BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Australia is to nice to people seeking asylum

I extend my thanks to qwerty123 for starting this topical debate and would like to refute that "Australia is to {sic} nice to people seeking asylum". The moral responsibility to accept refugees applies to all nations, but because Australia is not a rogue state and, instead, a highly respected member of the United Nations, The Commonwealth. ASEAN and the WTO and a number of other inter-governmental organisations, it must accept the extra responsibilities that accompany the benefits of being a leading economic and political power in the international community. (1) With specific regard to asylum, as a signatory to both the UN Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, Australia has a legal obligation to accept genuine asylum seekers and afford them at least the same rights and privileges that are normally accorded to other foreign residents. (2) However, this is only right and proper and surely no proud Australian would wish to see thousands of refugees encamped on Bondi Beach receiving humanitarian aid shipped in by the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontiers and Oxfam? Some Australians may think that they are accepting more than their fair share of the world's refugees but the reality is that Australia ranks a lowly 36 in the world, behind such relatively small and impoverished countries as Mali, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Belarus, Croatia, Georgia and Bosnia. To put this into perspective, last year Australia took 64,100 refugees against Bosnia's 1,206,700 – that's 3.19 refugees per 1,000 Australian citizens against 272.393 refugees per 1,000 Bosnian citizens. (4) That means Bosnia takes over 85 times more refugees than Australia, even though it has over 150 times less land. (5, 6) Of course it is particularly ironic that some Australians ignore their own history when it comes to discussing immigration. After all, prior to becoming a penal colony for British convicts the country was solely inhabited by the Aborigines. The white Europeans that subsequently settled the country and displaced the natives, depriving them of their livelihoods and even massacring them, cared little for their protests and to this day most Aborigines live on the margins of society. With this in mind, why should any decent person sympathise with those frothing Australian racists that stand on harbour walls shouting "go back where you came from, we don't want you here"? Thank you. (1) http://www.state.gov... (2) http://untreaty.un.org... (3) http://www.nationmaster.com... (4) http://www.nationmaster.com... (5) https://www.cia.gov... (6) https://www.cia.gov...
Australia is to nice to people seeking asylum

Although the government is seriously considering the refugees into Australia, some of them may be carrying hazardous diseases, and even if they aren't, it's pathetic that they get more money than your average pensioner. Because we give them asylum and money as they want, they have become irritated because they haven't been allowed into Australia, they have started a hunger strike just to make the Prime minister and government feel for them. In many opinions i've heard, they are not in Australian waters, and they are not Australian citizens, therefore the government shouldn't have to worry about the Refugees at all. Also, if the Australian Government lets the "boat people" into Australia it will show that the refugees have won, and they will love the life in Australia as they will be given money, accommodation and protection and they will not just take most of Australia's wealth over time, but will send messages to they're friends and families back in their home country to say that getting into Australia is easy, and the government will have to show pity for them as well, because the government treats all people equally, meaning that giving some refugees asylum and not giving others asylum is unfair. To put this into basic terms, the refugees have used the government against itself, and by doing it they have also gained loads and loads of money, which could have helped Australia greatly.
Sarah Palin: The Worst Possible Republican Choice

1.) Obviously you are dodging the fact that I DID, in fact read your argument, and I still retain that you did not refute any of my points, let alone each and every one. Also, you stated as plain as day that you did not cite anything, thus agreeing with me. You told me to cite, I stated that you DIDN'T cite, and then you agreed with me, so it looks like I win this point. You have turned this entire debate into much and have destroyed all of its topicality, turning it into a debate over who did what in the debate, and not the argument at hand. And the fact is that Sarah Palin is, in fact, NOT the worst running mate that John McCain could have picked. He could have picked someone entirely random, who is COMPLETELY unknown. Sarah Palin is NOT completely unknown, and McCain could have had many other less effective choices. However, since "worst" is a matter of complete opinion, you lost the debate just by posting the resolution. 2.) So, you're trying to win the debate based on the fact that you committed hypocrisy? Wow. As I have said before, Sarah Palin has more experience than Barack Obama. She has 12 year of executive experience, and 11 years of experience in other public jobs. Barack Obama has no executive experience, and about 7 years of senate experience, the majority of that time spent preparing for his campaign for the presidency, and voting "present" over 130 times on important bills. Sarah Palin has "maverick" status, and has shown bipartisan qualities. She campaigned against a corrupt representative from her own party, and has repeatedly shown time and time again that she is ready to take public office. Obama has not. 3.) I just explained why she is qualified in my previous point, so nothing to do here. 4.) You're saying voting "present" was a tactical strategy? I don't need to tell anyone here why that makes no sense at all, and is a desperate plea to defend a candidate who is unable to be defended in any way in such as claiming "tactical indecision".
Sarah Palin: The Worst Possible Republican Choice

1) Obviously you have not read my argument in its entirety otherwise you would have seen I've refuted each and every one of your points with facts and some cites. Have I cited everything? Of course not but, I didn't think it'd be worth the work considering you'd probably not to do the same. However, I have cited several things and you have yet to do this for anything you have said. I also do not see where I "insulted you" and would rather keep this to the topic at hand instead of drifting off into such nonsense. 2) I've explained why she was the worst candidate, in fact there is still more reasons. One of the most profound being that his greatest weakness is the economy and he needed someone to help shore of those concerned with his well known declaration that it's not his strong suit. It is you, my opponent who has yet to bring forth a clear argument why she is even a decent pick, except by expressing your opinions with no hint of facts. Yes, I admit I have not cited as much as I should have but, at least I have made it clear they are facts in need of citing. It seems although I could be wrong, yours are opinions in need of facts. 3) Worst is an umbrella term which suggests she's the least qualified, does nothing to help him and out of all the potential candidates to be selected for the VP she should've been on the bottom of the list, if not even on it. 4) Again you're bringing up something that has nothing to do with the debate but, I'll explain anyway. In the Illinois State Legislature most of those present votes were tactical votes done under the instruction of the democratic leadership, a way to help other democrats cast nay and usually part of an overall strategy that usually takes part in legislatures such as this. http://www.nytimes.com... Read that for more on that subject and let's try to keep it to Palin. Thank you.
Sarah Palin: The Worst Possible Republican Choice

Lol, so your entire 2nd round argument is based on... insulting (not refuting) my points? Good one, chief. And I like how you told me to cite, when you did not do so yourself. Hypocrisy isn't a good way to win an argument, buddy ;) By the way, for purpose of debate, EXPLAIN why Palin is THE worst choice for John McCain. You have failed to do so, and we are already in the second round of the debate. You are the affirmative, and you haven't provided me one fact or stated evidence supporting the affirmative case. And also, by the way, please define "worst" for sake of your argument, and try to convince me that "worst" is not an opinion. By the way, Sarah Palin IS more experienced than Barack Obama, buddy. Obama was a "community organizer" and JUNIOR senator from Illinois LOL. Please explain how a senator that has voted "present" over 130 times is qualified to make the tough decisions that our commander in chief will have to make in these difficult times. Please, elaborate.
Sarah Palin: The Worst Possible Republican Choice

1. Obama has not shown that he knows the issues. He has flip-flopped on almost every single issue he has committed to. Public campaign financing, FISA, Iraq, etc. 2. Biden does not neutralize Obama. Since Biden is second on the ticket, he is in a less position of power, when he has more experience. This does not neutralize Obama's inexperience because more weight is placed on the candidate on the top of the ticket (Obama). Obama's inexperience outweighs Biden's experience, as Obama is on the top of the ticket, thus weighs the most on the ticket. 3. McCain picking Palin as his running mate might appease the "Hillary Clinton independents" who are now searching for a candidate, but want a candidate who will keep with this year's theme of "historical elections". McCain's experience, plus a "history-making" candidate on the ticket, will draw in said "Hillary Clinton independents". 4. Sarah Palin has more experience in politics that Obama has ever had. Thus, Sarah Palin was not the worst choice John McCain could have made. If he had picked Pawlenty, he would have picked the typical "white male", with less experience, to be on the ticket, which would have swayed the "history" voters to Obama.
The Majority of Religious Followers are Obsessed with God

PrefaceI, as Con, will be arguing that religious followers are not obsessed with their god(s). My opponent, Pro, will be arguing that they are. I would prefer my opponent to be a theist, but it is not required. I'm looking to have an intelligent and fun debate. Please do not accept this debate if you are not going to take it seriously.Full TopicThe majority of religious followers are obsessed with their god(s).Round StructureR1 AcceptenceR2 Opening ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsRulesA forfeiture is an automatic loss. No new arguments in any rounds except R2. Maintain a respectful manner throughout entire debate. No “kritiks” BoP is shared. Breaking these rules will result in a loss.TermsObsessed- a state in which someone thinks about someone or something constantly or frequently especially in a way that is not normal.Majority- more than 50%.Religious- the state of following a religion.Theist- a person who believes in god(s).Normal- regarded by society as acceptable.By accepting this debate, you accept all rules and terms. If you have any concerns feel free to PM me, until then I look forward to a good debate!
The Majority of Religious Followers are Obsessed with God

C1) NormalityP1) According to the definition of obsessed, one must think about something or someone in a way that isn’t normal.P2) The majority of society is obsessed with god(s).P3) If the majority of society is obsessed with god(s), then it is rendered normal.C1) Obsession with god(s) is normal.P4) Obsession must pertain to something that is abnormal. Since obsession with god(s) is normal, it is not regarded as obsessive.C2) Religious people are not obsessed with their god(s).Support for P1)The definition of obsession given in R1 was; a state in which someone thinks about someone or something constantly or frequently especially in a way that is not normal.This is the same definition that Pro accepted in R1.Support for P2)The majority of society has a belief in god(s).A comprehensive demographic study of more than230countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that there are5.8 billionreligiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing84% of the 2010 world population of6.9 billion. http://www.pewforum.org...The majority of religious followers also think about their god(s) frequently.According to Barna Research, about 64% of people pray to their religion’s god(s) multiple times a day.http://www.churchleaders.com...Support for P3)As P2 demonstrates, the majority of society obsesses about their god(s), since it is the majority this is a normal thing to do.Support for P4)Support for P1) validates this as true. (See Support for P1))ConclusionI have provided evidence and effectively demonstrated the validity of each premise, therefore rendering the conclusion true. I look forward to my opponent’s arguments, thank you!
Communism is a capitalist concept.

The reason for the formation of cities is because the land of the peasants had been confiscated by the ruling classes. This was the primary cause that initiated a capitalist system. Communism is just an extreme form of capitalism. Communism is a capitalist trick to fool the people into an apparent utopian paradise which really turns out to be a capitalist hell hole. Communist countries make cheap products for first world countries using slave labour. Whether this came about by accident or was manipulated by design is irrelevant. I have clearly demonstrated that it was money from rich capitalists that kick started the revolution in the Russian Revolution. Whether these people who invested this money were German, American or Jews is irrelevant. All I have to prove is that they were rich capitalists. Communists countries have no freedom of speech, no incentive to innovate, reduced prosperity and are punished for not obeying orders and instructions. These deplorable conditions are what every capitalist dreams of as being the ideal environment for making money. This is where most, so called 'capitalists countries' are heading anyway. The communist countries are just early prototypes of what every capitalist really wants the world to be like. If you observe current trends you will notice that the workers have increasingly more work hours and less rights as time progresses. Thus, the capitalist system is slowly heading towards their communist ideal, which is slave labour and no rights for workers. Note - Multiculturalism is a means of causing division and malice in the work environment. Its the old Roman rule of divide and conquer. The capitalists are always trying to find ways to undermine the rights of their workers. Communism is the perfect vehicle for achieving this goal.
Communism is a capitalist concept.

Your claim is: "capitalists came up with the idea of creating communist countries for the purpose of creating a hidden supply of slave labor." Nothing you have stated saying anything that supports either, "capitalists came up with the idea of creating communist countries" or " for the purpose of creating a hidden supply of slave labor.". Your only evidence is: "According to Edward Griffin's book - The Creature from Jekyll Island". - Because Americans supported the overthrow of Tsarist Russia. This is a Non sequitur. Your own link asserts, "It has been claimed that his expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff. There is no documentation to substantiate that claim, but the circumstantial evidence does point to a wealthy donor in New York. " Setting aside the fact that you have not even addressed your primary assertions, let me explain this historical context of what you've been reading. Even if it were true Jacob Schiff supported efforts to overthrow Tsarist Russia. This is a Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with Capitalism, for all you know Schiff might be a communist himself.(A position many jewish people held in the early 20th century) Not only are you overlooking the fact that Schiff was German, and it was Germany's plan to destabilize Russia as a military tactic, but you also don't know that the majority of Americans at that time supported the overthrow of Tsarist Russia, including notable Americans like Mark Twain. The belief by many Americans at the time was that the russian people were being repressed by the Tsar(which is true), and that the Russian people should rise up and overthrow their oppressors like we Americans did to the British. (Not much different than the view that was recently held by Americans in regard to Hussein.) Not only is their not evidence for your example, but if their was it would be a Non sequitur. Even if you managed to provide evidence of this guy and others that related directly to "capitalists wanting to create communism for slave markets", it not only would go against the principles of Capitalism, but would not be representative of a 'social system' in the first place. Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Not a person. I will finish with that. I'm sure I will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the absolute economic impossibly of your premise.
Communism is a capitalist concept.

According to Edward Griffin's book - The Creature from Jekyll Island - communism was initiated by capitalists so that they would have a cheap source of labour. The Red Cross was used as a cover so that agents could distribute money, weapons and propaganda to prisoners. Jacob Schiff was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He was one of the principal backers of the Bolshevik revolution and personally financed Trotsky's trip from New York to Russia. During the two years of war with Japan thousands of Russian soldiers and sailors were taken as prisoners. Sources outside of Russia, which were hostile to the Tsarist regime, paid for the printing of Marxist propaganda and had it delivered to the prison camps. Russian-speaking revolutionaries were trained in New York and sent to distribute the pamphlets among the prisoners and to indoctrinate them into rebellion against their own government. When the war was ended, these officers and enlisted men returned home to become virtual seeds of treason against the Tsar. They were to play a major role a few years later in creating mutiny among the military during the Communist takeover of Russia. http://www.wildboar.net...
Should the confederate flag not be allowed in schools...

Rebuttal The first thing people immedaitly jump to when they see that flag is racist, but most people do not mean for the flag to stand for racism. Unsubstantiated. Most people like me fly that flag to show that we come from the south it is not a hate thing, it is basically saying that is where people come from. Your interpretation of the symbol is not germane to the debate question. NO, stupid people will take that flag in a bad way when it means your from the south The plurality of people who see it as a negative symbol would disagree. I am not racist but I have the confederate flag on my wall. Because my great great great great great uncle was Robert E Lee does that make me racist if it does then you need to get your head checked I am not saying you are or are not a racist. I don’t have that information. I am saying you are attempting to wear a symbol that is closely related, and perceived as, a symbol of racism, discrimination and oppression. That this is true makes it in the interest of schools to ban the wearing of this symbol in order to maintain the environment for its designed goal. I read about a school in 2012 that did not allow a shirt with the confederate flag on it, yet they allow its ok to be ga y t shirts.They cant ban one thing and allow somthing like it in a dffrent versian. Aside from being completely unsubstantiated, I fail to see how this changes the issue at hand. If the “gay t-shirt” were causing disruptions, or inc1ting violence, then the school could have “banned” the wearer from continuing to wear it.
Should the confederate flag not be allowed in schools...

The problem lies not in what one person may believe the flag symbolises, but how it is preceived by a great many, and if that preception is valid and may further lead to interfearance with the proper functioning of the school. As we can see from this polling data, it is not just black studentes that have a negative reaction to the flag, it is the plurality of both white and black. This is not hard to understand, as the flag has both recent history as a raciest symbol. But a historic use as a symbol of oppression The desire to reform the meaning of symbols is understandable. Even this verbage has been used before. The simple fact that you personally want the symbol to be accepted, and mean what you want it to mean doesn’t make it so.
Should the confederate flag not be allowed in schools...

Let"s get some clarity of what is at issue first. Generally this issue centers on use of the "Confederate Battle Flag" used during the civil war, primarily by troops under General Lee of the confederacy. The flag has been applied to shirts, hats, and other clothing items that schools may or may not "ban". The legality of banning this, and other controversial or distracting clothing items has been tried and precedent set. School districts are well within their rights to ban clothing items that bear this flag and symbol. [2] The reasoning behind banning the symbol has to do with disruption, and inciting racial tensions. That all people accept the meaning of this symbol in the same was as con is either naive or supercilious. The flag has deep and conflicting meanings based on the viewer. This is the very basis of the disruption it has caused at schools and other public areas. The symbol, born under the context of a war at least somewhat fought over issues of slavery, cannot be reformed so easily for those know it as a symbol of oppression and dehumanization. Simply saying "That not how I see the symbol" is dismissive of how others view the same symbol, bring me right back to - con is either naive or supercilious in his personal definition of the meaning of the symbol. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://legalclips.nsba.org...
No true Christian can support the death penalty

In this debate as Pro, I will be arguing that "No true Christian can support the death penalty".As you can see the debate fits the form of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. However, that is the point as in this debate it is the purpose of the debaters to see who can best assert their position using the Holy Bible. So please don't argue that this is the No True Scotsman Fallacy I am well aware of that and it would be out of order in a debate of this nature.Ideally I would like to debate a theist, but anyone can accept.Important: BOP is shared. This is something I say for all debates I instigate (as of 6/27/2014). It makes voters vote on what is presented and not look for a semantic reason to vote against or for someone. Ideally, the BOP is on Pro, but its not possible to prove anything beyond doubt. So in effect if we are to apply BOP to any debate then Con automatically wins.