refute this I will bring up individuals such as Plato, Sun Tzu, Albert Einstein, Madam Curie, ext. All of these people baised their work on values, philosophy and theory and they are all revered for intelligence and foresight. Whereas I cannot think of a single person who is known as a genius because they biased their work on policy making. Also as I stated before you get 5 times more topics in LD than CX. Secondly my opponent stated that student congress is enjoyable because it is quality time spent talking. I don't see how this connects to the fact that in LD you get to spend more time actually debating your opponents and therefore learning than in CX. I also want to bring up that in Urban Dictionary LD debate is defined as "the best frickin kind of debate". Did you hear that? Urban Dictionary says its "the best". Good luck neg.
LD debate is better than CX.

Resolution- Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate is better than Cross Examination (CX) debate. I will first review my opponents points, then make my own. First and foremost, you stated that LD makes you smarter. Factually, this is untrue, because LD deals mostly with values, as it places heavy emphasis on logic, ethics, and philosophy. Many things could not be proved right or wrong, therefore you cannot rely on fact. In CX, you're changing government policy, therefore in theory the Constitution should be able to support which ever side has more merit. Second, time=/= quality of debate. In student congressional debate, each session is 2 hours, and you might be talking for 15 minutes of that if you're lucky. That doesn't necessarily mean that the overall enjoyment of the session is taken away. You still get to hear the other side of the point, the other side of the whole debate. It doesn't take away from the fun. I'm running out of characters. Therefore I urge you to vote in negat
LD debate is better than CX.

I would like to start off this debate with some definitions... "LD" - Lincoln-Douglas value based debate. "CX" - Cross Examination debate (also known as team policy debate). "is" - is "better" - Of superior quality or excellence. With the definitions out of the way I'll move on to my contentions. CONTENTION 1 : LD makes you smarter. Over the course of a year there are 5 LD topics that a debater must research and learn inside and out. In CX, there is 1. I think that because there are more topics per year, a debater must work to learn more than one subject therefore giving that debater more knowledge overall. CONTENTION 2 : LD allows for debaters to have more time actually debating. LD is a two person debate. Which means that each debater gets half the time in the entire debate. CX debaters get one quarter of the total time. If you are going to sacrifice your Saturday to go to a speech and debate tournament, don't you want to spend as much time possible actually debating?
Same Gender Marriage is Wrong

"It's not normal either" Give me proof it's not normal; Roughly 500 species have been well documented in nature engaging homosexual relations. Curiosity is natural, sex between any gender is natural, LOVE is natural. You have given no other argument as to why it's wrong aside from that it grosses you out. This is as much a fundamental right as freedom of speech. We're allowed to say what we want so why can't we love and be with who we want? You have no basis for it being wrong other than it is gross and terrible. Are you gay, are you going to marry the same sex? I take from your argument that you won't be so I'd like to say... SAME SEX MARRIAGE DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO BE IN A SAME SEX MARRIAGE. It's not your business if those two girls wanna get married and have a family, just like it isn't any of your concern if straight people were to be married. Again, you're on the losing side of this battle and I don't just mean right here on debate.org. Maybe one day you'll realize that people are people and they all have feelings. If you can't help, love and, encourage your fellow human than at least don't go out of your way to be hurtful and destructive to any kind of progress others are trying to make.
Same Gender Marriage is Wrong

It's 2014 and people need to recognize a few things; interpersonal love (Love between two human beings) can be shared between anyone. Why does it matter to you in the first place, how is it wrong? The fact is you don't know how they feel for each other and it could not concern you less when it comes to what they chose to do. Our bodies, our feelings, our actions, our words are OUR own to give and do as we wish. So get over it; people who say that same sex marriage is wrong are like the people who said interracial relationships were wrong or said that women can't vote... You're fighting a losing battle. Why are we fighting our own species in the pursuit of equality? It seems arbitrary and unproductive. So again, why is same sex marriage wrong? Is it because whatever being/god you pray and give money to said it was wrong thousands of years ago? How sad especially since all major religious figures only talk and preach about love... All that being said, people are still individuals and if we cannot love and accept everyone for who, what and, how they are as well as who they chose to share the most intimate of feelings with then the least we can do is tolerate and respect. At times yes, the gay community can be over the top and it seems like they're shoving it down everyone else's throats when (obviously) some people aren't okay with it; it's "unnatural" "weird" "gross" but personally I believe that they're just human beings sharing in intimate feelings which is totally natural as well as really weird. Religion and science do the same thing, they go door to door, sharing their gospel, asking for money, they have different foundations and charities, they have movies, tv shows and since religion isn't my thing I avoid things associated with it. Everyone has these beliefs and causes and it seems that ONLY theirs is right when that's not the case. Reiterating my statement earlier, if we cannot love and accept everyone for who, what and, how they are as well as who they chose to share the most intimate of feelings with then the least we can do is tolerate and respect because that's what all people deserve.
Objective moral facts do not exist

Thank you, socialpinko, for your opening arguments. WHAT IS MORALITY? "The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. “we need to eat because otherwise we die”), and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism)." (Tremblay, Francois 2005). OPENING ARGUMENTS 1. There is a moral choice, with two or more possible actions. 2. Those actions exist in a context. 3. The combination of that context and our hierarchy of values determine the values effected by each action. (ibid) Objective morality is a moral truth INDEPENDENTof any human experience or perception. Because there are times when two or more actions are possible, it therefore follows that the action exists in a context. For example, imagine tht you and I were in Nazi Germany and we were hiding Jews to save them from the holocaust. All of the sudden, we hear a knock at the door. Long behold it is two Nazi soldiers. Immediately, we have two choices: 1) Lie to them and tell them that we are hidding no-one; or 2) Expose the Jews to the Nazi soldiers. Because the combination of that context and our hierarchy of values determine the values effected by each action, it logically follows that there is an action that will be better, or more moral (if you will) than the other. That action is the moral truth in this case. Let's talk about context. The action of "killing" certainly seems prime facia morally wrong, but let's look at the context of certain forms of "killing". 1. Killing just to kill2. Killing a bug that crawled into your house3. Killing an animal for food on a hunt trip4. Killing someone that has a gun trained on you. The context of the killing action is certainly different and in each case it is necessary for us to determine the objective moral truth. Francois Tremblay notes: "If we take contextuality out of the picture, we are no longer being objective. At least in that portion of the moral judgment, we are talking about doctrine. We have let subjectivity enter the picture, in our belief in the ultimate authority of our rules to replace context. In fact, I would contend that we are no longer talking about morality, either. We have taken away a part of reality which directly pertains to moral judgment. Thus we are no longer talking about morality, but rather about a mental abstraction which has no more relation to action in the real world." (ibi) CONCLUSION Whenever there are two or more possible actions, it always follows that there is an objective truth; one that is better than the other based upon the context of the action. Bibliography1. Tremblay, Francois. "The Case for Objective Morality." The Case for Objective Morality. Strong Atheism, 1 Jan. 2005. Web. 14 June 2012. <http://www.strongatheism.net... >.
Objective moral facts do not exist

I must say it always is a pleasure to debate with Kohai, and no I will never stop calling you that. I wish my opponent the best of luck starting this debate and on a side-note, I will keep my introductory arguments short as simply a summary of the respective arguments. I will go into further detail as the debate goes on.Contention I. Morality and Contingent ExperienceHuman experience and perception is not a necessary phenomenon. It's certainly possible that the human species would have never existed or that no intelligence would have evolved in the universe for that matter. We also know that moral questions and dilemmas are entirely contingent on the existence of some intelligence to ponder between different choices of action. If there is no cognition there are no choices and if there is no intelligence there is no questioning of the correct way to act. Hence, we are lead to the conclusion from these facts that morality emerged when human cognition (or any type of intelligent cognition for that matter) emerged. Hence, morality itself is contingent on an observer or intelligent being or beings and is thus not objectively existent.My opponent could attempt to get around this objection by pointing to features of the world as a source of moral facts, irrespective of any human observer or actor. However, David Hume created an apt challenge to this argument with his is-ought gap.Contention II. Morality and Hume's GapPerhaps the simplest argument against objective moral facts lies in David Hume's famous is-ought gap[1]. In A Treatise on Human Nature[2], Hume argued that there was no way yet shown to derive an ought from an is. Explained, this means that there is no warrant behind the derivation of how things should be, based off of how things are. Consider the example of killing an innocent person. There's no reason why it can be shown to be wrong to kill an innocent human just based off the fact that it is the killing of a human. Before this can be shown, an evaluative premise showing that killing innocent humans is wrong must be inserted. The gap is useful in showing that the simple facts of the world do not lend themselves to moral prescriptions.===Sources===[1] http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu...[2] http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com...(Book Three, Part One)
Objective moral facts do not exist

===Definitions===An objective moral fact will be defined as a moral truth, which is independent of any human experience or perception. The fact that there are no moral truths if proved would not itself count as a moral truth (I only include this as it seems like an obvious semantic option). Moral truths regard what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, and will not have to do with whether or not such things exist.Most likely will be defined as having a higher probability than not and existence will be defined as having actual being.===Resolution and BoP===The resolution will revolve around the existence of objective moral facts with Pro arguing that they more than likely do not exist with Con arguing the opposite. The burden of proof for Pro will be to provide a positive case in support of the propositions that objective moral facts more than likely do not exist. Con's burden will simply be to attempt to refute Pro's case.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.
Atheism and Ethics

This is a little game I would like to play with anybody who is both an atheist and believes in the oft quoted words of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Can an atheist defend the basic idea behind the Declaration while still maintaining his/her worldview? Sorry, I guess you have to take out the Creator part to make that work -- but the document is still secular, right? This is how its going to go: I'm going to pretend that I am an insanely rich, good-lookin', myopic, atheist, narcissist bastard who is also contemplating something along the lines of mass genocide and ethnic cleansing. The things I'm going to argue for are obviously going to be very offending -- that's the point though. Whoever takes up the debate will argue something boring, like people have value and so on. This is going to be a philosophical discussion about ethics, one in which Con will be trying to convince me of the error of my ways while still maintaining a strict atheistic worldview (i.e. don't invoke a deity, higher power, spiritual realm, afterlife). First Round is for acceptance only. I'll open the Second Round with my grand plan of cleaning the planet and the rest will follow.