BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democrats, vote Obama 2008!

Thank you for instigating this debate, because I've been wanting to have a debate about Mr. Obama for awhile now. But I'm a little unsure what exactly we're debating. Is it Barack vs. McCain (or Huckabee with divine intervention)? For the purposes of this debate, I will assume it is. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me. Yes, Obama's campaign does rely heavily on slogans. But these slogans have positive, energizing messages. Maybe that's what America needs right now. < > I would strongly agree with you there. Barack does have a unique ability to empower regular citizens with his rhetoric. We can undoubtedly accomplish more with a united front of impassioned citizens. Also, this proves that Barack possesses a unique skill for communication. This is a commodity needed in our president. For international relations, for federal relations, for relations between him and you. But your argument was the Barack does not speak to specifics in his speeches. Barack himself has addressed this in recent days. In fact, just yesterday he delivered a mind-numbingly boring speech about his economic plan. He aims to focus on the following topics: Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief Trade Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs Labor Protect Home Ownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud Address Predatory Credit Card Practices Reform Bankruptcy Laws Work/Family Balance If that's not enough information on economic specifics, then I would be happy to elaborate, but I think this list would silence anyone who felt that Barack is all talk and no work. You think Obama doesn't have a chance against McCain? If you can show me some evidence to that point, I would be glad to address it. But before that, I will show you some evidence of my own, proving Obama can win in November. "The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that Barack Obama (D) currently holds a seven-point advantage over John McCain (R), 46% to 39%. However, if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, McCain will begin the race with a fourteen point advantage, 49% to 35%. %. National polling, updated daily, currently shows the same general trend with Obama currently performing better than Clinton in match-ups with McCain. " Your last argument had to do with Cubans. Yeah, we all understand that Florida is an important state with a wealth of electoral votes. But it is not necessary to win an election. George W Bush didn't just win Florida to become president. He had to win numerous other states before Florida. Admittedly, Florida does have a large Cuban population. But there are other demographics living in Florida. Cubans aren't the only voters. So even if Florida does go to McCain, Barack can still emerge as the 44th president of the United States.
Democrats, vote Obama 2008!

Obama's campaign is based on slogans. I could go through a whole Obama speech just saying "change, hope, yes we can". No doubt he is a good public speaker! But what is up with not addressing the issues? Furthermore, there is the theory that he has a lesser chance of beating McCain. Yes, Obama is well-liked and some democrats would rather vote McCain than Hillary. However, after Obama gave the speech that he would be easy on Fidel Castro and end the embargo, it is highly probable that the most valuable swing-state in the election (Florida) will elect McCain, due to its high number of Cuban-immigrants from 1959.
Democrats, vote Obama 2008!

Thank you for taking this debate. <<<<<< >>>>>>> To answer your question, this debate is on who democrats should vote for, so most likely Hillary or Obama. Although I have heard of some that said if Hillary won the nomination, they would vote for McCain. For now I'll just address the points you've made. <<<<<>>>>>> I disagree. That's not what a president is for. We need a president that will do something about the several issues in America. Bush was a great public speaker when he was campaigning, but then as president he screwed up beyond the expectations of democrats. For international affairs we have other people that speak for the U.S. and not just the president. Also, why is it relevant to have "relations between him and you"? Your sentence sounded like another of his slogans, no offense. <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>> Well that list itself is all talk. You don't think he'll flip flop on some of those issues like all elected presidents do? Also, in that list, you don't mention a health care plan good for the economy. And I don't think it should be there, being that Hillary Clinton has the best plan out of both of them, covering twice the people as Obama's plan for just a few billion. <<<< >>>>> True, but if you research enough, you'll find that the Cuban lobby is by far the most powerful in the state of Florida. Without Florida, Obama would have to flip more than 1 red state into a blue state. McCain might be ahead of Hillary in the polls, but that is depending on what polls you are looking at. And also, polls are highly ineffective. Lastly, I want to mention that a slogan based campaign is bad for the country because many people will vote for who sounds better. Obama receives many votes attributed to the fact that he is a good public speaker, runs a slogan-based campaign, and is an African American, and having one as president would be a great revolution. And trust me, it is not a coincidence that Latinos, Asians and other minorities vote for Hillary, but African Americans vote for Obama. Obama admitted that he is not so consistent and constantly loses papers. And Hillary has proven to be a hard worker and a go getter. Obama is just too laid back on his slogans because with just slogans he won the hearts and minds of many voters. Thing is that after G.W.B., we need to vote with our brains to not make the same mistake. Also let's not forget Mike Gravel, who is not a bad candidate but receives less attention because he is a white male that speaks the boring realistic truth. In your argument, make sure you state why to vote Obama rather than the other 2 candidates.
Hitler attempted to refine the population in his opinion and was humane according to the dictionary.

Since my opponent has forfeit, I will briefly repeat my arguments. In Hitlers opinion he was not refining the population. He was desirous of power and needed a scapegoat to get there. As you can see-He did need somebody to pick on and blame for Germany's fall in order to get the people on his side. The Jews where already considered suspicious because of media (Anti-Semitic broadcasts), books(The Prodigals of the elders of Zion), and celebrity. Many people where jealous of the Jews because of their wealth as well. So you see, it really set the stage for the Jews to be the scapegoat for all this. Hitler knew this, and he used them in order to become powerful in his party, his country, and the world.
Hitler attempted to refine the population in his opinion and was humane according to the dictionary.

You should notice that my debate about refinement is in Hitler's opinion. That means that Hitler believed that he was "refining" the population by ordering the execution of millions of innocent people. So for me to be correct, Only one of the following would have to be true: 1) Hitler believed the Jews and all the other victims he targeted were morally imperfect (proves #2) 2) Hitler reduced the population in vigor or intensity (proves #4) 3) Hitler believed the Jews and all the other victims he targeted were coarse, vulgar, or uncouth (proves #5) -Imperfect= not perfect (proves the second definition) -Moral= of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior (proves the second definition) -Coarse= of ordinary or inferior quality or value (proves the fifth definition) -Vigor= strength, energy, or determination (proves the sixth definition) -Intensity= the quality or state of being intense; especially : extreme degree of strength, force, energy, or feeling (proves the sixth definition) I have just proved that in his own opinion, Hitler thought he was refining the population by executing everybody that was not the "master race" or anyone who was imperfect or coarse. He did so with such vigor and intensity (determination), that he was responsible for the death of over 40 million people in roughly 25 years. (1920, the establishment of the Nazi party-1945, Hitler's death) So to answer your question "So Hitler murdered 6 million Jews (over 1 million of them where innocent children)-was this refining the population?" Yes. To Hitler it was. Now the humane part. Humane formal definition= intended to have a civilizing or refining effect on people. Hitler intended to refine the world of everything that he thought was lesser of a people than the "master race". I do not need to explain what refinement is again. I have proved my arguments correct. REMINDER: I do not believe Hitler was in any way morally right, or that he actually did refine the population, but in his opinion Hitler was. SOURCES: http://www.moreorless.net.au... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Hitler attempted to refine the population in his opinion and was humane according to the dictionary.

I accept. I would first like to point out the definition of refined. "to free (as metal, sugar, or oil) from impurities or unwanted material 2 : to free from moral imperfection : elevate 3 : to improve or perfect by pruning or polishing 4 : to reduce in vigor or intensity 5 : to free from what is coarse, vulgar, or uncouth" So Hitler murdered 6 million Jews (over 1 million of them where innocent children)-was this refining the population? I would also like to point out that Adolf Hitler killed Gypsies, Christians, and Homosexuals because of their beliefs. This is not "freeing(the population) from what is coarse,vulgar etc." This was a vile genocide. The Jews (and all the other groups that where murdered) where not vulgar people, but rather peaceful assets to society. this was not refining the population. I will elaborate further in round 2. Thank you.
Hitler attempted to refine the population in his opinion and was humane according to the dictionary.

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. NO opinions. My opinion on Hitler is that he was a horrible person that committed In-describable crimes. I am stating that Hitler was humane according to the dictionary and in his own opinion was attempting to refine the world.
Licensing parents

Taking away freedom Why would you want to strip American's away from the right to reproduce if they want? Why should good parents suffer because abusive parents are treating children unfairly? Who would be making the rules to parenthood, and what if a good parent fails this test? What if a sociopath (who is good at pleasing people and fooling others acting civil and moral) when they're not? You cant judge a persons character unless they show it on the outside which is very unlikely. Then good parents who may not pass the financial or educational part (if there is one), they don't get to become parents. 3 words... No American freedom. If the government can control this, soon they'll be able to tell you how many kids you can have, or have to approve of your marriage. Lastly, what happens to the children who's parents don't pass. Do orphanages or foster homes capacity increase 10x what it is now? To many unknowns, and to many questions the government doesn't have an answer to.
Licensing parents

The question of whether governments should regulate citizens who wish to procreate, and by extension reserve the legal privilege to deem accidental procreation a crime, is obviously controversial due to the conflagration that this would be an abrogation of fundamental human rights. However, I will argue that as long as governments do not discriminate the issuance of licenses based on race, religion, sexuality, nationality, or any genetically defined characteristic, but solely on the ability and desire of parents to raise and support another human life then there would be no infringement on anyone's liberty. First, we must ask ourselves what the benefits would be of requiring individuals to acquire a license in order to rear a child? The most fundamental and immediate benefit would be that the children produced under this policy would be well cared for. This doesn't mean that child poverty would be eliminated, this doesn't mean that single mothers that choose to have their children won't have to struggle tirelessly to make ends meet, this won't mean that those that receive a parenting license will be perfect parents and never make a mistake in the upbringing of their children. However, it will mean that those couples or individuals that become pregnant truly wish to care for their children and go through whatever hardships they may encounter for them. Why does this matter? Why should people be forced to care about their children? This is not only a moral question but a fiscal one as well. Children who do not experience a loving household are more likely to feel anxious, more aggressive, and engage in erratic emotional relationships according to Psychology Today https://www.psychologytoday.com... as well as Time Magazine. http://healthland.time.com... This means, in the very least, that the children of ill equipped parents are more likely to be dependent on some type of anti-depressants or other narcotics to cope with the emotional trauma suffered as children which may be a drain on our health care system. Furthermore, if neglected or emotionally abused enough they are far more likely to commit crime or be caught up in the justice system which is also a drain on tax payer dollars. This doesn't begin to address the even bigger issue of the ethical nature of allowing unequipped individuals to undertake in the most significant act one can do as a human being, create another life. The government already regulates sexuality in a variety of ways. Why would we not go a step further and regulate the act of procreation itself, in a manner that does not discriminate against age, race, creed, religion, or sexual identity? The compound positive benefits of this policy being implemented are innumerable.
i determine where logic begins and ends

"the wind caused an apple to fall from a tree, the effect is the fall, the effect is the impact, the effect is the cause, the effect is the apple is no longer on the tree, the effect is the apple didn't get picked as it lay there to long and got worms in it"This does not fulfill Pro's burden of proof as there is no telling for sure if he, in fact, thought this. Even if he did, there is no proof that he decided this.
i determine where logic begins and ends

"i remember i wrote it, so that is the truth, and true is now"This is circular reasoning. Pro is including his conclusion in his premises. His argument is:P1) If I write something, it is the truthP2) I wrote X statementC1) Therefore I determine where logic begins and ends.C2) Therefore X statement is trueEach line in this argument is simply a restatement of the previous one. His statement "true is now" is also a red herring.
Abortion Should Be Illegal in MOST cases

You have changed my mind thank you, I realize now that we are not taking lives away any more than a period occurs. Thank you, However i still have one thing that i want to change. The latest in very few, But rare cases that you can get an abortion is 24 weeks. By that point the baby can think and has even decided which hand it prefers to use, AND premature children born at 24 weeks, Usually 40-50% of them survive. ( https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Fetal_viability ) I see now that abortion is not murder in MOST cases, And it has no affect since they are not lives. But i think that the time period of which a woman is allowed to have an abortion should decrease, As 24 weeks is far along. 24 weeks is long enough for the baby to survive and still thrive (some of the time) Most states will NOT do past 10 weeks, But some will and i believe that some should be illegal unless extreme cases where the baby is gaurunteed to have certain issues that would justify an abortion. "Of the 96 abortions carried out beyond 20 weeks, 53 were due to actual or probable fetal abnormality. " https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy ^ also meaning that around 43 abortions beyond week 20 were NOT probable fetal abnormality. sorry if what im saying is incorrect, I don't know much about this subject personally and only had my opinion and google to go on. . . Thank you for changing my mind on this subject.
Abortion Should Be Illegal in MOST cases

They are not a human, Period. Just because they will become a human does not mean we should treat them as a human. The eggs are only nonfertile because we have taken them from the chicken, Stopping their growth. They would become a chick if they stayed with the chicken. (Source : https://indianapublicmedia. Org/amomentofscience/eat-egg-eating-baby-chick/) Just because what is in it will become alive in the future does not mean it is alive. It is any other egg. Any other egg is fertile. If you eat an egg, A chicken could have theoretically grown from that egg. However, They are not a chicken. They are a lifeless inanimate object. Just because they will become something else does not mean that they are something else. An egg is not a chicken. If left unaltered, They will become a human. But they are not a human. They are an egg, That cannot think, Does not care, Is not a person, Can not feel pain, And is not sentient. You are not denying someone the chance to live. "Someone" means a person. They are not a person. They are not alive. Female humans will ovulate approximately 300-400 eggs during their lifetime. Every time one of these eggs is not fertilized, A person will not grow from it. Should a female human be required to have 300-400 children, So none of these eggs is denied the chance to live? They will be future beings. But they are not beings. No one is being hurt. No person, No living thing is being hurt. If they could think, Then they would probably want to live. Having an abortion would take their wanted life from them. However, THEY CAN NOT THINK. If they could care about being alive, Taking their life would be murder. However, THEY DO NOT CARE. If they could feel pain, You would be hurting them, And that would be unethical. However, THEY FEEL NO PAIN. If they were a person, A human being, Abortions would be murder. However, THEY ARE NOT A HUMAN BEING. When they are a human being, An abortion is murder. When they are not a human being, They cannot be murdered, Because they are NOT ALIVE. I may become the US president in the future. However, I am not the president. I do not deserve the rights that a president has. They may become a human being in the future. However, They are not a human being. They do not deserve the rights that a living being has, Because they are not alive, And they are not a being. The moment they become alive, And are able to feel pain, (third stage of pregnancy) abortions are not offered. Abortions are not offered to living beings. Abortions are offered to inanimate eggs, That have no traits of life. Just because they are a future human being does not mean they are a present human being.
Abortion Should Be Illegal in MOST cases

Yes as I mentioned before, They are not human. . . YET. Eggs in chickens that we eat are infertile. They will NEVER develop into a chicken no matter what we do with the said egg. If you had a chicken that laid an egg, A fertile egg, And you can confirm that egg would become a life but it isn't alive yet, Would you still decide it isn't wrong to crush that egg? You find out this egg has a chick growing in it, You would just crush it as if it were any other egg? However, These eggs within a woman are meant to become a human being. They aren't a human yet, But you are taking the chance away from someone who could make a difference and be another human. When you kill those clumps of cells, It isn't killing a human. It is killing a future life. Those clumps of cells in the egg if left unaltered WILL become a human. Her body is turning that egg into a human being cell by cell, And we are destroying it because we decided she isnt ready to handle the said baby. So because the mother can't take care of the baby or doesnt want the baby, We destroy its chance of a future being.
Abortion Should Be Illegal in MOST cases

Just because they will be a human in the future does not mean they deserve the rights of their future self. They deserve the rights of who they are. An egg. Eggs are not baby chickens. They are inanimate lifeless objects. They do not have the rights of a human because they are not a human. You are not denying them anything, Because they are not alive. You are not killing them because they are not alive. They are a lifeless egg and you are not taking anything from them. Just because an egg has the possibility to be a person does not mean we should judge their life as a person. That is like saying that you are denying someone life by not having sexual intercourse. You are not denying someone life, Because that someone is not a person and does not have life. If you are against abortions, Do you at least support birth control?
Abortion Should Be Illegal in MOST cases

I believe that abortion is wrong in most cases. People try to argue that abortions are good because the parent obviously isn't ready to have a child, So abortion helps get rid of the worry and stress without any future consequences. But they are forgetting this will be a future human being, A child. People say that when they are aborted they aren't "humans" yet and only a jumble of cells. Yes, They are only a jumble of cells, But they are a jumble of cells that are destined to become a human being. A living being that can make a difference and change the world, Better or worse. The only time id thinks abortion is an okay solution, Is if in ultrasounds and tests we know for sure that the baby won't survive life, Majorly disfigured, Or has extreme disabilities that will render them unconscious and in a vegetative state. I would like to get someone who is a Pro-Abortions opinion on why they think it's justifiable to destroy a future humans life.
Communism is a better than capitalism

You said that "Starvation was brought up when refuting communism, but we all know that this happens in Africa and other third world continents/countries/states etc. People are in fact given more rights by communism." The people are not given more rights most of the time they are oppressed by the government. The leaders rule with force, and if people speak out against then they executed or thrown in prison. So, with capitalism the people have a bigger say in their government and this makes them happier and content. You also said "When communism is practiced, everyone is given purpose, they are given jobs, supplies and assurance in life. No one is left behind." The people are assigned a job they do not get to choose. So, they do not have any freedom to pick their career. This makes the people unhappy such as the farmers so they will not work hard. This results in little food for the people and in some cases starvation. With capitalism you have a choice to pick what you want to do in life. It is not fair at all under communism that a person with a good career such as a doctor gets paid the same as a fast food worker. I am sure everyone would agree with me that this is not fair at all. So, as one can see capitalism is better than communism.