BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Empiricism Is Aristocratically Elitist

My opponent confuses: a) possibilities with probabilities, and b) the people at stake. The argument at hand isn't whether aristocratic elites are the only ones who can exploit social empiricism, but whether there is equal opportunity for, and vulnerability to, exploitation. Likewise, this is not merely an argument between aristocratic elites and meritocratic elites, but also between aristocratic elites and the general populace. Also, please remember that I originally used the phrase "social status", not "socioeconomic class". Class can be status, but all status is not class. Yes, others can exploit social empiricism, but aristocratic elites get the first chance to do so since they already have more permission, familiarity, and resources to access areas in society where facts exist. This immediately creates inequality of opportunity, and puts others at higher vulnerability. Does this mean aristocratically elites will use the chance? No. Does this mean others won't use the chance after? No. What it means is that if aristocratic elites use the chance to exploit social empiricism, then they get an advantage, and they get the first chance out of everyone. Yes, it is possible for an aristocratic elite to not exploit social empiricism, and for others to exploit it after, but the probability of that happening is less than the probability of the opposite. Social empiricism doesn't account for time, yet timing makes the difference.
HITLER IS ALIVE and LIVING IN MIAMI.

Pro has dropped his entire argument. He has to prove why Hitler would be in Miami, yet he is now arguing that Hitler is in South America. South America or Iceland, I don't really care as long as it is not Miami. Two thirds of his last speech are arguing that Hitler lives in Argentina: So this is why I have won: P1: Pro must argue that Hitler lives in Miami to win this debate P2: Pro is arguing that Hitler lives in Argentina C: Pro has not won this debate Rebutting Sub Point C I never said Hitler wasn't dead...I only argued he's not living in Miami...
HITLER IS ALIVE and LIVING IN MIAMI.

Now, I see why some people may believe he lives in Iceland, but what you have not thought about is why he wouldnt go to South America. There are many reasons why he wouldnt want to go there, but there is evedince why he would. There are so many non perfect people it would be a feast to him and he would have fun killing them all. Also I have proof. For example, Christopher Eger writes, regarding a German Submarine that sailed for Aregentina after the official German surrender[6]: "U. S. authorities feared that Hitler had fled using the submarine, and was hiding somewhere in South America. " Eger, being the illuminati tool he is writes off this theory as insane later in his article, but the fact that he was forced to acknowledge that there was any evidence of such an escape proves that there is at least a significant amount of evidence to support the claim. Argentinas economy increased massively in the post war years[7]. The Nazis stole millions of Dollars worth of Gold[8]. Coincidence? I think not. MAny people have questioned my shape shifting Tin Tin theory so here are other ways he could be alive. Sub-point C: Time vortex The GERMAN scientist Albert Einstein theorized in his theory of relativity that if someone went around the Earth at the speed of light, it would seem like less time had passed for them, or some other scientific flim-flam. Point is, there are ways to essentially be frozen in time and space, and it's likely that the Nazis with their scientific genius figured out how. Sub-point D: Cryogenic Freezing Hitler hated Jews. Walt Disney was rumored to hate Jews. Walt Disney was rumored to be Cyrogenically frozen. Coincidence? I think not. Disney likely got the idea from Hitler himself.
HITLER IS ALIVE and LIVING IN MIAMI.

Ladies and Gentlemen, how could Hitler be alive and living in Miami, when Hitler never left Europe? My BOP: To prove that when the Hitler-eagle (Eaglter) flew away he stayed in Europe WHY HITLER WOULDN'T GO TO MIAMI When he was the most powerful man in the world and had Europes resources at his disposal, did Hitler ever go to enjoy the waves or shoot some Casino? No. Hitler is terrified of the Miami way of life, he is sexually incompetent and chronically anti-social the lures of beautiful Floridian woman and amazing parties have no influence on him. He would have went to anyother place in the world except Miami. Hitler hates sun parties and woman. He would never go to Miami. WHY HITLER IS IN ICELAND So I've given analysis on what Hitler does not like (Miami), but then what does he like? Iceland. This is mainly because there very few of the racial minorities in which he despises (Another reason he would never go to Miami), and a very strong German speaking population. He lives in Iceland now because there is a very strong presence of the German language, a lack of sun (and racial minorities), and lots of cool space and silence where he can curl up and read a book with my cat, Boots.
HITLER IS ALIVE and LIVING IN MIAMI.

All eveidence points to the factthat Adolf Hitler is alive and well in Miami. I know this for a fact. Here is what happened. When people think he "shot himself" he was having a baloon party and brought a knife. the ballons popped and brought a loud shooting sound. Then he became a shape shifter and went into the aitr ducts as a blue footed sprout. he rolled outside and flew away as an eagle. THIS IS THE CRAZY PART. He then turned into an average American boy named Tin Tin who solved mysteries and had awsome hair. Recently a movie was made off that very person. Thats right TIN TIN IS HITLER. Now that everybody believes he is dead he is living his life in Miami in hiss original form. I saw him oin the bus two days ago. Take a look http://inext-gaming.com... he is alive
Islam is not a peaceful religion

Well ill be debating its a peaceful religion You have not listed the terms of the definitions so i will do that now Islam-A peaceful religion mainly occurring in the middle east peaceful- being non-warlike So because you didn't list the terms you must now prove that a peaceful religion is not If you find someway out of that predicament i will use the bible and other religious texts to prove my point that Islam is just as peaceful as Christianity or Judasim however i think that is impossible given my terms :)
Islam is not a peaceful religion

I will be proving that Islam is not a peaceful religion. A challenging debate for the Con, let the game debate :) Please abide by all the rules and format stated here. Format: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Strictly closing debate only. Rules: 1. Burden of Proof is on me. 2. No trolling, forfeits or semantic arguments. 3. Failure from either side to properly adhere to the format of the debate will result in a loss of conduct in the voting stage.
Islam is not a peaceful religion

My apologies, I did not post my debate on Round 3 on time. Your arguments are irrational. Islam has never supported peace. Instead, Islam uses peace to mask what is truly behind it's walls: murder, rape, war, and terror. Below I will list some verses from the Qur'an to justify my argument. Qur'an 3:32 "Say: Obey Allah and His Messenger; But if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers" Qur'an 48:29 "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves." Qur'an 4:24 "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you." Qur'an 9:5 "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters (anyone who does not worship Allah) wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." Would a peaceful "non-warlike" religion be one that promotes rape, murder, and hate among those who do not follow their set of beliefs? Now in response to your comment about Christianity, does God not command us to love one-another, and to judge not (regardless of race,religion, or even the attitude they give to us)? If you would like to discuss further about why my Lord says those things in the Old Testament, create a new debate and invite me to it, and we will discuss it. This has been a great debate. I appreciate you taking time out of your day to make it happen. God bless!
Islam is not a peaceful religion

You haven't found your way out the terms i have given and you ignored them completely but this debate will amuse me so i will debate this topic. You have distorted the main meaning of Islam which is peace by nitpicking So i will do what you did but to Christianity, your religion, and pick verses about what you said were despicable such as rape, murder and other warlike crimes If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. -Deuteronomy 13:7-12 God tells to us to kill those who follow different religions. Not very tolerant? However.. "There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned." (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) So the Bible tells you to murder people who don't believe in God while Islam tells you not to force people to believe Rape? If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.-Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Huh? I guess God doesn't care about rape victims and makes them forced to marry their rapists Warlike crimes? How about when God rips babies out of mothers wombs and dashes them to rocks in Hosea 13:16 You will say i'm taking it out of context but you are doing the same Sources in Comments
Islam is not a peaceful religion

I will begin with quoting scripture from the Quran, the central text of Islam. Quran 9:5 (the infamous verse of the sword inciting mass murder): "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. " Quran 9:29: "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. " Quran 8:12: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" I believe that these verses are not talking about Spiritual Warfare, but instead physical warfare, as "strike off every fingertip of them" cannot be misinterpreted as such. It is now clear that Islam is not a peaceful religion, as you can see. As a matter of fact, it contains more than 100 verses about violence, and little about peace. Islam is a religion that condones Rape, Murder, Pedophilia, and other war-like crimes. Sources: . http://janmorganmedia.com... . http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com... . http://eindtijdinbeeld.nl... . http://quran.com... Thank you.
Palin having 5 kids is irrelevent.

Hi voters and hi tatater, Thank you for taking my debate! My opponent seems to not understand that I'm not debating on her views on abortion, i am debating on if her "family life" is fair game for media attacks and on if it could possibly effect her ability to lead our nation if need be. Anyone who read my R1 can obviously see that. I will now take my opponents views in order presented and then i will conclude. 1. Sarah began her career through the PTA, true, but highly irrelevant to the current subject. It has nothing to do with the ability to lead our nation, and it is also a bad reason for the media to attack her, after all, being in the PTA means you know a little bit about how the education system works. My father was on the CCHS (Craig County High School) school board, he worked hand and hand with the PTA. 2. Again, I'm not talking about abortion, I'm talking about her ability to lead our nation. Yes, she chose to have a baby with a disability, yes she uses this decision to prove that she is pro life, but no, this doesn't have anything to do with her ability to lead. It also isn't a reason for the News Media to attack her. Mrs. Obama gave speeches when he began running for president of the united states. When she was attacked, it was announced as wrong and it was stopped immediately. I'm only saying that the same fairness is in order. 3. McCain's son, Jimmy, 18, a Marine Corps enlistee, is now serving in Iraq, he mentioned that last night, are you telling me that that shouldn't have been mentioned because it is telling his views on the War in Iraq? Oh, by the way, he also said he was proud of him. 4. Pure Speculation, not backed up by evidence but by personal opinion. I think what my opponent is trying to say is, People will look at her family more than her promises. If that is true, Should Obama be talking about his grandparents who have served in war? Same situation right? 5. Again, pure speculation. When your family is under attack, you defend it. They released the statement because she was under attack (she being her daughter). Cause and effect, Media attacks daughter, Palin attacks personal views about her daughter. My closing argument is this. I believe these attacks on Palin's family are sexist. If it was Mr Palin would their be so much buzz about his ability to run the white house with 5 children?
Palin having 5 kids is irrelevent.

Palin having 5 children is relevant for 5 reasons: 1. In her speech at the RNC on Wednesday, Palin explained that she got involved into politics through a PTA (Parents-Teachers Association) "like any other hockey mom in America". With that Palin was saying that her political career is based on her strong family values and on commitment to her children. Here is the quote from Kaylene Johnson, Palin's biographer: "During her campaign for City Council, she and Todd went door to door pulling a wagon with their son Track, 4, and 2-year-old daughter, Bristol." 2. In Palin's case, the political views she holds are presented through her personal life. I am talking about the issue of abortion. Based on Palin's example, one can have a large family and a successful career. Therefore, based on Palin's example, a decision to have or not to have a child is not an economical decision. Considering the significance of the abortion debate in modern American politics, the fact that a vice-presidential nominee serves as a pro-life example will play crucial role for many voters. Palin clearly states that she is pro-life and repeatedly talks about her decision to keep a disabled child. In other words, Palin uses her 5 children as an argument in a political debate. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life, a Virginia-based pro-life organization. Decision to have 5 children is a personal choice that each of us has to make, however Palin uses it in her campaign to talk about abortion debate. The same way like Palin, now her daughter has made a decision to have her baby. In the political debate on abortion it plays a crucial role that Palin and her daughter chose that for themselves, because they had the opportunity to make that choice without government deciding for them. This will be continuously highlighted by pro-choice supporting media. 3. Palin's oldest son Track is enlisted to go to Iraq in September. Palin states that she is very proud of his decision to do so. From this voters will draw her opinion about the war on terror. Again, political views expressed through personal history. 4. For many American voters, elections are more about a moral stance of a person, rather than about their political promises. Regular, small town Americans will look at her and ask themselves: "I do not know about all them taxes and all that insurance. So, I will let my gut choose. Does she have values similar to mine? Can I trust her? How did she grow up? How about her family?" The same way everyone discusses John McCain's military background, people will discuss Palin's children as her personal experience. 5. McCain-Palin campaign released the statement about Palin's daughter, because McCain-Palin campaign wanted to bring some martyrdom to Palin's persona through rising above all dirt.
Palin having 5 kids is irrelevent.

I believe that Governor Palin having 5 kids is highly irrelevant. What is relevant is political experience and views that the candidates hold. I believe that the attacks on Palin's family were barbaric and senseless. Barrack Obama has said: "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president." Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother. "How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits." (CNN) McCain has also made statements similer to these, such as "It is off limits to talk about her family." (FOX) For once, both parties agree, it is off limits to talk about her family, I agree with both parties. Slandering of both senator McCain's Wife and Barrack Obama's wife has happened, and those statements were immediately condemned. But in Governor Palin's case, it has gone on all week, Political jokers such as Jay Leno have been joking about it all week as well. To end my R1 i will conclude with this, Governor Palin having 5 kids has nothing to do with how she can run our great country if need be.
Palin having 5 kids is irrelevent.

What my opponent and I should have discussed right of the bat is for what subject we consider 5 kids of Sarah Palin irrelevant. Based on the post in 2nd round, my opponent is arguing that Palin's children are irrelevant in regards to Palin's ability to lead the country. My post in the 1st round was in regards to relevancy of Palin's large family to the campaign. So let me refocus and discuss how Palin's children are relevant to her ability to lead the country. Relevance is "the relation of something to the matter at hand" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). 1. Nearly 24% of families with children who have special health care needs choose to cut back or stop working (National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, 2005/2006). 2. Women are twice most likely to take time off work to care for their children than men, if both parents are working. Bond, J.T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E., & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the national study of the changing workforce. No. 3. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute. 3. Sexist means "discriminatory on the basis of sex (usually said of men's attitude toward women)" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). Considering Palin's children relevant to her ability to lead the country is not sexist, because it is not related to her gender, but rather to her family status. For example, Hilary Clinton has an adult daughter, and therefore she would not need to take time from work to care for her. Disclaimer: This debate is a brain exercise. My personal opinion differs from the point I was defending.
Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America.

Sir, please note the side that you are on. I am proposing, hence "Pro", the resolution: "Resolved: If this plan of the President's is put into action, America will only fall into a deeper recession." Thus, my position is to demonstrate that universal health care will damage our economy. I am attempting to do so. My points stand, and my opponents points are turned against him, given that they support my side of the arguement. Your responsibility is to promote the economic benefits of universal health care, as you have adopted the Contradictory stance.
Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America.

.. .. .. .. . Anyway, "This will result in the destruction of the health insurance industry. " These are not my words, they are yours. I didn't say that the healthcare industry would collapse, I said that It would lead America into a deeper recession. Please don't pull things out of the air like that. You have gotten totally off topic in the first 10 sentences. My argument stands as this: If the American people receive "free" healthcare, then America will only loose more money. This is how our current system works: Bob gets sick, Bob goes to the doctor. The doctor prescribes a medicine for Bob. Bob goes to the front desk to check out and to pay the bill. Bob has insurance, so the insurance company will pay enough of the bill so Bob only has to pay $20. Bob pays his insurance company twice a year to keep the insurance company happy and to pay his doctor visits and other various medical bills, car bills, and house bills. ( Bob has an insurance that covers everything, house, car, medical). The key point there being that Bob payed the doctor, his staff, and the janitor who cleans up the place. If Bob no longer has to pay for that service, then will the company stay in business? NO! If no one pays them they can't support their family's, so they have to quit and find a new job. If doctors all over the country quit, who will Bob go to the next time he is sick? This is what would happen if healthcare was free. The government is smart enough to predict this, so they know that someone must pay up. Who will end up paying the bill? American taxpayers! I can assure you that someone will pay, and who else but the taxpayers? This Idea of "universal healthcare" (which is not to be confused with single player) will increase costs for business, family's, and will only take more of your hard-earned money. Medicare is already in debt 40 billion dollars, do you really want it to close and have all that debt forced on us at tax time? I challenge you, SHOW me how this isn't what will happen. You have a difficult job to do, best of luck. . http://answers.yahoo.com...