BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Should Segregate by Race

Sorry I responded kind of late. Anyways, we have to segregate by race. Racism is too big a problem in the United States, and the best way is to segregate states by race. However, since there are some interracial couples and families with adopted kids of a different race, they will have to move to one of the 4 integrated states. Muslims, regardless of ethnicity, live in Hawaii, and there are no more Indians or South Asians around. Also, in the integrated states, there is still a limit of one black family per neighborhood, blacks still have to pay 10% more taxes. However, Russians are tax exempt. What do you think about my idea?
The United States Should Segregate by Race

if we were to segregate the United States based on racism, we would actually be racist. Segregation is a racist policy. It prohibits the free movement of certain people. It is a violation of liberty and human rights, both of which are guaranteed in the constitution. We should not segregate. Diversity is essential to the end of racism. Here's MY plan for the U.S. 50 states for normal people to do whatever the heck they want, regardless of ethnicity or race One asteroid colony for racist pieces of garbage like you.
The United States Should Segregate by Race

Great. Welcome back. Now let's debate that the United States must segregate by race. I argue pro, and you argue con. I believe that the United States should be segregated based on race to eliminate the problem of racism. However, there are some interracial marriages and families with adopted kids of a different race. I still can solve the problem: 20 states for Caucasians 15 states for African Americans 10 states for East Asians, Southeast Asians, Maoris, Hispanics, and Native Americans 4 states where all races can live together in harmony, but they must pay 15% extra taxes to live there, and black people will still have to pay more taxes and there is a limit of one black family per neighborhood 1 state for Muslims, regardless of their ethnicity or race So let's go!
The United States Should Segregate by Race

Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society. Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now let's hear a convincing argument from you.
The United States Should Segregate by Race

I almost forgot about this debate, since it's a steaming pile of garbage, but let's have at it, shall we? It is not racist to call somebody racist, it is anti-racist to call out racism wherever it occurs. You are a racist, and segregation is a racist policy which infringes basic human rights. People should be able to live wherever they want to and do whatever they want to. That is liberty, and to end liberty would be to violate the constitution of the great and prosperous land in which we reside. If we were to enact such a policy, there would be a mass uproar in the streets and the United States government would be overthrown, resulting in complete anarchy. We are not going to enact segregation. There is no reason to. American people have not gotten obese and addicted to video games because black people have entered our schools, the American people have gotten obese and video game addicted as the result of white people producing too much food and developing addictive video game software. We should not blame black people for our obesity and reliance on technology- those events and the desegregation of schools have no correlation. As for disorders, they existed for a long time before desegregation, but we did not classify them as well as we do now. They are not the result of black people entering our schools. They are the result of white European nobility having incest or, in some cases, simply a chance genetic mishap. You're a beast.
Morality is Indirectly Objective

While I enjoyed reading that, there are a few mistakes in reasoning which undermine Pro’s argument. 1. You start off by asserting: “I would agree that morality is not inherent in the universe. ” If morality is proven by logic, and logic is an inherent part of the universe as you stated, than morality would be inherent as well. 2. You continue with: “However, I would argue that morality is created by humans and still has value in its practicality of governing human interaction. It has objective truths within its own creation that are deducible with logic. ” 2a. This assertion has not been substantiated and is hardly relevant to my opponents case but I am curious. What value does morality have with governing human interactions? 2b. "Objective: mind-independent—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject. " [1] If morality is objective as my opponent has stated, than it must be mind-independent. However, he has conceded that it is created by humans and therefore it is not objective as that is a result of judgments made by a conscious entity. Although at this point, the resolution is safely negated, I shall continue on with the assertions my opponent must prove with the use of evidence for his case to be affirmed. 3. Unsubstantiated Assertions: 3a. “The universe is dual, there being material substance and information. ” Evidence? 3b. “The informational universe is based within the material universe, and is given meaning by informational processing. ” Since the information world supervenes the material universe, you cannot logically argue for the informational world until you justify the existence of the material universe. However, since you simply stated “it exists” without justification, that burden of proof has not yet been met and your argument falls apart once again. 3c. “Morality is a creation of human beings (highly developed informational processing systems) which is a devised system of how we should treat other life forms. ” The fact that it was created disproves your resolution of morality being objective – as stated above. 3d. “Morality, being an informational construct, has an informational purity through logic. Therefore, although morality is not inherent in the universe, it has objective truth through logic. ” i. If it was created by humans, then there is no “informational purity” since it was constructed by human bias and planning. ii. I have safely refuted your resolution by showing that your argument does in fact support morality being inherent in the universe and therefore it is directly objective. >> I would urge my opponent to contribute evidence for the next round. Since Pro was not able to verify any of his stances, I was left only with semantics and showing the fallacies within his own arguments. This is fine but part of the voting criteria is sources. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy) Resolution negated.
Morality is Indirectly Objective

I am also a moral nihilist. Wikipedia's definition of moral nihilism states: "Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality". I would agree that morality is not inherent in the universe. However, I would argue that morality is created by humans and still has value in its practicality of governing human interaction. It has objective truths within its own creation that are deducible with logic. Morality provably has objective truth through logic. -The universe is dual, there being material substance and information. -The informational universe is based within the material universe, and is given meaning by informational processing. For example, DNA structure can be described physically, but has an informational meaning. This is what I acknowledge as the common misconception of immateriality. Another example: many people see that the mind and body are dual, in materiality and immateriality. The mind is based within the physical structure of the brain, but does not physically exist. It is a network of informational processing that resides in the brain. Being a network, it doesn't exist in one point, but a collection of points that make it a conceptual system, and is in a way, immaterial. It however is based in the material universe, and is in a way a second tier of existence. Emotions are physically describable by the release of chemicals in the brain, but the information is given meaning in its processing. -The informational universe is therefore based within the material universe -Mathematics is the language of the material universe, and Logic is the language of the informational universe. -Mathematics determines truths about the way that the material universe works. All things in the material universe are explainable by mathematical truths. Logic is the most basic language of the informational universe, determining qualities of information. -Descartes' proof of the mind's existence proves that informational processing exists, as doubt is an act of thinking, or informational processing. -This indirectly proves reality exists, which refutes any solipsist or epistemological nihilism arguments. -Morality is a creation of human beings (highly developed informational processing systems) which is a devised system of how we should treat other life forms. -Morality, being an informational construct, has an informational purity through logic. Therefore, although morality is not inherent in the universe, it has objective truth through logic.
Factory Farming is inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

Please pray tell how they can still maintain their cheap prices when they starting using anesthetics!!! Those arnt cheap! That would drive up the cost exponentially. If you want to live in a fantasy world where animals can be raised cheaply without cutting corners then go ahead but for those of us that live in reality, we'll continue to eat meat and while these animals do suffer they don't trump human beings. Also 9/11 was an inside job! George Bush pulled WTC 7 and you expect people to believe Mohammad Atta could execute a 180 degree turn after learning how to fly only on a simulator!?!?! You all suckle at the tit of government and they feed you their lies like they feed you their dick!
Factory Farming is inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

This cheap meat can still be produced and sold for affordable prices without the abuse. It can still be of lesser quality than "grass fed steaks" due to what the animals are eating and the antibiotics they are given etc., but people are just lazy, inconsiderate, vain, and only care about profit. Cutting off the beaks of chickens with a hot razor blade, crushing "bad" chicks in a grinder while fully conscious, shocking chickens in an electric water bath while fully conscious before being slaughtered, keeping cows hooked up to milking machines until their utters become raw and swollen, docking the tails of cows, de-horning cows and castrating them without any type of pain relief, squeezing pigs into metal crates hardly larger than their own bodies disabling them to move or lay down, and pumping all animals with hormones until their weight is too much for their legs to hold causing them to become crippled, is not necessary to save a couple dollars. Obviously humans are smarter than these animals but the size of their brains has nothing to do with this. They still have bones, blood running through their veins, nerves throughout their bodies and the ability to feel pain. It is not their fault that people don"t have the money for quality food. Once again, the consumers of this meat aren"t doing themselves any good either even if it gives them a meal that day. Eating this meat puts people at risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria, exposure to arsenic that can cause cancer, and onto a path leading to obesity and heart disease since the "protein" one may believe they are getting from their beef and chicken is mostly saturated fat. For those who can't afford food, there are still cheap food options out there that are harmless to make. It is obvious that these large factory-farming corporations could care less about these animals along with the well being of their consumers. Sure, they are saving you some money, but this cheaper production is still inhumane and does not outweigh all of the harm being done to not only the animals, but to you too.
Factory Farming is inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

So you agree with me that factory faming is beneficial to people. The average American family of 4 makes 2,300 dollars less than they did when Obama took office. I only bring this up to show how people aren't making what they use to, showing a demand for cheap meat to feed these people. Factory farm steak cost on average 4 times less than free-range farms (CNN-march 2015). These cheap meats don't strain the hard working American wallet and allow Americans to be well fed and not denying themselves essential protein needed for healthy individuals. Now to address this so called "cruelty" towards animals. This is a question of ethics and morality. Are animals capable of feeling the same pain and stress humans are? Are animals capable of suffering to the degree we "perceive" them to? The answer to both of those is a resounding NO! These aren't intelligent creatures capable of higher thought. A cow cant quote Nietzsche, a chicken can't write iambic pentameters, a turkey can't contemplate it's own mortality. Humans can do all of these things and more! Animals that receive poor treatment in factory farms don't have the moral worth over humans starving or barely getting the nutrition they need. I'm sure everyone would like to shop at Whole Foods and buy grass fed steaks but the simple truth is people cant. They need cheaper meats to survive and the while the treatment of some animals isn't up to par with animal activists that wont stop short of eating meat all together.
Factory Farming is inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

I agree that these reasons are beneficial to people and to the industries, but they are not THAT crucial and do not outweigh the cruelty being done to get the production and money. Speaking in terms of humanity towards these animals, they do not need to be treated this way for meat production to occur. I am not against humans consuming meat, but these animals can still be treated fairly during the time they are alive. It isn't hard to raise these animals without intentionally making them suffer. A typical farm animal doesn't live in luxury but they still have room to breath. This also puts consumers of that meat at risk for food borne illness due to the crowded and unsanitary conditions. Not to mention that the meat isn't even healthy for us, due to the the chemicals and antibiotics being pumped into the animals and they food the animals are eating. It is a lose-lose situation.
Factory Farming is inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

3 Pros of Factory Farming 1. Cheap The cost of food is drastically reduced with the use of factory farms. This is because the food is produced and processed at a much faster rate, with more efficient processes involved. 2. Very Lucrative The profit margin for these factory farms is large, this is because the proper care of animals is looked over, which is where much of farming costs lay. The areas in which these farms are located also provide them with cheap labor. 3. Lots of Job Opportunities Factory farms are huge operations, that need a huge number of employees to ensure they run correctly. They offer a wide variety of job opportunities and economic stimulation to areas of the world that are in desperate need of this type of help.
Factory Farming is inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

Inhumane for the purposes of this debate means "without compassion, knowingly causing misery or cruelty." The way animals are treated in factory farms is sickening and cruel. Their living conditions are filthy, with no room to move, no room to breathe and no room to live. These innocent animals are being tortured for the "benefits" of feeding humans with cheap meat. These benefits do not outweigh the torture being done, especially since this unhealthy production isn't even healthy for the consumers.
The need for "Identity Confirmation" with a phone number is aburd.

Debate is inextricably linked with journalism. Journalism ideally is the process of informing people so that they can make a legitimate decision. Debate is the discussion that hopefully precedes that decision. To levy such a heavy handed and draconian caveat to the freeness of speech such as any demand of absolute identification is a corruption of the entire ethic behind debate itself. This entire idea is disgustingly manipulative. Anonymity is a serious personal right, and the desire to remain anonymous does not strip one of his or her first amendment rights, which regardless of your country of origin should be seen as a human right. To counter with any variant on "It's a private page we can do as we like" Admit that the entire page is a sham. And beyond that your rights end when they begin to infringe on another, and making a page with such a lofty implied goal as sheltering general debate, you've passed form the private into the public domain. This page is a travesty. I mindless puppet theater where all that remains is only what is safe and approved of. No real discussion can happen under these conditions. This site has become a classic example of how intellectual property law destroys innovation. This page does not deserve ownership of its domain.
God is real

Are you debating "Lifemeansgodisgood"?He's a moron. Why are we here?Not a valid or relevant question. Why implies purpose, and there seems to be no purpose in the universe.You create whatever purpose you wan't. We are here because of evolution, that's the how. Asking why doesn't make sense.Why Is There Food On The Table?Not relevant. There is food on our tables because farmers extract and cultivate the food. Markets have been established and the food is afforsable, to avoid a riot. This is possible because we have evolved and such a way, the earth produces food and we have a basic innate understanding of game theory.Where did this come from?I don't know what that means. Gas collapsed and compressed into clumps the size of a million suns (that's starting small for something the size of the universe). These clumps then merged to build galaxies.one hundred billion years ago the Earth, the Sun, and all the planets of the Solar System were nothing but a cloud of cold dust particles swirling through empty space. Gradually, these particles were attracted to each other and came together to form a huge spinning disk. As it spun, the disk separated into rings and the furious motion made the particles white-hot. The center of the disk became the sun, and the particles in the outer rings turned into large fiery balls of gas and molten-liquid that cooled and condensed to take on solid form. Four or five billion years ago, they turned into the planets that we know today as Earth, Mars, Venus, and the outer planets.The earth was incredibly hot in its early years and eventually in cooled into a primordial soup.which involved in the first organisms.Yes life can sprout from non life.In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.It did not have to be created by a god.
God is real

----.------My arguments have not been addressed.Well most of what you said was quite incorrect. Now pro has 2 arguments:1. Fine Tuning2. Causality.I addressed both of these already but let's do this again.So is the earth really fine-tuned? I'd say no, but it's certainly not perfect. Composition Of The Universe: Now <0.03 of the universe seems to allow for conscious life, given that only a small portion of earth is hospitable.percent of known conscious life in the universe:There are 10 truly conscious animals.There are 8.7 million species.(probably more)0.00000115% of known life has the consciousness were operating under.0.03% of the universe has heavy elements(which life needs)less than 0.00000115% of the universe should have life that is conscious.So life presumably needs water, so I how good is god at producing water? VERY VERY BAD."Two percent of the water on earth is glacier ice at the North and South Poles. This ice is fresh water and could be melted; however, it is too far away from where people live to be usable. Less than 1% of all the water on earth is fresh water that we can actually use."1%! The best this god could do is 1%.God is awful at producing life.Multiverse And Life Permiting Parameters:All the "fine tuning" con described can be explained through the multiverse.If there are an infinite amount of universes then some of them are bound to have life permitting parameters.On Design:-More on the watch maker and design:Now the watch maker argument assumes design is an apparent attribute one would assume.If there's a watch, someone who knows what a watch is would infer design, but one with no concept of a watch, would most likely conclude that the watch is naturally there.Also how do you come to the conclusion the universe is designed. We have not experienced other universes to compare it to.With the argument from design you encounter an infinite regression.If anything with intelligence comes from prior intelligence, then god must have been designed. Is god not intelligent?It is absurd to argue everything intelligent comes from prior intelligence but the most intelligent being conceivable doesn't.On Causality:Now once again everything does not have a cause. That's why I discussed virtual partiles and the casmir effect.Now if something caused the big bang, there's no reason it had to be a god. It could be a collision of branes or a quantum fluctuation or a prior universe. Also explain to me why the universe can't be eternal?Also if the universe can't be eternal, then god can't either. God would have to have experienced infinity events, which is impossible because you can only approach infinity.Also how can you reconcile suffering and a tri-omni god.Conclusion: God is a bad designerThere's no good way to determine if the universe was designedThe universe doesn't need a cause.If it had a cause, there's no reason for it to be god.http://www.fcwa.org...http://astrojan.hostei.com......http://www.nytimes.com......