BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
National Socialism/Fascism is not the same as supremacism.

I. Defining Supremacism Supremacism Supremacism is the belief that a particular age, race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, class, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not. I.V. Alliance systemThis was more a a politically associated thing. It does not disregard the numerous other points. II. Proof that the Nazis were supremacistsThere are several factors that lead us to believe the Nazi's were supremacist. As Adam2 attempts to claim, they are nationalists. According to the provided definition, my opponent has conceded that the Nazi's believe that their nationality was better than others. Supremacy. Additionally, we know from mein kampf, the nazi manifesto, and the propaganda/distributed literature by the national socialists was teaching that white aryans had more intellectual traits. Plus, we are well aware that the nazis engaged in the slaughter of 11 million people, all of differenct races, cultures, and ethnic groups. Hence, the Nazis are 100% supremacists.III. BOP burdens The opposition has made a definitive and affirmative claim that nazism isn't supremacism, yet does nothing to back this claim up. Instead restating what the nazis were and what they aren't. Instead forfeiting and using his one round of argumentation to attempt to diss me.Pro has no intrest in debating this with me, and all 7 points should be forfeited.
National Socialism/Fascism is not the same as supremacism.

You do realize i am not a racist? Nor am i fascist? While National Socialism was a dictatorship it wasn't the same as fascism dictatorship, but it was similar. Now to get back to the point, im not a racist, nor did i ever say i was a racist, i brought up the KKK because to prove they arent real nazis they are supremacist retards. Maybe read what i posted next time?
USA should have more gun restrictions

argument,,,, guns deter crime. argument. .. taking away guns will leave people defenseless given not all guns will be taken away. both of these can be summed up in response i gave in another debate. i've heard stats that say something like half a percent of guns are used for crimes, and two percent for defense. itmakes sense that guns can deter crime. but at what cost do we allow pervaisve use? if you double the amount of guns, there'd be twice as many crimes, and twice as many defenses, arguably. or triple it, or quadruple it. or we could trade off and have half as many crimes, albeit perhaps fewer defenses. it is not so clear to me that we should have more deaths in order fo people to have more guns. how is this so clear to you? and, we don't have to take away guns from everyone, it was just one idea. con didn't say anythin about licenses, training, and inventories of guns. at least for criminals, possibly for everyone. and con didn't say anything about more background ghecks. forty percent of sales involve no checks. some restrictions and checks would have some necessary benefit. less people will have guns that shouldn't have them, and less people will die. again, not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun at a time theyd commit a crime, there'd be no crime. so some restrictins can reduce violence, and only restrict against bad guys.
USA should have more gun restrictions

the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success. australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform) japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low. it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. the states that have no to very few restictions have over twice the homicide rate. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. over 90% of people support gun restrictions, there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. it's common knowledge and i can cite stats that say having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.
The use of torture is not justified or effective

Thankyou. Firstly, you said that you were going to make some definitions. You haven't made definitions, you have quoted them. This is the first hole in your argument. Torture is more than just about giving up information. It can also be used as revenge, punishment etc. Hence your argument is based a limited definition of torture. Secondly, your definition of justified includes subjectiveness. Example; who is to define what a good legitimate reason is? A good legitimate reason could be based upon morality, culture, religions etc. Thirdly, who determines what is successful? Success is often debatable depending upon political alignment, cultural belief etc. Even when success can be measured directly by use of numbers. Example : in a game of football, the coach of the loosing team may often point to it being a successful game due to the experience gained by younger players. Your definitions are limited in their scope and the examples you give to support your argument are limited. The basic argument is really centred around the question, 'does the end justify the means?'. The examples you used are related to national security, the nature of torture and the effectiveness of torture. Your argument is based upon limited definitions as indicated above. The broader debate centres around 'does the end justify the means?'. The examples given by the negative team are limited in scope and hence do not address the wider and open question of 'does the end justify the means?'. Situational analysis will consider examples beyond the limited definitions given by the opposition. Definitions given have already been shown to be subjective. Situational analysis will also give us subjective outcomes however, there are numerous examples where the use of torture is used with no successful outcomes. In fact, the outcome from the use of torture can result in the opposite of what was intended. For example; torturing a person for a certain belief can result in those beliefs becoming the beliefs of previous non-believers. For example: the debate surrounding climate change, gay marriage, death penalty, euthanasia etc have been shown this to be the case. In the above given examples, the torture is not necessarily physical but mental. People who do not believe in climate change are often referred to as 'climate change deniers'. This causes much anguish for those who believe only that the science supporting climate change and the figures used have been cherry picked. In conclusion, it has been shown that the arguments of the opposition is not only subjective but also limited. Given my argument, the opposition will have to concede that their argument is limited when considering situational analysis and the question of 'does the end justify the means?'. Hence, logic would determine that the affirmative case has clearly outmanoeuvred the opposition.
The use of torture is not justified or effective

There will be four rounds in this debate. The first debate is for acceptance. You just have to say "I accept". Please do not start your arguments until the second round 1. No forfeits 2. No new arguments in the final round, though extra explanations of arguments already explained is allowed; R1 is just for acceptance 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No K's of the topic 8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
The use of torture is not justified or effective

Torture is a controversial topic, yet it is evident that the opposition has won this debate for several important reasons. The most pressing is that the proposition has not stuck to the agreements that the opposition has set for this debate. I have said in point one that there should be "1. No forfeits" and also specifically said that the violation of this rule, or any rules set merits a loss. The proposition had accepted these terms, yet he has forfeited the 3rd rounds. Thus, since he has violated this rule, this technically means he has automatically lost this debate. However, I will continue on with my arguments anyways. The second reason why the opposition has won this debate is due to the fact he has made no clear arguments. Instead of making any contentious, he simply states that my definitions are limited (which I had rebutted in the third round). His points within the second round are mainly hypothetical, saying that whether torture is justified is judged differently by everyone. However, he has not answered his side of the debate. He was supposed to argue that torture is not justified nor effective, yet he has not argued for this point. Thus, since he has not answered his side of the debate, it is once again evident that the opposition has won this debate. As he has forfeited the third round, I cannot make any more rebuttals to his claims. The opposition has clearly won this debate due to the fact that the proposition has forfeited the third round, which merits an automatic loss according to the terms set in the first round, and that he has made no sufficient arguments. I now ask the voters to vote, hopefully for the opposition.
New characters for Super Smash Bros

It's been a while since I did one of these. This is a debate about whose character is a better candidate for Super Smash Bros.Rules:1) You will try to make a serious argument for a character from a TV Show, or a video game.2) Posting insulting or sexual remarks will count as a loss of conduct.3) Try to complete the debate. If you forfeit, the other side automatically "wins" (It's not an actual win, because it's a forfeit glitch).4) No characters that have already appeared in an official Super Smash Bros game. (For example, you can't pick Young Link or Pichu from Melee, no Squirtle or Ivysaur from Brawl, and no Corrin or Bayonetta from Wii U DLC, etc.)5) You must make a moveset for your character, containing 4 special moves, and a Final Smash.This time, my chosen character is Espella Cantabella, a main character from Professor Layton vs Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. My opponent will state their character Round 1, and may choose to post the moveset Round 1 as well. With that, let's go!
An ideal form of NCLB would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States.

Thanks to my opponent and judges. Here goes! Here is a brief summary of no child left behind and what it intended to do: 'The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend." The bottom line of such is an aim at improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools. Ideal: (n) a conception of something in its perfection. Thus the ideal form of no child left behind would perfectly achieve improving the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools. I'd argue that increased education is a definite benefit to the welfare of the United States. Not only through economic competitiveness but also through increased vaccines and cures for societal ills (as in diseases). All I have to say for now!
Faith is irrational

My apologizes for a late reply. First off. This debate is not limited to the definition of faith equaling religion. The resolution states "Faith is irrational", not the belief in God is irrational. I will show that to have faith by my definition is rational. I will also show that the pro's definition of faith as belief without evidence also is rational. To rebut my first point: Faith is rational to the believer. First, we have to start with the concept that reality only exists in the mind. This is a long standing philosophical argument, however no one can concretely prove that anything can truly exists except for the fact their perceptions (5 senses plus the interpretation of them) make us believe that they exist. In order for the pro to win this point, he must prove that something exists outside of our perception and consciousness. Otherwise, what is rational can only be held to the believer. My argument about a schizophrenic person is my proof to this. They honestly feel something they see, hear, or anything else is real. As long as someone else agrees that what they perceive is real, it could be held as a rational thought until other proof debunks this. I do not feel that the pro has thought full about this point. Hypothesis do count for this debate. All a hyphothesis is someone saying "I'm going to prove that something I believe that does not have other proof is true." This is in a nutshell the pro's definition, "believe without evidence" They are saying, I don't have evidence, but I have faith it is, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, so I'm going to prove it. Since I'm running short on time, bottom line, Faith is rational. Faith defined as "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing" is rational. Every hypothesis is someone having faith in something without having evidence. This is why Faith is Rational
Faith is irrational

I define faith as belief without evidence. We should not believe things on insufficient evidence. If you here of a surgery that has only worked twice out of 500, you would opt for a better surgery. To teach faith is to teach the opposite of critical thinking. Not to mention that the claims of faith are usually the most radical of all; not only knowing the existence of god, but knowing its mind, knowing the origins of all things AND, as no scientist will ever say, with 100% certainty.
Should Djibouti merge the Ethiopia Federation

Thanks to my opponent for extending arguments, I was busy and my schedule was full, please reward him with points for conduct. Statements made by the opponent- 1-The Republic of Djibouti is weak militarily 2- Djibouti Would benefit from joining the Federation 3-Djibouti is economically reliant on Ethiopia To address point number 1, Djibouti is home to the only United States operated sub-African Military base. The base (Camp Lemmonier) is equipped to handle missions deep into the middle east and into two of the regions most troubled nations; Yemen and Somalia [1]. If Ethiopia and Djibouti were to merge Ethiopia would likely not support the continued survival of Camp Lemmonier as it wants to remain neutral. The U.S is offered a position on the front lines with its camp in Djibouti, if Djibouti were to be attacked by Eritrea or Somalia, the U.S would likely offer military aid in order to retain its position close to Yemen and Somalia. Because Djibouti supports the United States military base, it is currently on good terms with the U.S and the U.S will likely support Djibouti in all of its decisions. [2] To address point number 2, Djibouti would not benefit a merge with the Ethiopian Federation because the countries, while making good economic partners would not be able to successfully merge. Djibouti is 98% Muslim, and the Muslim religion does not find Ethiopian Orthodoxy to be of the bible. Djibouti's official languages are French and Arabic, while Ethiopia speaks Amharic. This merge in language may cause mass confusion. Finally, addressing point three Djibouti is economically reliant on Ethiopia, but Ethiopia is also economically reliant on Djibouti. Ethiopia depends on Djibouti's port in the gulf of Aden for transport of its raw agricultural goods, while Djibouti depends on the trade with Ethiopia for its use of its port. Both countries could not do without the other. If the two countries merged, there would likely be no inflow or outflow of money, because neither countries would have much business with other countries. A merge would likely hurt both economies. [1] http://www.conflictmap.org... [2] http://www.bbc.com... Conclusion Djibouti and Ethiopia are wonderful neighbors, great economic partners, and good countries. However, if the said countries were to merge, neither would benefit. Djibouti is more wealthy when it comes to per capita GDP, a merge would deprive many individuals of a moderately developed quality of life. Whereas Ethiopia would have to create and enforce many sex-trafficking laws in Djibouti. Clearly, a merge is an unwise decision.
Should Djibouti merge the Ethiopia Federation

Case 1: The Republic of Djibouti is weak militarily The Republic of Djibouti is in a vunerable position, and its made plenty of enemies. The Democratic Republic of Eritrea, has been making advances into the country for years to attempt a schifflen hook into Ethiopia. The UN predicts that war is emminent, and Djibouti will undoubtebly suffer a simmilar fate as Belgium. [1] To the South, Somalian unrest keeps penetrating the borders. The people ae subgected to extremism and Islamic Fascist ideals. Djibouti does not fare well on the seas either. Its strategic position on the gulf of aden, makes it a raiding haven for Yemeni and Somalian pirates. [2]Lets face it, Djibouti's 8000 men army stands no chance against the inevitable three way war it will be pulled into. [3]Case 2: Djibouti Would benefit from joining the FederationDijbouti has an over reliance on its aden port. It has no suitable farmland, resources, and skilled or educated work force. They have a meagre GDP of 2.5 billion, which leaves them almost no room for investment in their country. [4]Ethiopia on the other hand, has a GDP of 120 billion, and a growth of 7% a year. Not only does this make them one of the fastest growing countries in the world, but they have a lot more wiggle room for investment. [5]If Djibouti were to join the Ethiopia, then they would benefit in so many ways. Railroads would be built to ship supplys to the port of aden, irrigation networks would connect Ethiopia's 12 river basins to the impovershed farmlands, and a navy would be built to protect the shipping leaving the Suez. [6] Not only that, but Djibouti would benefit from all the extra amendities Ethiopia could provide. Including college level education, scientific research collaboration, and corporal investment. Case 3: Djibouti is economically reliant on EthiopiaDjibouti already has a huge economic reliance on Ethiopia. Much of their money is from Ethiopian goods that leave the ports. A lot of their resources and support in shipping comes from Ethiopia. [7]They are so dependent on the country, that if Ethiopia were to gain control over at least one other port, then the country would fall into a economic depression. Its not entirely unlikely either. Currently Ethiopia is in informal wars with both Eritrea and Somalia. They have gained control of ports before, and if they were to secure even one, as I stated, Djibouti would be crushed. This leverage placed on the country is another reason why it would benefit from joining with Ethiopia. It gives them an assurance that they can fall back on a stable country in the chance of their fragile country falling apart. [8] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Next round, I will provide arguments on how this joining will benefit Ethiopia, the United States, France, and the rest of the world.[1] http://www.conflictmap.org...[2] http://www.nato.int...[3] http://www.nationmaster.com...[4] http://www.nationmaster.com...[5] http://www.nationmaster.com...[6] http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org...[7] http://www.indexmundi.com...[8] http://www.tesfanews.net...
Should Djibouti merge the Ethiopia Federation

Introduction. Djibouti and the Ethiopian Federation cannot successfully merge making Djibouti a state of the Federation. The countries share no historical ties, and are too different to form an efficient governmental system. There is no reason for the two countries to merge. Djibouti was placed on the Tier 2 watch list by the American Central Intelligence Agency for in compliance to minimum standards for elimination of sex trafficking and prostitution, Djibouti is a destination on the Obock (a forced sex trafficking corridor) where young girls and women are forced into servitude in Djibouti. Ethiopia on the other hand has made significant efforts to eliminate servitude and prostitution and does comply with the minimum standards for sex trafficking and prostitution. Ethiopia would be forced to spend a substantial amount of money and create and enforce many laws in order to remain compliant to the minimum laws for sex trafficking and prostitution and remain off the the United State's watch list. Ethiopia will not benefit from a merge with Djibouti as its government will have to regulate and enforce all anti-sex trafficking laws and spend excess money in the process. Ethiopia sees no appeal in a merge with Djibouti. Religion is often the cause of many skirmishes and wars that have lasted through the existence of humanity, Djibouti and Ethiopia look at god through very different eyes. In Djibouti, 96% of the population is Muslim, however, in Ethiopia 43.5% of the population is Ethiopian Orthodox, and traditionally the two religions do not get along as Ethiopian Orthodoxy is not viewed as 'a religion of the book (bible)' in the average Muslim's eyes. This extreme difference in religion may eventually lead to differences in political views and eventually, a possible re-separation of countries which will cost both the Federation of Ethiopia and Djibouti a lot of money. Finally, Djibouti sees no interest in merging with the Federation of Ethiopia because per capital, Djibouti is much richer than Ethiopia. Djibouti has a GDP per capita of 2,700 U.S dollars, while Ethiopia has a GDP per capita of only 1,300 U.S dollars. Per person, Djibouti is much more developed and wealthy than Ethiopia. If the two countries merge then Djibouti will become ultimately poorer. In conclusion, Djibouti and Ethiopia are good neighbors but would be a bad single country, their views are too different to form an effective governing body. Ethiopia would ultimately spend a substantial amount of money on Djibouti and the money may or may not be effective. https://www.cia.gov...... https://www.cia.gov...... http://www.religionfacts.com......