BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The flag of Mississippi, which contains a mini-Confederate flag, should be altered.

Thank you for accepting my challenge wingnut. I look forward to engaging in intense intellectual exchange with you. Now let me continue with the side of logic and reason. Yes it is true that more citizens of the northern states were inclined to consider the abolishment of slavery than their Southern counterparts, but the same could said for the British and colonists in regards to the American Revolution. That doesn't mean the proud tradition of independence, heritage, and history is prevented from being present in the form of American flags, Founding Father honourings, and respect for the leaders such as Washington, Jefferson, and Monroe. They are not honoured though for their views on slavery- but rather for their historical impact and commitment to patriotism. The same can be said for men like Jefferson Davies and Judah Benjamin. I don't see why one can simply condemn the latter two as racists and rebels and yet at the same time grant the former three with reverence and respect. In addition slavery is not only issue the South disagreed with the North on. There were also many other controversial ones like free trade, the gold dollar, relations to Europe, and most importantly of all- the role of the federal government. Declaring the CSA a nation founded on the principles of racism and slavery is true to some degree, but that is a title that could applied to the United States, South Africa or Brazil just a easily. It is no reason to shun the Stars and Bars as "evil" and symbols of racism anymore it is to due so to the Stars and Stripes (keep in mind had the British vicotred in the 1770's slavery in America would have ended four score and seven year earlier. It is also logical the South would have eventually given up slavery and renounced apartheid- the same as the USA, Brazil and South Africa all did. Which brings us back to the main aspect of the argument. That the people of Mississippi are engaging in perfectly acceptable behaviour when they leave their flag with the small image of the ancient flag to signify their peoples' deep fascination and remembrance to their roots and past so that they can better understand what sort of histrocal factors have made their marks, for better and/or worse, on Mississippi history, lest the state be filled with ignorant loudmouths like the men and women who make up the NAACP and have no grasp of what the actual meaning is behind that proud Confederate flag.
The flag of Mississippi, which contains a mini-Confederate flag, should be altered.

True, nearly all of our Revolutionary heroes were slaveowners. However, even after years of slavery had been present in America, the North made an effort to realize its terrible nature and rectify a horrible situation. The South rebelled for several reasons, but one of the biggest differences was slavery. First, we see the South as advocates of slavery from the very beginning. The 3-5ths compromise was one of the most notable advocacies here. One could argue that the Northern states saw slavery as more of a necessary evil, since less than half a century later, the abolitionist movement comes to a forefront. So, the rebelled southern states outwardly rebuked the message of freedom for all and the anti-abolition movement was united under one symbol, the confederate flag. We see this in modern culture as the typical redneck racist uses the flag as a symbol for intolerance, like those before them did for years. There is no denying the connotation that is associated with the stars and bars. Universally, everyone associates it, rightly or wrongly (i would argue correctly), with slavery and intolerance. Now, the question becomes whether it is OK for a government to be symbolized by something with that kind of connotation. Obviously, the answer is no. A government shouldn't be represented by something that alienates and offends such a vast portion of its population. While I am the last person to advocate political correctness, this is a situation where it is obvious people have a right to gripe.
The flag of Mississippi, which contains a mini-Confederate flag, should be altered.

Mississippi's state flag has been one to attract controversy- mainly due to the symbol in the left corner of a Confederate Stars n' Bars. Some groups have even gathered emotions from the extreme, such as the NAACP who have condemned it has "racist and degrading towards colo[u]red people. But this is utter nonsense. True the Confederate States during their brief existence were seething with slavery and apartheid, but was not the very country in which the NAACP operates founded on such principles as well? Contrary to popular belief it was not Lincoln and his Union crusaders that first freed the slaves of America- but rather King George III during the Revolutionary War- but control was lost so this liberal ideal never properly manifested itself outside New York. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and even the man who's birthday is a national holiday, George Washington, were all slave owners and devout white supremacists. Yet no one dares to condemn these men. Only the South is unfairly blamed, and such hypocrisy has no place in modern America. Rather the left-corner icon on the state flag should be looked on not as symbols of racism, but of heritage. And what principle is a flag based on sides this? Surely this consideration should be paramount among all others as people gaze upon this flag and remember the significant period of history in the 1860's when Mississippi underwent one its most important historical sequences of all time, when thousands of her young died for that flag, when governments were toppled and battle raged throughout the countryside. No matter what side one supported- federal or state surely no one can deny the profound amount of impact that flag had on Mississippi as a whole.
Humans can create humans in some distant future

I'll respond to your points in the order that they were created. 1. Age of the Universe and Inevitability.What you are saying here is that it is inevitable for humans to synthesise humans via technology in another "month" of the cosmic year (around one gigayear is one month on the cosmic year), but this has two underlying assumptions that prove deadly: humanity is not likely to survive an entire month of the cosmic year AND that there is not a technological barrier that we are able to overcome within the next gigayear.First, humanity is not likely to exist for an entire cosmic month for the creation of human synthesis to occur. As the Doomsday Argument goes, we are extremely lucky to have survived for so long on earth, and we will be lucky to make it more than a few more seconds on the cosmic year. The DA has said that there is a 95% chance that humanity will become extinct within the next 10,000 years from (likely) anthropogenic causes - some even go so far as to dispute these numbers and say that the odds are higher than this. Next, you assume that there isn't a technological barrier of some kind that we have that prevents us from the complete sythesis of humanity. The synthesis of simple organic molecules, while a bit difficult sometimes, is completely possible. The complete sythesis and use of DNA, not used from any outside sources - just from the lab, is not so easy and not so guaranteed at any point in humanity's existence. I argue that there is a limit in place that would exist that would prevent the complete creation of complex organic molecules on the simple fact that we simply cannot create a molecule with over 3 billion bases in the next 9000 years.What my refutation boils down to is: we won't live long enough for us to reach the technological barrier that exists to prevent us from creating humanity. 2. Ease of Life.You say that life is something that supports actions as a catalyst to other actions in a cycle. While the nitty-gritty ideas hold false (like that life is actually the creation of offspring, able to metabolise, etc), the general idea is completely true, I do not refute this at all. However, that doesn't mean that the creation of human life in a lab without sexual reproductive cells is possible - it just means that life is pretty easy to create in general, not in the minute details.3. Chemical Reactions.Happiness, sadness, love, etc. may all be chemical reactions, that is true, but that doesn't mean we are able to create a human that is able of producing these chemicals on their own via technology. I disagree with you saying that we only need a sperm and a female egg to completely create humanity - this is not the use of technology to pave way for the creation of life, it is the use of sexual reproduction to create life, something that you swore off in the beginning of this very round. I think your ending is extremely poetic but I do not believe that giving a few more seconds of chance to an already doomed race of life will do anything for us in terms of creating humanity from a vial.
Humans can create humans in some distant future

I am well aware of the fact that humans are creating humans almost artificially using male sperm and female egg. I am aware of the fact that, not only humans but the structure of the simplest organisms is quite complex to understand even. Here I mention a few things that I will use to support my arguments. Here are few reasons why it is entirely possible for us to create humans using inorganic matter even. 1. My first argument is based on the the age of universe and our solar system and earth. We all are aware of the fact that earth is 4.5 billion years old and life began on earth about 3.5 billion years ago. And if we compress the time since bigbang in one year, our solar system came into existance in last 5 months, life began 3 months ago, first humans came in the last our of cosmic year, and most of the scientific revolution we see around us happened in last 15 seconds of the cosmic year. And look at the world around us, we are already synthesizing organic compounds. We have gotten deep understanding of many of the processes in human body, we are exploring genes, artificial mutation is now possible, all in a few seconds of this cosmic year. What makes you think that we can't create humans in another month. 2. Now life, what is life? A self sustainaing body is called alive, so life is simply a set of chemical and biological reactions that support each other or acts as a catalyst to each other. No matter how complicated they might be, but that is how life works. Start from a small set of reactions, bind them to a cycle, and there ladies and gentlemen you have created life. How is it not possible? 3. Till date we know that all our feelings and emotions are mere chemical reactions, happiness, sadness, love, pain everything is controlled by chemicals that react inside us. So we do not need a soul, we do not need any vital force, all we need to do is create a sperm and a female egg afterall. We humans are yet newly born babies in this cosmic year, nature took billions of years to evolve us to what we are today, give humans a few hours, and the will give you humans, that will be better than us.
Humans can create humans in some distant future

Hello UsamaAslam3, welcome to the site. I'm really interested in what you have to say on this subject so I want to debate you on whether or not humans can "create" humans in the far future through technology - not sexual interaction (since we can and have been doing that for ages!).I know it is kind of unnecessary, but if we define the terms we will use throughout the debate, it will lead to a lot less confusion on the subject matter - for the debaters as well as the reader. Here are some definitions or some more in-depth explanations that I have gathered that will provide some clarity for these terms;Human - any living organism that is of the species Homo Sapiens or is a species under the genus Homo that is ancestrally close to modern-day Homo Sapiens [1][2]create - to bring into being [3]Thank you for creating (heh) this debate, I am looking forward to intelligent discussion.[1]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]. https://santitafarella.wordpress.com... (an interesting read on what makes a human different from other living things - warning for tasteful nudity (art) in the heading)[3]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Humans can create humans in some distant future

This is what the debate boils down to: is it more likely that we can create humans with technology that we haven't even thought of, relying on a date and time that we most likely will not live to see, overcoming technological and physical barriers, than to not be able to do this? I have already provided reasons why this is not likely - 95% unlikely, and all that I need to do is secure a greater than or equal to 50% chance of unlikelihood. My opponent says that it's inevitable that we will reach the ability to create humans - I say that this belief is not held rationally. I think it is clear that we probably won't ever be able to create humans with technology - I ask you to vote on the side of reason, rather than the side of falsely-held optimism.
Humans can create humans in some distant future

1. Once again the con addresses DA as a fact or something certain when it isn't, the argument isn't even scientific. Doomsday argument is a seperate debate in itself but since my opponent's rebuttal is now totally based on DA, I would state some points about what it is and what it isn't: i. It purely is a probabilistic model. ii. Completely void of scientific observations or facts. iii. It does not predict how human spece will become extinct or how will it occur. iv. Does not take into account self-indication assumption. To begin with, an argument so void of science can never be taken as granted, secondly it can not even roughly estimate the generations of humans that have passed as there is a large grey patch in our form between humans and apes. It is based on assumption that there is a bag full of humans, that is going to get empty any time soon. Scientifically this is vague. Again my opponent says, "if humanity is 95% sure to die in the next 10000 years" How can we be 95% sure on the basis of argument so void of scientific data? I won't comment on technological barriers further as I have explained how my opponent's rebuttal is weak. 2. My opponent says, "but not things with 3 billion base pairs. Pro doesn't really address this refutation". Con is clearly misleading here, this point was part of the rebutal against my first argument that I did address. Con again uses DA to refute my argument, therefore any further comment is unnecessary. Also, it isn't just about our evolving understanding but our rapidly improving technology that will help us create humans. As i have already elaborated how it is entirely possible, about which my opponent has no objection but that we won't survive long enough, no further comments are necessary. To conclude with, as my contender said that we can't speak in absolutes, we must see what is more likely. Con agrees to most of the part about how we can create humans, and as i have shown that provided enough time how it is entirely possible. The whole debate reduces to whether we can survive long enough. Con uses DA to support its argument, that however has no scientific value. So before we discuss what are our odds of surviving more than a few thousand years by DA, we must know the odds of DA being even valid. I however have shown how it is entirely possible for us to eradicate threats to our survival.
The ISIS Will Spread Ebola to the US

Because Ebola has only had a major outbreak in western Africa, it is highly unlikely that the Islamic State brings it to the United States. The Islamic State is present in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, and Libya. None of these countries have an outbreak [1] nor do they border the infected countries: Guinea, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Spain (only 1 person [dead]), the US (only 1 person [dead]), Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Senegal (only 1 person).Also, Obama has nothing to do with Ebola, and this is not the place for a gun argument.[1]: http://www.cdc.gov...;
PlayStation is better than the box

lets begin this argument. The playstation is better than the xbox for many reasons. to begin with the ps4 sold more systems than the xbox one and the playstation dosent much negitive things about their product. for example the playstation lets players play online for free while the xbox 360 needs players to pay for xbox live to play online with there friends or other players. another example would be that the ps3 has disc protection meaning that you can move the system and nothing will happen to the disc while the xbox systems dont have any disc protection so even if you move the system just a tiny little bit then you will hear a crunching noise and when you take out the disk it would be damage. i have many other things to say about the playstation and the xbox but ill be saving it for round three sources used (wiki) (gagadget) (youtube)
Foundationalism is a sound theory of epistemic justification

===Resolution and BoP===The burden on Pro in this debate will be to provide and defend argument(s) in favor of the epistemic soundness of foundationalism as a theory. The burden of Con will be to show why these arguments or reasons are either flawed or insufficient to justify foundationalism.===Definitions===Foundationalism will be defined as the epistemological theory that all knowledge and justified belief rests ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowldge or justified belief[1]. Theories of epistemic justification deal with the conditions necessary for the justification of knowledge or justified belief. A theory of epistemic justifcation is sound if it is valid or correct.===Definition===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.===Sources===[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Middle Earth Rap Battle

Icaneus Mithander, The White Rider I travel the lands like a glider. Renowned by all Always there to respond to the call All this you call "rhyme" In reality is complete grime You are nothing to the like of my kind I've existed from the beginning of time I'm Maia, elementarily a lesser god At least until i had to face the Balrog But wait a minute, i came back to life Tolkien made me the LOTR equivalent of Jesus Think anyone really wants to be an elf? Kids want to be us I'm head to toe influence When i come down on you all there is is suspense Child, i'm so hard that the only way the ring can tempt me is to pressure me to do good. And i have a troubling time believing that a man named "green leaf" is so hard...
Middle Earth Rap Battle

You should be laughing at yourself You're a joke of yesteryear You're supposedly wise yet you can't predict anything Why don't you go ahead and steal the Palantir Old man you're like the Ghostbuster franchise No one wanted you once, twice, or thrice Yet every Gandalf comes back whiter Kinda like Michael Jackson- except a much worse lyric writer I was one of the few elves left to stay 'Cuz that was all they needed to kick a$$ Killing Uruk-Hai without effort like a holiday I can run across Middle Earth for days without tiring While you're down in a mountain expiring Compensating for something? My main weapon is my longbow With my sword as a killer combo My bow kill enemies from yards away Keeping my beauty out of the frey You're still Gandalf the Gray Who needs a convocation of eagles to always save the day
Middle Earth Rap Battle

Ha! You've got nothing after I saved your butt at the battle of Hornburg. I also kicked a Balrog's kester on an iceberg. Elves can kill a few orcs but in the end are nothing but a zurg. An elvish "sword" is literally a dagger. I have a 47 inch Glamdring and a staff that can block a massive blow simply by my uttering. I'd use your blade for bread buttering. And your bowstring for floss. You think you can beat me? You could barely keep up with a half a man in kills! You aren't a hero, your a footsoldier. I'm an genius assassin compared to your dumbness like a boulder. You can call for a buddy but can you summon an airstrike of eagles? I inspired the destroyer of Mordor. You can't take the heat of my house, you don't belong in a coridor.
Middle Earth Rap Battle

You can blow your smoke but I'm blowing your mind With my dope a$$ rhymes While saving Mirkwood at the same time Btch please I have lived for almost 3000 years Unlike you no one would ever guess it Just confess it You're a wrinkly old hobo in a white dress I'm a hero with a bow and athletic finesse Let me use your watch so I can tell how many times I will beat you Floating like barrow-wight, stinging like, well, Sting C'mon here let me show you- Who's the real Lord of the Ring
Middle Earth Rap Battle

I may be more than 1000 years old But i'm more powerful than you tenfold I made a Balrog my btch simply by shouting My blade is giant yet effortlessly i cleave off limbs I'm cunning and crafty, i know some good friends When you go with me i have a small army Without me all middle earth would be history. I'm the one and only the White Divinely selected to lead the fight I'm a boss slayer fear my might I'm so tough i died and shook it off I'm a great gust compared to you a cough
Middle Earth Rap Battle

Hot as Orlando in summer Beautiful as a flower in Bloom You can make fun of my feminine appearance all you like But I'm about to drop you like Saruman on a spike The golden leaves of Lothlorien can't compare With my long luscious locks of hair All the elvish maidens I do snare My soft pale skin so fair Oliphants I be trippin' Elven mead I be sippin' Spending my day triple arrows beheading orcs My blades piercing goblins Leaving my enemies in coffins
Middle Earth Rap Battle

The point of this debate, as a rap battle, it to produce the best lyrics from the standpoint of a single well-recognized character from the world of Middle Earth throughout the next 3 rounds.Rules:Round 1: Acceptance (You will also state the character you are representing)Round 2: OpeningRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: ConclusionI will be Legolas for this rap battle.Good luck and have fun!
We should ship all strong Liberals to Sweden.

My opponent has not responded in the allotted time, I assume he has more pressing matters to attend to, which is understandable. I was aware that this debate was intended to be light-hearted and I have duly treated it as such, though my first response may have given the impression that I agreed that shipping left-wing legislators overseas was a desirable objective – it isn't. The US must be one of the most right-wing countries in the developed world, even when the Democrats are in power could do with importing a few radical lefties from Europe in order to balance things up a bit! They might start by introducing a national health service, free at the point of use. Yes, this would mean higher taxes, but you would no longer need to pay for private health insurance. A story to illustrate my point: because my muscles get very tense at work, I go for a physiotherapy session every week. My masseuse (a blond stunner in her early twenties, but that's irrelevant) spends 45 minutes giving me a professional massage (and no, she doesn't do "extras") which leaves me totally refreshed and relaxed. This wonderful service is provided absolutely free of charge because I am resident in the UK. The British National Health Service was created by left-wing legislators in the teeth of fierce opposition from the right. However, it is so popular now that no right-wing politician would dare to suggest anything other than to continue to increase funding for it.