BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
-Nazi Victory-

Pro has asked his claim not be directly refuted, thus my argument is standalone against a globalized Third Reich.One race does not prevent racial genocideIn Rwanda blacks committed genocide against blacks, in the name of race [1]. The groups in question were often cousins of each other, with only difference being if they identified their ancestors as hunters or farmers (it was only within the last century that the names ceased to be interchangeable if you switched profession).Nazis kept killing more groupsIn the few short years of the holocaust, the death toll is estimated between 11-13 million assorted people, around half being Jewish. Yet more and more groups kept being added, the further Hitler's new religion spread [2].A religion based on slavery and killing people, would have a hard time ceasing to kill people. There would always be another reason, perhaps getting as desperate for spilling blood as 'Your grandfather did not have the right eye color.'"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communists.Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." -Martin Niemöller [3] War fails to bring lasting peaceAlexander The Great conquered the known world. This did not reign in a lasting peace, instead the chaos of war resumed promptly with his passing. There are many other examples of massive areas being conquered, and within those areas peace did not reign for long. The Third Reich would fare little different.Considering the limited manpower in Germany, their allies would be key to victory. With several ethnic groups and languages among them, new cultural splintering would be assured. Even the United States went it war against itself, with as petty a thing as cotton being the catalyst [4].The Web of LifeGenetic diversity is important for every species. Not even getting into the inbreeding problems, the future is uncertain, and diversity is our best way to survive unexpected changes. Do we really want a single virus to be capable of wiping us out? [5]Neo NazisWe cannot fully envision the world under debate, but we can get modern glimpses of it through the Neo Nazi movement (mirrored by Black Panthers and others). Its contributions to society (Sea Monkeys), do not even equal the property damage after they have gatherings and trash cities (including targeting White owned businesses, everyones cars, etcetera).Sources:[1] http://history.emory.edu... [2] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...[3] http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de... [4] https://www.asme.org...[5] http://www.nps.gov...
-Nazi Victory-

Let’s Begin... I’m sure we all have an idea/concept somewhat of the degree of impact that Nazi Germany had upon Human history. I find myself most likely to agree with the mass majority of you about the atrocities committed by this regime; I feel your sympathies, but I trust in the Human endeavour. Conflict is merely the progression of change against the smouldering ash of ignorance, either side can claim civility; as we know history is written by it’s victors, and acceptance comes like an eventuality over time- because time heals all wounds. War - “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare,as by land, sea, or air.” http://dictionary.reference.com... Like the polar side of love, war is indifference. Disagreement at it’s finest, a human specialty. It has plagued us since our well respected beginnings, always present. Nothing, not even time could satisfy the fire of conflict between our fellow man; because the fuel was always present, indifference. This benights the un-unified nations, who seek no common ground with foreign cultures. Leading to forced unification, and elimination of the culture or the source of said indifference. My theory is what if Nazi Germany had it’s way? Eliminated every other race from the face of the Earth, destroyed all culture besides German; conquered all land, and people. Providing a single nation to dictate the will of the masses, the benefits would be extraordinary. Try not to refute my argument because it doesn’t offer a perfect solution, disagreements will always be present. But the solution for wide scale war was apparent, the only solution; Unification under one dictation.
In the legal context, voting should be compulsory.

I will be arguing that voting should be compulsory in the legal context. My opponent would be arguing that voting should not be compulsory. Voting: 'the official choice that you make in an election, meeting, etc., by casting a ballot, raising your hand, speaking your choice aloud, etc.' (Merriam-Webster) Should: 'used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency' (ibid) Compulsory: 'required or compelled by law' (ibid) --- Argument 1: In a democracy, voting is usually expressed as an individual's right to choose who leads the state in which he/she is a citizen. This right should be an obligation because: - It is not only the individual who will be affected by the choice not to vote. Ultimately, the consequences of non-votes fall on society as a whole. As such, the society should be able to impose the obligation on the individual (i.e. to vote).
The DEA is ineffective and must be replaced

Thanks for the response. ==Burden of proof== I thought the word "replace" was fairly straightforward and did not need defining. Apparently I was wrong. From Webster's, "replace" means "to assume the function of; substitute for." http://www.definitions.net... The resolution clearly meant that a new agency would be created to assume the functions of the DEA. If drugs were legalized, there would be no need to create a replacement drug enforcement agency. So my opponent's attempt at semantics failed. You cannot "replace" the DEA with drug legalization since drug legalization doesn't assume the functions of the DEA. ==Is the DEA effective?== The DEA is effective at its job, which is locking up drug offenders and seizing stockpiles of drugs. The DEA arrests between 30 and 40 thousand people each year; last year, they seized 30,000 kilograms of cocaine, 722,000 kilograms of marijuana, 2,000 kilograms of meth, and 2.5 million doses of hallucinogens. http://www.justice.gov... Half of the federal prison population is incarcerated on drug charges. http://open.salon.com... So if the goal of the criminal justice system is incapacitation, meaning keeping criminals in jail so they cannot commit crimes, then the DEA does a good job because HALF of all federal inmates are locked up on drug charges, and thus cannot commit crime. ==Alcohol Prohibition== My opponent basically agrees that Prohibition fails and merely increases criminal activity. So I win. He fails to show how replacing the DEA with a new agency would solve this problem. A report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy found that the same is true of drugs. The drug war has failed to decrease drug usage and has instead fueled massive criminal syndicates in a variety of different countries. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org... The relatively conservative group recommended drug legalization to solve drug violence in places like Afghanistan, Honduras, and Mexico. Supposedly another main goal of the DEA is to decrease drug usage. They have failed. However, decriminalizing drugs and treating addiction as a public health issue does solve. Portugal decreased drug usage by 50% be decriminalizing and urging addicts to seek help. http://www.forbes.com... Negated.
The DEA is ineffective and must be replaced

burden of proof #2 the DEA should be replaced. accepted by both sides. now what you are looking to prove is that the DEA should be abolished and drugs legalized or decriminalized I have already caught you in one sense considering that an abolished of the DEA would in fact be a replacement in the sense that the implementation of the DEA would cease and a different set of rules such as none at all or decriminalization by definition decriminalization is not necessarily without penalty's therefore a new system would be in place. you couldn't agree with me more! the DEA may be good at arresting people that does not make the organization effective in it's Maine goal to lower crime by removing drug users from society or penalize them before they can commit a crime. the goal of the DEA is to better society by removing hazardous people. as a people we should learn from past mistakes/experiments one said mistake was the alcohol prohibition 1920-1933 this was an attempt the cleanse society reduce crime and corruption and also to improve general health during the depression of 21 alcohol consumption was at an all time low then it began to rise in 22. the prohibition was supposed to reduce crime and corruption instead every local cop was taking bribes from bootleggers and moon shiners all the prohibition caused was more crime. the prohibition added to the problem it tried to solve. the same thing is happening today with drug cartel's and the criminal justice system The DEA does the exact same things that were done during the prohibition and does not in fact aid society.
The DEA is ineffective and must be replaced

Thanks for the debate, Nos. == Burden of Proof == Any resolution with the conjunction "and" in it requires that the Pro side prove both the statement that precedes the "and" and the statement that follows the "and." So for the statement "The DEA is ineffective AND must be replaced" to be proven true, Pro must prove BOTH that 1) the DEA is ineffective and 2) that the DEA should be replaced. They are separate burdens. The failure to prove either of those two statements results in a loss for Pro. I will prove that 1) the DEA does a good job of arresting people and interdicting drugs, but that the failure of drug policy in stopping crime is due to other factors, like supply and demand and therefore, 2) the DEA should instead be abolished and drugs legalized or decriminalized. My opponent supposedly sets the burden for himself to prove that there is something intrinsically wrong with the DEA that a similar agency would remedy. For example, he would need to prove that the head of the DEA is lazy or corrupt and that a replacement would do better. Otherwise, replacing the DEA with another agency would result in a name-change only. Make sure that my opponent explains in-depth how a new agency solves ALL of the problems that he presents. If he can't explain how the new agency would solve a problem, then the problem is irrelevant to the debate since it doesn't prove that the "DEA must be replaced." I accept Pro's stipulation that one of the goals of the DEA is to prevent broader crime categories by interrupting the drug trade. I don't necessarily accept that interrupting the drug trade is completely ineffective - a great deal of research shows that ending the crack cocaine epidemic led to the recent two decade crime decline in the United States. However, legalizing drugs would accomplish the same goal by decoupling drugs from criminal syndicates. I now open the floor to Pro.
Mark Rothko's art is valid and genius.

I will now begin my argument. My opponent has stated that I must not single out "one or two gems" and I will not, nor was this my intention. There are many things I could argue, Rothko's fame is intrinsically a testament to his genius as a painter; maybe I could go with the monetary value of his paintings, speaking that since they are worth very large sums of money they must be valuable and genius. I will, however, take neither of these routes. My opponent has stated repeatedly that his nephew has created works "just like" Rothko's. While I highly doubt that his nephew had access to oil paints and a fine canvas, that is beside the point; my opponent has argued that because of his ability to create a similar work his nephew's talent is comparable and equivalent to Rothko's. Now many people can produce fakes, a Swiss collector Ernst Beyeler called a fake Rothko from Queens a "sublime unknown masterwork" in 2005 and hung it in his namesake museum. The reproducibility has little to nothing to do with the art's value as a whole. To say that it does is to say that just because Gustave Eiffel designed a world renowned tower his work is not genius because his nephew at a later age could do the same thing after seeing the tower. My opponent has also stated that "the works are not particularly well-suited to their purpose, presuming the purposes of art are to be adored, to make people think, to create emotions within people, etc. " This could not be farther from the truth, as his works have been honored in many forms, including a six Tony award winning play (including best play) titled "Red. " I have seen people brought to tears by his works and while my personal testimony holds little weight, the fact that hundreds of thousands of people visit and admire his works each year definitely does. To close I would like to state that the simplicity of his art and its ability to bring about such strong reactions in people is simple proof of his genius. To say that the art is not genius is to state a personal opinion. While your opinion is ignorant and unpopular it is your right to hold it. I would advise caution expressing it in the future, as a spot on your refrigerator may be worth eighty million dollars to someone else. . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.markrothko.org...
All weapons against U. S. A.

Um. Hello. I am taking this debate in the name of points so I can take more debates. I thought that perhaps the voters can enjoy a fun fact of mine. Did you know that Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is actually a grammatically correct sentence? The way this functions is that Buffalo has more that one meaning. So first is the American city, Buffalo. Having this at the start of the sentence implies that the thing after originates from Buffalo. Second is the animal buffalo. So, Currently, We have buffalo from Buffalo or Buffalo buffalo. The final meaning of buffalo is to bully. This gives us the sentence in longer terms; Buffalo from buffalo bully (buffalo) buffalo from Buffalo. So that leaves us with Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo Buffalo
All weapons against U. S. A.

All weapons against U. S. A. ! Their lordly scream moans through the world, On their trail is fire and suffering Slavery and gallows, Annihilation and misery Follow their hordes. With lies and beguilement, With assassination and blood They dishonored NATO before the whole world They robbed and plundered possessions And chased millions into the battlefield You people of the world, Weapons in hand, Smash the fascist NATO hordes! You North Korean soldiers, Free your land Avenge the spilled blood in holy rage! Beat the dogs dead that forced you into this war And the people will be happy and free! Turn your gun around, Deceived soldier! Criminals rule the NATO lands It is treason to follow the DOnald scum And dying for him is equally meaningless Come on, If you're not a foe of the working class! It's no betrayal When the people unite in will and good In favour for a free U. S. A. And put an end to the Trump's state!
Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda

so you are saying we should expose children to cigarettes and alcohol at a young age? Also, once again, children under 10 years of age will almost never be without adult supervision, so regardless whether they want soda, or want to be rebellious, they will not be able to get it. There is no social peer pressure, and they won't have money in their pockets and walk to the supermarket to get it. It would be fairly simple to keep it away from children, especially considering that most elementary schools wouldn't have it anyway. Parents have rules, and children have to follow those rules. Adding no soda to that list of rules will not have a giant negative effect. Sure, maybe they will complain a little more, but parents don't give in if their children complain about wanting to eat ice cream for breakfast, or not eat their vegetables at the dinner table.
Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda

As long as it is in moderation, I don't think adults having soda is a bad thing. Just because these children will have it when they are older, doesn't mean it is ok to have while they are young. When a child has soda, he will most likely be "bouncing off the walls' for the next couple of hours, which can essentially consider it a drug to young children. It alters there mood and state of mind, which honestly isn't even the worst part. As parents, our job is to keep our children healthy, and soda is a substance which will make that difficult. I obviously feel that a parent should love a child even if he is hyperactive or obese, but if they have the chance to stop that, they should be more then willing.
Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda

Although you are valid on your thoughts, you are not seeing the big picture. I do not believe banning soda from children will solve any problems. If a parent is (unlikely) able to keep a child from having soda, they will be exposed to it later on in life because of its prevalence in society. I believe the only way to take the problems of soda out of the picture is to take soda out of American society. Overall, I believe denying soda to a toddler does not avoid any life long problems.
Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda

I agree, however, that is the same scenario with alcohol and cigarettes. Young adults under certain ages are banned from having these substances, which make their desire for them even more. The only different, however, is that young children will not be subjected to soda from peer pressuring, such as they would with the other substances mentioned. Children that age are almost always under the supervision of a parent, so even if they desire soda, it is much easier to keep it away from them. children 10 years and younger aren't allowed to do a lot of activities, denying one more wont be an issue. And also, the other activities that are denied, (being unsupervised, driving, etc) are set as rules to keep them safe and healthy, therefore keeping soda away will in no way cause psychological problems with these children.
Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda

Considering my earlier argument, I believe that a child will be exposed to soda at one part of their life. If a parent is denying soda at home, that could create a psychological desire to have the substance more. Considering the typical hormonal changes that children undergo, I believe that denying a substance could create the urge to have that substance more especially during the rebellious times of their lives.
Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda

With all of the childhood problems in this country, (ADHD, ADD, obesity), products like soda need to be taken away from young children. Its not unlike our nation to ban some things from certain age brackets, such as cigarettes, alcohol, etc. I feel that the combination of poor nutrition, and unhealthy ingredients in soda, cause parents to run to the doctor to get a prescription for a hyperactive child. If young adults up to the age of 20 cannot drink alcohol, what is wrong with banning soft drinks and energy drinks from young children?
Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda

I believe that children should be allowed to drink soda and other sugary drinks under the age of 10. I believe that soda, iced tea and other sugary drinks are too much apart of the American society to be ignored. I believe it is impossible to deny a child a substance that is prevalent within many if not all areas of everyday life; such areas include school, amusement parks, home, movie theaters, ect. I believe soda needs to be taken out of everyday life before you can deny it to a child.
Should children under the age of 10 be allowed to drink soda

Though delicious, refreshing, and a nice treat from time to time, soda (such as coca cola, Pepsi, etc.) is not an appropriate drink for young children. I feel that soda products are one of the main causes of obesity, and more importantly, childhood obesity in America today. Also, the ingredients alone prove that it is incredibly unhealthy, and will have adverse effects on young children. For example, you wouldn't let your 8 year old have coffee in the morning, but a glass of coke is ok? SO many parents in today's day and age say that their kid is hyperactive, or has ADHD, but how can they be sure its not due to the amount of sugar and caffeine in their diet? Also, I've heard of studies in which a human tooth was put into a glass of coke for a few days, and when the study was completed, the tooth was barley recognizable. The amount of sugar and artificial flavorings added also make it unhealthy enough, even without the other ingredients. To sum up, I feel that soda causes children to be hyperactive, unhealthy, and should be banned for children under 10 years old.
the Big Bang is biblically consistent

"Wrong. To say Hebrews had no concept of 24hrs or a 7 day week is misleading. Their days consisted of evening to morning. Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." The phrase "Evening and morning" is a Semitic idiom used for an indefinite period of time. It's used to mark the end of each creation work regardless of length (1). Furthermore, in Hebrew, these are ordinal days (day 1, day 2, day 3, etc. ) not length periods of time (2). " How could one observe the Sabbath if they have no concept of a day. How would they find the 7th day?" Hebrews incorporated their calendar to mark the seasons and cycles of the Sabbath (3). The Hebrews defined day by the acts of completed events. In the verse you brought, the time periods to observe festivals was determined by the natural rhythms of the seasons (4). While yes, it does mention months, it is based on the cycles of the moon, not on concepts such as "past,present, or future." "Big Bang a fact? Prove it!!! I know you cant, its a "theory". One you have faith in! Yet this same "theory" was started to DISCREDIT Genesis. The fact is, this "theory" changes over time, God's word doesnt. That is indeed the Biggest contradiction to the Bible! How is something, that always changes consistent with something that never changes?" A term scientists call "primordial B-mode polarization" proves the big bang happened (5). The big bang theory states that the universe formed after millions of years. As we have seen, no contradiction exists between Genesis and the big bang. In fact, we know that science and God's Word cannot conflict, therefore we must look at the evidence to better understand God's Word. Sources: 1. Krista Bontrager, The Bigger Picture on Creation, pgs. 42-45 (2008)] 2. Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982:p. 61 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Henri Frankfort, H.A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen, Before Philosophy, Penguin Books, reprint, 1964: 32. 5. http://gizmodo.com...