BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zionism is racist

I negate: Zionism is racist. Observations: Zionism is a movement & a movement cannot be racist because it is not a person. Definitions: Oxford Dictionary 2008 Zionism-a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann. Racist-the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Argument: 1. Protecting one's own race against another is racist, it's defense. 2. If Israel was based upon Zionism and if the movement is racist and Israel was God's chosen people wouldn't this contradict Jesus' principle of equality for all? Basically: Israel based on Zionism and God's chosen people. My opponent suggests Zionism is racist, then if Israel is racist and considered God's chosen people wouldn't this contradict God's equality for all mankind, after all God wanted everyone to be free. Bottom line: Zionism isn't racism because God founded Israel and Israel is based on Zionism and God despises racism and created everyone to be equal. Refutation on Pro: Definitions: No source thus invalid. Thus we will use mine. It is also one sided rather than universal. Argument: I took out one half ("when combined with the above definitions prove that Zionism is racist") thus Zionism isn't racist. And cross apply what he said about refusal to allow Palestinian people in to my Argument 1. Question: Is protection racist? In conclusion Zionism isn't racist.
Zionism is racist

It is my position that Zionism is a racist ideology. Definitions Zionism: The international movement that supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland/state in the land loosely defined as 'Palestine' and which continues to support the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Racist: Shall be defined as discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of membership or lack thereof in a racial, ethnic or religious group. The Argument The settlement of Jews upon what was Arab land, the definition of Israel as a state for Jews, the refusal to allow Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return and the immigration policies of the Israeli state are all derived from the ideology of Zionism and when combined with the above definitions prove that Zionism is racist.
Zionism is racist

Thank you for taking on the debate. Firstly I would like to refute your observation. The term racist is frequently applied to organisations, movements, political parties, speech and text. None of these things are people. The important distinction is that they are composed of or derived from people. The observation is therefore demonstrably false. Secondly I have no problem with your stated definition, insomuch as it is consistent with mine, and is indeed the source from which is derived. Now to address your argument. 1: I have not claimed that defending your race against another race is racist so this point not relevant to the debate. 2: I do believe this to be a logical or valid argument for the following reasons. -Jesus is not generally regarded as a prophet or a source of legal, moral or spiritual guidance. Any mention of him is irrelevant. -Though Jesus may have called for equality, my opponent has failed to make a case that Judaism does. So the argument is invalid. -It presupposes that Zionism and/or Israel is founded upon religious principles and that these religious principles are followed accurately to my opponents personal interpretation. -It denies the existence of secular Zionists and secular Zionism. -It denies the fact that ultra orthodox Jews reject Zionism and regard Israel as a secular state or even a violation of Judaism. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... The refutation of my definition is invalid. My opponent presupposes rules that do not exist, and by taking up the debate challenge they accepted the terms of the debate as stated. I do not believe that my opponent has managed to establish a counter-argument.
Christian rap is un-Biblical

Con did not respond to my assertion that the tonal qualities of music are neither emotionally nor theologically neutral. Again, if the Con's reasoning were correct, I could take music from an adult film, couple it with the sound of walruses fighting, along with random trombone notes, pitch-shift my voice to sound like the devil, and so long as I'm saying, "Jesus is quite a fellow!", the music is somehow theologically sound. Of course, adult film music, fighting walruses, random trombone notes and a devil voice ALL carry the sonic connotations of blasphemy to the normal way a human perceives sound, but . . . I lost track of where I was going with this. Vote Pro! Con admits that rap has a ruined image. If its image is ruined by evil, then it must be avoided, for image = appearance and ruin = evil, in this context. This shows conclusively that it must be avoided. Vote Pro! Thank you, Mr. Macrel, for entering this debate.
Christian rap is un-Biblical

The Con seems to imply that the actual sound of music is theologically neutral. On this basis, I could get one of those demon-voice changers, get a tape-loop of pigs being putchered, couple it with TV static, belches, coughs and sneezes, and random banging around on pots and pans, and so long I was saying "Jesus lives" or something, it wouldn't sound "evil". That's clearly nonsense. Music has certain emotional connotations. If this were untrue, horror music would need lyrics, otherwise people wouldn't know it was there to inspire fear. The Con can't argue this point, and he won't, because he know he'll lose. Rap is a genre with predominantly evil lyrics. Changing the lyrics to speaking about Jesus doesn't change this fact. If it gives off the "appearance" of evil, Christians shouldn't do it. Tell me, should a Christian make a video-game where you're shooting people and blood spurts out of them all over the screen, so long as you're shooting them because they called Jesus a nancey-boy? Murder appears evil, but if its done in a Christian video-game, does that work? Or how about fornication, stealing, lying, etc. Just because you're doing it for Jesus doesn't prove anything. You might think you're doing it for the glory of God, but that doesn't mean you are. Also, rap is clearly worldly. Paul says, "be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2) The proof is in the pudding, too. Everyone knows Lecrae, the most successful Christian rapper in history, is watering down his message now. Read this article, for example: http://www.onenewsnow.com... That's what happens, ultimately, to everyone who doesn't make war against the flesh and the world. If Jesus said pluck your EYE out lest it cause you to go to hell, how much quicker are you going to toss your rap career aside?
Christian rap is un-Biblical

Music is an art. Rap is a type of music. Therfore rap is an art and since it is an art there are different versions or interpretations. One of these is christian rap. Christian rap is pure because it isn't full of those "evil" themes. But pro asks: origin? My awnser: there was probobly an atheist that listened to rap but then god toutches his heart and then he is christian. But what about the rap? He makes christian rap. Some art is disturbing but this is pure. Therefore it can be altered for good making it non-"evil"
Christian rap is un-Biblical

Christian rap is un-Biblical, and contrary to the ideals of the New Testament. I am Pro this position. Why, you dare ask? Before the first Christian rapper rapped his first rap, there were other, non-Christian rappers and they rapped about things that no obedient Christian would spend time listening to. The content of their rap was predominantly evil. Why, then, would an obedient Christian even come up with the idea of Christian rap? He or she shouldn't have been listening to it in the first place. The Bible says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:22) Since rap normally has evil connotations in society such as marijuana abuse, gangsterism, promiscuity, pride and boastfulness, no Christian should either listen to rap, nor should Christian emulate rap stylings. Even for evangelistic purposes, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Also, instrumental music is not theologically neutral. Anyone who watches as many horror movies as I do knows that they play certain types of music at particularly frightening or tense moments, and rap music is designed to stimulate the flesh with its deep bass lines, 808 kick drums, and repetitive rhythms. Rather, godly music must not stimulate the flesh. Gospel music and hymns are examples of truly godly music. Rap is not. The Con must prove that Christian rap is Biblically sound, from the Bible itself. Please do not appeal to the consensus of the Church Fathers, Church tradition or personal preference. Bible only. You may use the Deutero-Canonicals but I'd recommend using Biblical Books all Christian agre upon. Thank you.
overall, more capitalism, more focus on free market, will only make the USA worse economically

con argues taxing the rich more doesn't help the lower class. it does, because they dont have to pay the taxes to support the programs being run. and, some of the programs directly benefit them such as food stamps etc. con argues taxing the rich more will just cause them to jack up prices. however, due to competition, they will more likely just have to bite the bullet and not make as much profit. the businesses are all taxed the same, so it's not like they have any option to get into a better situation and in turn cause less competition and an abitlity for some of the rich to raise prices. con argues the government spends money inefficiently. i dont disagree. perhaps we shouldnt spend so much through tax and spend. but the main point is that our system is unequal, and things could be spread out more fairly one way or hte other. the only reason i'm even entertaining con's points about taxes is because he brought them up, to be sure there's plenty of other points to be made about how we shouldnt focus more on capitalism. does con content himself that if we focus more on capitalism that the rich would just get richer? and woujldnt it be better if there was more money in the hands of people lower on the economic scale? that would cause stimulus to the economy. if the rich get richer, it will detract money from those who would be most useful with it. we are driven by a demand economy, not supply. the rich have plenty of money, if there's need for an innovation or somehow to make a buck, there's plenty of people and money to do it. it's not like they need a hand. remember, im not arguing that we shouldnt have any capitalism, just that we shouldnt focus too much more on it than we already are. it's a good system at keeping prices attainable for people. and, we probably have some of the best innovations and productivity in the country.
overall, more capitalism, more focus on free market, will only make the USA worse economically

To begin, I hope for a good debate here as this is a great topic and with that I shall begin: First the definition of Capitalism: Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.(http://www.merriam-webster.com...) If we summarize that is is basically the idea that people who are companies should do business, not the government. The idea of blaming capitalism for the bad economy is not a very good one, quite blatantly. We have our government to blame more than we do the richer. Let me expound on this: Capitalism allows everyone to do business as they please, allows the growth of companies, and the continuation of a free market. Now if we look at the governments place in this, they are to prevent total monopolization, keep from inflation, and basically allow everyone to go about spending money and buying goods. Now let us look at today. We have monopolies in local industries such as water, electricity, and gas lines. Gas(for cars) has skyrocketed because of an increase in inflation. The government, in its infinite wisdom(pardon my sarcasm), has decided to do something that we commonly know as Robin Hood. Obama has issued a tax, and this particular tax will make the rich pay more taxes because they are rich. Now you use the money to do as you said; fix roads, repair bridges, make sure the police force is paid, and so on. The problem, though, is two things here. 1. Taxing the rich does not actually do ANY good for the poor or middle class. The people who are ridiculously rich are the ones in charge of the businesses and so when they have to pay more they simply pay workers less and raise prices. Taxing the rich then turns into people not spending as much money and people start getting laid off and we begin to digress again. 2. While giving the government more money may seem good if you are looking out at busted up roads let me give you a peek on how the money is really used. For starters, it pays for the salaries of politicians, emergency workers, social workers, DMV workers, and other government funded programs. Now the politicians decide on the executive decision to make a bathroom. Now this bathroom is one in a national park and is more like an outhouse than anything. It has wooden walls with paint, a brick type roof, no sink, and a toilet seat that goes down into a big hole in the ground with chemicals to stop the smell. Now, at max, this bathroom may cost, what, 1,000$ to 2,000$? How many American tax dollars were used in its creation? About 1.5 million dollars. Where did the rest go you ask? Not to roads or bridges but to the corrupt politician who issued its construction. The idea of blaming capitalism is false. The government is the one to blame, not the economy itself. Over to you Pro!
overall, more capitalism, more focus on free market, will only make the USA worse economically

my opening argument will be mostly borrowed from a recent article: US Set to Become the Newest Third World Country http://iacknowledge.net... "The United States, the home of Capitalism, is about to demonstrate its ultimate failure, as the cannibalistic economic system consumes the nation"s economy from within. The US economy is rigged toward the 1% of wealthiest citizens and corporations, this radically skews outcomes to the detriment of the economy as a whole. As CJ Werlhman writes over at Alternet: "America has the most billionaires in the world, but not a single U.S. city ranks among the world"s most livable cities. Not a single U.S. airport is among the top 100 airports in the world. Our bridges, roads and rails are falling apart, and our middle class is being gutted out thanks to three decades of stagnant wages, while the top 1 percent enjoys 95 percent of all economic gains." US income inequality is at its greatest for nearly a century and is rising, as the income gap between the bottom 90% and top 1% of Americans reaches its largest since 1928. When compared globally, the US is the second most economically unequal society (behind Chile). But what does economic inequality mean for average Americans?" if we let things go as they will, the rich will only get richer. instead of the 1% owning say 30% of everything, it will become more and more of everything,. that will stifle economic stimulus, cause wealth will be immobilized in the hands of fewer than would be ideal.
Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

Both methods of obtaining knowledge are imperfect and if you are scrupulous in your reasoning neither can prove anything. Falsification can prove something is not true but it can never tell you what is true without the use of induction. If we have to chose a method of gaining knowledge then induction must be the starting place because it provides positive knowledge. My problem of probability remains unrefuted regardless of how many times the aff says I don't know what I am talking about. Let me clarify on the point of single occurrence induction. It seems as if you are only using the one instance to make predictions, but all of the laws and known patterns of the universe should be counted as other instances from which you are inducing a future result. say there is a universe of patterns where XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO is the pattern. inductively you will guess that the next letter is an X. Through falsification you can make a theory of patterns and then look at each XO set and say it is not proven wrong. You then say that it is unlikely that this pattern is wrong based on some unfounded belief. You then conclude that the next letter is X. Both can solve this pattern, both could be wrong induction states its assumption that it is usually right but not always. Falsification seems to hide its error, its assumption, in its calculus on the likeliness of a theory being right. If my opponent concedes that Falsification cannot provide a way of knowing how likely its predictions will be right. Then there is no way to actually gain knowledge through falsification. I stated very clearly that I don't think there is anyway to find truth. There are two methods proposed to do science by. One has the stated assumption that things will be like they have been. The other has the unstated assumption that theories that make predictions and aren't proven wrong are probably right. Induction is more efficient because it points you in the direction of where to predict. Through falsification you must intuitively know what to make a theory about. I would question where you get this knowledge from. like I have the whole debate. A quick reminder: the resolution was not what theory of knowledge is true but rather how does science function. And at the most basic human level all knowledge starts based on induction, and from there we can build. Therefore science functions through induction because every theory assumes the inductive knowledge. All other points I would make would be going in circles and saying what I have already, so I won't do the whole line by line. My refutation of your refutations are that if they are read next to my arguments my arguments are better.
Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

Everything even falsification is based on fallacy's. The law of non contradiction cannot be proven without assuming it. That is why I don't believe in truth and just look for what works. Why believe what has worked in the past will work in the future? Because that is how we as humans are bread to think. Maybe some day the present will cease being like the past, but we complex life forms won't have to worry about it. So I propose that you drink the Kool-Aid and accept induction like the rest of us.
Scientific induction is not the way science functions.

I am arguing that scientific induction is simply not valid. It cannot provide a logical grounding for beliefs in laws/theories/hypothesises and that induction itself is logically impossible to reconcile with science. Firstly I will be talking about induction and then an alternative theory as proposed by Karl Popper called falsification. For a very quick summary of induction in science, I will give a quick example. Say we observe an apple growing on a tree. We observe millions of apples growing on trees, we collect this information into a inductive format. So we say that all apples therefore grow on trees. It is more or less an accumulative observational process to then come up with a theory. As noted in more scientific books Observation. Hypothesis. More observation of the first kind. Theory from the observations.
Rev's Music Tourney

I am choosing, "Lead Me to the Cross" because at the moment of my life I feel like I have somewhat drifted from my faith and my prayers is that I am lead to God always even in my weakest point in life; just because outwardly I may seem alright and getting through life doesn't mean I really am either of these. So this is why I chose to sing this song and sorry if it is not my best, but at the moment is was my best and its from my heart. Here are the lyrics: Lead Me to the Cross:Savior I come I quiet my soul rememberRedemption's hillwhere your blood was spilledfor my ransom everything I once held dear I count it all as lostChorus. Lead me to the Cross Where your love poured outbring me to my kneesLord I lay me downrid me of myself I belong to you Lead me, lead me to the crossYou were as Itempted and trialedhumanthe Word became fleshbore my sin and death now your risen everything I once held dear I count it all as lost Chorus. To your heartto your heart lead me to the crosslead me to the crossChorus. http://www.smule.com...;
Rev's Music Tourney

This is the music debate for Rev's Music Tourney.==Rules (taken from PM)== Contestant Guidelines:1. Any type of instrument/vocals are permitted; however, you may not edit your videos to add additional elements that you did not legitimately perform. Audio and visual enhancement are, of course, allowed, but crossovers, mashups, autotune, etc. are prohibited.2. You may not ask judges to vote for you.3. There are no specific length requirements for your songs. Be mindful of the duration, however.4. If your songs include lyrics, make certain that there is no excessively inappropriate material (e.g. cursing: a couple of words are acceptable, but rants riddled with such are not allowed).5. Other than this, there is really no restriction in what you select to play.6. Do not complain about the votes the judges give you. 7. You (yes you) must be the only one performing the song.8. Failure to uphold any of these rules may result in a deduction of points or disqualification, depending on the severity.Judge Guidelines:1. You are required to vote on at least two out of the four matchups in each round. Failure to do so may get you replaced as a judge.2. The voting criteria is as follows: The voting criteria is as follows. Arguments: General performance. Sources: Difficulty of the song. S&G: Expression. Conduct: Interpretation. If you do not know what musical expression and interpretation is, then please don"t act as if you know what you"re talking about in your RFD and just leave it blank. You are welcome to ask questions in your group PM if you wish, however.3. If you feel as if your vote may be biased, please notify me prior to the voting period of the debate which you feel as you will be biased on.4. Please do not make any biased votes.5. Failure to uphold the above rules could result in your immediate replacement as a judge, depending on the severity. I look forward to a very musical and melodious debate!