BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Holocaust Gas Chambers were not used for execution

FIRSTLY welcome to this debate. Historical revisionism on DDo has been very limited; to very very minor debates. Conservative101 and I have been discussing this theory for a very long time, and have decided to do a debate about it. If Conservative101 wants to amend the motion, then he should send me a pm. Nevertheless, what am I representing in this debate?Common Questions I felt like I needed answering first:1. Are you Anti-Semitic?No. Quite simply, no, I am not a racist.2. Are you a Neo-Nazi?Hell no! Neo-Nazism is horrible3. Do you deny that 6,000,000 died in the Holocaust?I do not ought to even estimate how many people died in it. Atrocities were committed, and many people did die, but I am here to argue about the infamous gas chambers only. 4. Do you deny the Holocaust?It happened. To what extent is the question that I attempt to present to this website now.Secondly, this debate may incite many people. I would like to apologize if this debate angers anyone. However, I feel like the truth, or at least my version of the truth, must be uncovered to the world. Lastly, to the people who know that I am a Historical Revisionist. To those people, I have made my points very vague. Now I would like to present my points and clear up any misconceptions that anyone may have.Format of the Debate: Four Rounds. Rnd. 1: Acceptance and opening statements (not arguments)Rnd. 2: Arguments (no rebuttals)Rnd. 3: RebuttalsRnd. 4: Counter RebuttalsGood luck to my opponent and have fun. I hope this stirs up some discussion on the issue of historical revisionism on this website. If you have any questions/concerns, please comment or send me PMs. SincerelyKc1999
Pregnancy Begins at Conception - not Implantation. ACOG is wrong.

I accept. I'd like to note that here I am defending the validity of ACOG'S statement. ACOG does believe that pregnancy begins at conception, however, the issue at hand is when that occurs. It is not my position that fertilization cannot be considered the start of pregnancy, as that is not ACOG'S claim. I will attempt to prove that implantation can and should be considered when pregnancy starts. ACOG's description communicates the process of conception clearly and accurately. If my opponent has an issue with this, I apologize and I am willing to negotiate what is and is not required for this burden (any supposed assumptions I have made here are based on a conversation in the comment section, along with an analysis of ACOG'S statement that will be partially included within my arguments). I would also like to suggest that Merriam-Webster's definition of conception be seen as acceptable: 1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both I look forward to debating you, Pro.
Pregnancy Begins at Conception - not Implantation. ACOG is wrong.

** For the purpose of screening candidates, this deabate should be near impossible for you to accept. However, if you are interested in accepting the role of defending ACOG's position in this debate, please make yourself known in the comments section. **The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has issued the following statement in response to recent 'personhood' measures by some States in the U.S. http://www.acog.org..."ACOG firmly believes that science must be at the core of public health policies and medical decision-making that affect the health and life of women."On the above, we agree. However, ACOG continues with; "Although the individual wording in these proposed measures varies from state to state, they all attempt to give full legal rights to a fertilized egg by defining "personhood" from the moment of fertilization, before conception (ie, pregnancy/ implantation) has occurred."For the record, This debate is NOT about personhood or when personhood begins. This debate is oriented around ACOG's claim in that statement - that pregnancy doesn't begin until 'implantation'. Debate Structure 1. Five Rounds. Round 1 is for acceptance and opening commentsb.Round 2-4: Arguments and rebuttalsc. Round 5: Final rebuttals and clarifications only. No new arguments.2. 9,000 Character Limit 3. Burden of proof (BOP) is SHARED. Pro's BOP is to prove that pregnancy begins at CONCEPTION (prior to implantation) and Con's BOP is to prove that pregnancy does not begin until IMPLANTATION.4. This debate is in the Science category. Scientific arguments and facts are required. Pro will argue against ACOG's position that says pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation. Pro will be arguing that pregnancy begins BEFORE implantation. Con is expected to defend ACOG's statement (quoted above) and also the claim that 'pregnancy begins at implantation.' Con will be arguing that pregnancy does not begin until implantation or until sometime after implantation. Definitions:Implantation: The process of attachment of the embryo to the maternal uterine wall.All other definitions, terms and conclusions are open for Pro & Con to submit and then to debate according to the rules above.
The color of blue is overused.

I feel my last round sufficiently demonstrated my point that blue receives more attention than the other, equally beautiful colors, and there is no way to prove that it DESERVES that extra attention. Blue is the most common choice of 'favorite color' (as shown by the links I provided in round 2). Blue is heavily used in advertising and marketing - moreso than other colors. I believe my reasons behind 'giving other colors a chance' are valid ones.
The color of blue is overused.

>>"You have said numerous times that "the color of blue is dead", meaning that it is overused in art, advertising, websites, etc... My contention is that it is a beautful color, other colors get their fair share of exposure, and that there are important reasons why blue gets the attention that it does." I disagree, I don't dislike blue just because I dislike blue. I never had a problem with blue until about a year ago when I realized the extent of the special attention it receives over other colors. As for the colors in your surroundings, I'll just say it's a good thing you recently moved your computer from your old office room into your newly finished basement. Because weren't the walls of your old office painted blue? Ah yes, maybe my expression of opinion in the matter subconsciously affected your decision of color for your newly finished basement. And I stand by my statement that blue receives more attention than other colors. I did a Google search for 'favorite color poll'. The top four results linked to online public polls which had blue as the leader. Here are the links: - http://desktoppub.about.com... - http://www.krstarica.com... - http://webdesign.about.com... - http://www.misterpoll.com... Yes, for every company I name that uses blue as a primary color, you could name one that doesn't. That is simply because there are millions of businesses out there and even more websites - it would take forever to make it to the end results. However, if we WERE to play that game long enough, I believe that blue would absolutely come out as the victor by an overwhelming margin. You say that I ignore other colors because of my distain for blue, and then your very next statement confirms that I mentioned many other colors in my list. Contradictory, obviously I'm not ignoring them. The reason I pointed out other colors was so the average reader who knows that Yahoo's logo, for example, is red, would receive clarification that I was speaking of the color scheme of the website. And yes, Best Buy's logo is partially yellow, but the majority of their scheme is blue - you can see this by going to the website or even any of their retail locations. Never did I say that other colors don't exist, or that every company uses blue, or that everything I've ever owned or been a fan of is blue. But blue IS more heavily used than other colors. For whatever reason, blue IS favorited by more people than other colors. I don't hate blue. I agree that blue is a beautifully color, and I never said it wasn't. I'll reiterate from my first post, I have simply decided to give other colors a fighting chance. Right now, it's like blue is standing in the spotlight and only the outermost edges of the light's beam touches the other colors. Either share the spotlight, or get a spotlight that can illuminate the entire stage.
The color of blue is overused.

I will point out that you SEE blue more based on your dislike of it, NOT because it is overused. I look around, my mousepad is red. My speakers and monitor are black. My computer is silver. My network cable is red. In fact, I don't see a single blue item in this room (basement, you've been there). If I drive down my road, I see a nice balance. Jimmy John's, McDonalds, Burger King, Village Inn - not blue. In no way do I see blue hogging the show, and my neighborhood is consistent with what you will see across the country. The sky is blue only roughly half of the 24-hour day, it shares its time generously with black the other half of the time. In the day, there are other colorful objects that share the sky, namely, the yellow-orange-red sun, and the white clouds. Further, if you take a minute or two in the morning or evening, the sky also can be brilliant colors of red and orange. Also remember that the sky is only half of the visible landscape. The land itself is heavily green in summer, yellow to orange in the fall, and white to brown in the winter. These colors don't share with blue on the ground, unless you want to consider water, which last time I checked you live in the midwest so this can't possible factor into your bias that much. Blue is left out of the show in nature for the most part - when was the last time you saw a blue dog, a blue tree, or blue dirt? As for marketing, I can assure you that for each item you mentioned, there is a competitor with a different color scheme. For example, check out Honda and Toyota's sites - red. Lexus, black. Infiniti, silver, black, orange. Wal-mart has blue, but Target has red. What about Coca-Cola? Also, note that you distain for blue is causing you to ignore other colors around it - you even mention other colors in several examples. What about the yellow in Best Buy? Blue shares the pepsi logo equally with red, as well as white. Last time I checked, you were a Chicago Bulls and a Nebraska Cornhusker fan. You may work at U.S. Cellular but you own a Sprint phone. None of these are blue based. You are a republican (red), not democrat (blue). Your first and second cars were red, EVEN though you didn't choose them. Neither your high school team or college teams were blue. Your wife's car is red. I contend that you didn't choose any of these things because of color - they have just occurred to be colors other than blue because I am right - blue shares the spotlight fairly with other colors of the spectrum.
The color of blue is overused.

Haha, this is a good one. Should be fun. So here we go. For a quick correction, I often say, "Blue is dead TO ME." As everyone has their own favorite color, I realize color preference is a matter of opinion. I have simply to give other colors a fighting chance. I don't disagree that blue is a beautiful color, only that it is heavily overused, especially considering that colors such as orange, green, yellow, red, and purple are also beautiful. To argue the overusage of blue, I will break this down into categories: I. From where I am sitting, at my workplace, the I see the following items: -Blue mousepad -Blue computer speakers -Blue stereo/CD player -Blue banners on the walls to indicate shelf sections -Blue bank bag -Blue highlighters -Blue trash can -Blue flyers -Blue network cables The banners and flyers are the only ones that are blue simply because our company uses blue as a marketing color, the rest of them are blue, well, just because... II. Products/marketing: -To segue, I am also using a Windows computer. Yes, Microsoft Windows allows for color customization (which, in my quest to give other colors more attention, I now use fully), but the default color scheme is heavily blue! Blue task bar, blue scroll bars, blue window headers. Internet Explorer's 'e' icon is.....drumroll please.....BLUE!!! -The following is a list of companies/websites that use blue as a key color in their product/marketing scheme: >Wal-Mart >Google (their logo is multi-colored, but for best example go to gmail.com) >MSN.com/Hotmail >U.S. Cellular >Alltel >AT&T (wireless.att.com) >Facebook.com >Intel.com >istockphoto.com >photobucket.com >Sears >Best Buy >Old Navy >Culver's >Long John Silver's >Blue Cross Blue Shield >GAP >American Family Insurance >Farmers Insurance >Yahoo.com (red logo, but website is heavily blue) >Pepsi >Blockbuster >Ford (ford.com) >Chevrolet (chevrolet.com) >Mazda (mazda.com) I could go a lot further, and I will if necessary. But that will do for now. III. Nature: -And this isn't even overuse by people! The ocean appears blue, the sky is blue. You can hardly escape it! ----------------------- Feel free to argue why blue deserves the attention it gets, but my challenge is to argue why it is more deserving than the rest of the color spectrum.
The Law of Parsimony Supports the Existence of Intelligent Extraterrestrials

I assert that the Law of Parsimony supports the existence of extraterrestrial life. (For those who are unfamiliar with the term, parsimony, scientifically speaking, is the preference for the least complex explanation for an observation. Also the most probable.) Here's why: - Crop Circles. It is highly unlikely that pranksters are behind every crop circle. It would actually be nearly impossible for even one of them (the elaborate ones) to be a prank. Many crop circles are so incredibly complex, geometrical, cryptic, and precise, that it would require a genius with a lot of time on his hands, an aerial view assistance, and special equipment to accomplish something like that. And even at that, still unlikely. Some crop circles are so unearthly and mathematically advanced, that an extraterrestrial with advanced intelligence and a message would have to be the only logical explanation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.aliencrossing.com... http://www.enlightenedbeings.com... - The Drake Equation. This equation was devised to calculate an estimation of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy. It is based off of a ratio of the amount of potential life supporting planets per star that has planets, among other factors. Basically it predicts that it is probable that intelligent life exists on other planets in our galaxy based on math and logic. It would be unparsimonious to suggest that the earth is the only planet in the infinite universe that bears life. http://en.wikipedia.org... - As you can see, it would be unwise to suggest intelligent extraterrestrials do not exist. We can only see about 5-10% of the electromagnetic spectrum. We are essentially blind. Also, up to 95% of the Universe is made up of dark matter. Surely we cannot claim that they do not exist. Resolution affirmed. Extraterrestrials must exist based on the Law of Parsimony. .
The Law of Parsimony Supports the Existence of Intelligent Extraterrestrials

- Crop Circles - Video footage of a UFO making a crop circle with a scientist proving it. Video proof of authentic crop circles. - Alien Communication - Video message by a Pleiadian. Fits the exact description of the Plejaren (Pleiadian) race. - Drake Equation - Can stand on its own. It's a parsimonious concept. Intelligent extraterrestrials are extremely likely to exist. - Parsimony - If you are against parsimony, you are against science. This is a scientific concept used to guide science in the right direction. My argument was that this scientific concept was in favor of the existence of extraterrestrials. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... "If anyone has a problem with the existence of life beyond this planet, by the way, consider this. Even according to conventional, and desperately limited "science," it takes a hundred years for light to travel from one side of this one Milky Way galaxy to another, and this at a speed of 186,000 miles a second! There are estimated to be at least a million galaxies in the universe, a billion planets, and a billion trillion stars. There are a hundred million planets in the visible universe with conditions very much like those on Earth, according to Dr. Melvin Calvin of the Department of Chemistry at the University of California at Berkeley. And that is only in this one density or frequency range of existence. Imagine the scale of what must exist in all the other frequency ranges beyond our physical senses. So given all this, do we really believe that life as we know it has only evolved on this one little planet in this one little solar system in one galaxy?" -- David Icke In conclusion, the law of parsimony does indeed support the existence of extraterrestrials. I proved that the parsimonious explanation for the complex, anomalous crop circles is extraterrestrials. I also demonstrated that the Drake Equation is a parsimonious concept that supports the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials. Even my opponent agreed with my second assertion. "I'm inclined to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but that's based upon probabilities applied to a hundred billion stars in each of a hundred billion galaxies." (I'd like to clarify for those who believe that the only likely extraterrestrial existence is simple life forms, remember, modern science says that complex life emerges from simpler life forms. Therefore, intelligent extraterrestrial life is highly probable.) Resolution affirmed. .
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life – cars – and I thank Anikiforouk very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn: 1 – My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel – which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel. http://www.eagleaid.com... True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances. http://www.audi.co.uk... http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk... http://www.hybridcars.com... Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years. 2 – Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries. 3 – 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is "nothing special" about that year that my opponent "ought to win" this debate by default! Thank you.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I would be honored to have a debate of, the reason for this challenge is me seeing you debate this same debate which was quite amusing. I stand to negate the following: "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels." 1. To start of, the fact that we are changing to alternative fuels is bad and means no improvement of the status quo : pollution and oil shortage; What happens is that when you introduce these new vehicles with their alt. fuels, is that these are still fuels. To get them will cost more CO2 and they themselves won't solve much. What we need is alternative energy run cars: solar energy, not onother CO2 producer. 2. The resolution calls for "alternative fuels", thsi i presume to be all types of fuels other than oil. Nuclear energy is a type of alt. fuel and it in itself is the worst idea of the century, imagine cars runing on nuclear fuel. My oponent has to defend all types of alternative fuels which is in itself a suicide. 3. The resolution asks for 2040, as long as I prove it could be 2041 or 2039 etc. I ought to win. There is nothing special about 2040 and this fact alone negates the affirmitive resolution Thanks and good luck. Ps if you don't by any chane believe in any of my claims, just ask for the source in the comments, i really don't have my files on me, thanks.
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy

Contention 1: Inadequate Increases Causes PovertyLet's take a look at this estimate picture once more from Pro's source. It's states that the Likely range is a loss of 1 million workers. If we define likely we can see that likely means having a high probability of occurring or being true : very probable. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) With that meaning that there is a high probability of it occurring we can see that this is and can be the accepted value in this debate. Let's do some more math. In last round's math equation I forgot to add in the jobs lost by teens. So if the math is correct and even if we only use Pro's number of 500,000 jobs lost by adults we can see that 600,000+500,000-900,000=200,000 people still in poverty and that's only using Pro's number and if we use the number found in the paragraph above this one one can see that the number would be inflated to 700,000 in poverty and left without a job. (. http://www.forbes.com...) Contention 2: InflationPro begins and states that I am correct, but then turns around to say that I am incorrect, because inflation is unavoidable. However, if inflation is unavoidable then why do we not try to avoid it by not causing it to happen by raising the minimum wage which I have proved in several examples in Round 2 and 3, like Milwaukee and all across the US. Pro does not bring up examples here so I extend my points across the board. (. http://articles.chicagotribune.com...) and (. http://newsbusters.org...)In conclusion, one can see that raising the minimum wage will be devistating to the US economy as more people will lose jobs then will actually be moved out of poverty and prices as well as inflation will sky rocket as proven last time.