BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Republican policies are more economically sound than Democratic policies

Please accept only if you plan to complete the debate. Thanks and good luck!Please use the first round to acknowledge and accept the scope of argument and challenge respectively. The arguments will begin in round 2.What this debate should focus on:"Policies" in this context is primarily referring to stimulus policies (such as Pres. Barack Obama's stimulus package), taxes (the act of either lowering or raising, tax bracket levels, and the effect that said actions might have in the different tax categories [such as corporate, income etc.]), entitlement programs (such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.), budgetary allocation of funds (such as infrastructure and all of the aforementioned topics), and trade."Policies" also refers to the act of either privatizing or the acquisition by the government of responsibilities affecting the lives of citizens, and how either of these actions may affect the economic efficiency and quality of said responsibilities.What this debate should steer clear of:Talking points based on uncertainties and conjectureStrictly emotional argumentsClaims of factuality not backed up with credible sources (please no Wikipedia!)Pro will argue that Republican policies are more economically sound than Democratic policies.Con will argue the opposite stance.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Well, again (you ignored my arguments) the absolute most you have demonstrated is cognitive dissonance, NOT a mental disorder. Just because you disagree with somebody does not mean they're mentally handicapped, and just because they don't think logically doesn't mean they have mental problems. Many people think illogically, including you- as you seem to have a blind hate for anything liberal, enough to claim that they have a mental disorder simply because of differing viewpoints.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

do you know the reason that obama and clinton want a bilingual nation? (which by the way would be a TERRIBLE idea.) A bilingual nation would hold the Hispanic nation back, and cause them to become dependent on the government. That is the exact philosophy of big government: dependency. Liberals want people dependent so they can expand their government to take care of our every need, and do a terrible job at it. This is inheritantly immoral and to me could be a mental disorder. How about the perfect example of how liberals support abortion but are against the death penalty? I dont want to get into detail on this issue but the hypocrisy and irrationality still blows my mind. The fact they go almost exactly against our Constitution and the founding of this country baffles me. If America is such a bad place, then go somewhere else. Liberals and the "Blame America First" crowd try to tear down the things that make this country great. Many of these prominent professors/actors/politicians/businessman are only successful because of the chances and many opportunities this amazing country gave them. And yet they still bash the United States. Does this not sound like a mental disorder? As Mark Levin puts it, "Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid."
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

I'd appreciate it if you used your own words for now on, even if they are based off of his ideas. I would really rather not argue with Dr. Rossiter- I want to argue with you. I would also appreciate it if you took my other arguments into consideration before simply copy/pasting a ready made argument. The things you listed are not proof or even evidence of mental disorders- in fact, I hardly consider the professor to seriously beleive that Liberalism a mental disorder, rather, he used words such as those to show his dislike of liberals, not seriously consider them being insane. These views are held by too many people for them to be a mental disorder- mental disorders are only in a small number of the population, relating to disturbed thought patterns, etc. The vast majority of the nation is in some way liberal. There's probably some very good social science like reason why liberals act the way they do and why they want protection from the government, but that doesn't mean they have a mental disorder. Please, in your own words, tell me exactly what mental disorder this falls in. Is it schizodal? What sort of disorder is it? What's the diagnostic critica?
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder. "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do." Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by: * creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; * satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; * augmenting primitive feelings of envy; * rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government. "The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Irrationality does not necessarily mean that something is a mental disorder. While some psychological factors may come into play with modern liberalism (such as, perhaps, cognitive dissonance), but simple irrationality does not necessarily equal actual mental disorders. You yourself might be convicted of irrational behavior, perhaps I. I notice you have an American Flag on an eagle as your avatar- that could very well mean you are a nationalist which is inherently irrational- but you don't have a mental disorder. In my opinion, Liberalism might even be a natural progression (or regression) of society. Too many people support Liberalism for it to be a mental disorder, furthermore mental disorders are generally associated with distress, disability or increased risk of suffering. There is no disorder even close to 'Liberalism' in the DSM IV TR, where exactly would you fit liberalism, Schizoidal? I've found nothing coming close as of yet.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The irrationality of liberals over the years has made me come to the conclusion that liberalism is a mental disorder and I will largely support my claim from the book "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" written by the acclaimed psychiatrist Dr. Lyle Rossiter. The point of this is not to prove that liberalism is wrong, but that it is infact completely irrational and indeed a mental disorder.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

My opponent completely ignored my arguments to simply copy paste somebody elses' content for all four rounds. He has failed to counter any of my examples, including the important one of the author perhaps not even believing himself that liberalism is a mental disorder, but rather 'madness' 'stupid', or otherwise objectionable. This debate (as per the proposition) is not about whether or not modern Liberalism is stupid, wrong, or even logically flawed- this debate is on whether or not it is a mental disorder. My opponent has yet to show how it is anything but objectionable, and has refused to even address my points- I therefore believe I am the winner.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious." Dr. Rossiter "Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid." -Mark Levin
the death of religion is the answer to all questions

Why would you want humanity to die out? If you really do then you better go first. Furthermore I disagree with the ideology of radical Islam and believe that, like Christianity, it needs reform. But we cannot force them to change or try to make Islam go away entirely. It is a religion with many followers, most of those followers are good, upstanding people who are fully capable of reforming their religion. The problem is that unlike other religions, Islam's teachings require strict adherence to the Quran, thus making reform harder. Again, the large majority of Muslims are peaceful and trying to eradicate them and their beliefs would fix nothing. You sound as foolish as those far right-wing individuals who believe banning Islam entirely would somehow fix the problem of radical Islam. No religions should die out, and I find it seriously disturbing you think that humanity should die out. Please grasp the concept that you too are a human and if you honestly believe in the death of humanity then by all means take matters into your own hands and go first.
the death of religion is the answer to all questions

Well one moment let me see what you mean here. From what I can tell you are trying to say that the answer to all questions is the death of religion. You then proceeded to say that religion is only immoral, something that is an incredibly broad and easily disprovable. When you look at religion you can clearly see that it is in fact the opposite of immorality. I am a Christian, we believe that if you are sinful you can either seek forgiveness or you will go to hell. This is the same in Islam and, if I remember correctly, all other religions that exist. Sin is immoral, religious people value virtue, morality, and love. Many religious people believe it is more important to give to others than it is to receive gifts and glory. I'm sorry but I cannot at all see how you view religion to be immoral when the entire basis of religion is following a set of morals. Besides, morality in itself comes from religion, the concept of being immoral was the idea of being nonreligious and sinful. The death of religion would solve nothing and you have provided no argument to claim it would. Please, in the next round, provide a real argument to your claim, otherwise I am left with only your anecdotes. Again let me remind you that religion is part of what makes a culture, to destroy religion is to destroy culture.
Womens rights

Thank you for this opportunity If I am correct, your making a narrow argument regarding women rights as it relates to employment. You assert that women should not be protected by the 14th amendment since they cannot physically do everything a male can do. My opening statement will challenge that position only. If your argument is more broader to include all women rights--such as privacy rights as it relates to abortions or voting rights then I will address them later. You make two central points in your argument: [1] Women rights are no longer needed today [2] Women cannot perform some tasks that men. I will address them below. Women cannot perform some tasks that men I will start out be tackling your second position first. You assert that there are career fields that should exclude women because they are not suited for them. First, you failed to identify one such occupation that you refer to. It is impossible for me to rebut this argument until you provide such examples. Second, and more importantly, women rights as it relates to employment do not force an employer to hire woman based on her gender--it simply makes illegal for employers to deny employment, promotion or any employee related benefit due to it. Women rights are no longer needed today The points asserted in your argument is precisely why women rights are still needed today. Unfortunately, even in the face of many women currently working in male dominated professions, there are some males that would agree with your position. Even today, the income gap between women in certain career paths lags that of men in the same field of work. Hopefully one day there would be no need for women rights, but not until people such as yourself changes their mind sets. thank you and I look forward to your response
Belief is Delusion

You named your debate: "Belief is Delusion. " In Round 1 you alleged: "Belief is a delusion, " but only defined one of the two nouns. In Round 2 you alleged that delusion and belief have "all the same properties relevant to this argument. " To be honest, There is no argument so far, Since you have done nothing but provide a thesis and an incomplete list of definitions. You failed to mention a single property that belief and delusion share. Further, You offer no rule for relevance. To me, It sounds like you have no corresponding evidence for your allegations. I guess that makes your belief that "Belief is Delusion" a delusion!
Belief is Delusion

Thank you for accepting Red_Fox. I will address your questions with arguments: Belief is a subset of thinking; knowing is a subset of thinking. Thinking is generalized thought, Where belief and knowledge are specific forms of thought. When evidence corresponds qualitatively and quantitatively with the allegation it is knowledge, Fact, Truth. When evidence is insufficient is does not correspond qualitatively and quantitatively with the allegation. I would agree that being unaware of evidence is not grounds for delusion, But believing-thinking something is true without corresponding evidence-is delusion. When I defined belief I equated it with delusion. I argue it has all the same properties relevant to this argument. I don't mean belief is an act of deceiving someone. Deceiving requires intent to present something as true but knowing it is false. Belief is presenting something as true, But not having sufficient evidence or any evidence at all to assert it as true.
Belief is Delusion

I accept the challenge and welcome the debate. I especially hope we can stay as brief as your opening. How is belief ("I believe. . . ") any different from opinion ("I think. . . ")? It seems that both are not reality-based, Otherwise they would be knowledge ("I know. . . "). Further, What about when "evidence corresponds" with my belief or opinion? In this case, Belief coexists with knowledge. The mere fact that I am unaware of the evidence should not mean that I am deluded. I am surprised that you didn't define the most important word for the debate: delusion. I assume you don't mean that "Belief is [an act of deceiving someone]. " I suppose you mean something like "delusion" = "a false belief. " That said, My supposition is possibly a delusion (is supposition also in the group with belief and opinion? ).
illegal immigrants SHOULD be brought back accross the border and be incarcerated

My opponent has not given any evidence based on the statements of A, B, C, and D. My Case: Upon investigation, it seems like my opponent objects the fact that immigrants come here for having a better life, based in the quotation provided. My opponent further argues (without sources) about the possibility of terrorism, transport of disease, and higher Cartel activity. My arguments would be that immigrants are not so threatening as described, and they really do come here for better life. I. Congress irrationally restricted the number of immigrant visas for Mexicans. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 prohibited unskilled Mexican laborers from receiving Legal Permanent Resident visas. Ignoring the high demand in the U.S for the laborers, and the large number of unskilled Mexican laborers. Not surprisingly, the number of immigrants from 1965-1970 tripled. II. Long Immigration waits The state department reports that Mexican Immigrants who are now being processed have a 18 year waiting list. When, it is much easier to get to the U.S when you can simply cross the border, sometimes by foot. III. The threat of punishment does not dissuade illegal immigrants. According to a study, one of the strongest noneconomic determinants of intentions to migrate illegally is whether people have friends or family members who have tried to cross illegally into the United States. A vast majority says it is ok to disobey the law, when no one is agreeing with it (78%). However, 55% agreed that disobeying the law is sometimes justified. This shows how unauthorized migrants justify their violation of U.S. immigration law, and how such justifications might make noncompliance with this particular law possible among otherwise law-abiding individuals. If the punishment to law wouldn't affect the number of immigrants, whats the point of taking them back and incarcerating them? Rebuttals: "another instance of the Ebola entering into US recently" My opponent seems to be implying that illegal immigration can stop the Ebola. That is false. The Ebola is there because legal immigrants from Africa have affected some people in America. Although, the other possibilities of consequence for illegal immigrants cannot be argued against, my main argument is that not ALL illegal immigrants should be incarcerated. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.deseretnews.com...
illegal immigrants SHOULD be brought back accross the border and be incarcerated

Over the past decade it is obvious that countless of illegal aliens have crossed our borders with means of "having a better life." By crossing that border what are they impending on honest tax paying American citizens? A. Higher taxes to support USFG organizations - Puts pressure on US economy - Takes away from police officers, city workers that make our life the American lifestyle B. Possibility of terrorism - If any Mexican citizen what keeps away the ISIS agents and the Al Qaeda terrorists groups - Makes it that much easier for another 9/11 or Boston bombing C. Transport of disease - diseases are much more open to spreading into the country - another instance of the Ebola entering into US recently D. Higher cartel activity- - with such an open border, drugs, money, and violence, can enter at a very high rate - puts more drugs on the streets makes it harder for law enforcement, and easier for our youth to obtain By removing these aliens and bringing them to justice in their own country of origin, it will help us secure our borders, our freedom, and our families.
Empire Total War is better than Napoleon Total War (the computer games)

Thank you, I will counter you now.Refutations"-You can only play as four countries in Napoleon Total War."That's a lie and my opponent knows it if he played the game once. The countries that can be played:France (Tutorial, Italy, Egypt, Europe, Waterloo, Peninsular War)Britain (coalition, Peninsular War)Austria (coalition)Russia (coalition)Prussia (coalition)Spain (Peninsular War)Non-campaign:The NetherlandsDenmarkSwedenOttoman Empire, etc."-The rebellions are too large."As they should be. Do you think the American Revolution or the French Revolution were small? They were not. This makes it realistic. Revolutions were that organized and dangerous back then. Revolutions were always fairly large and they occur at natural times when wars are being lost and the taxes is too high."-The map is limited to only Europe."No its not, there are maps with Spain, Egypt, and Italy. Actually, I don't think the campaign map is that bad when you consider it is only about the Napoleonic Age. In addition, it helps noobs who need assistance. The Empire Total War map is too large for new players. I'll admit it was overwhelmed as many other players were.-The AI does little. For example, I play as Prussia and I'm at war with France. Austria, Britain, and Russia don't do anything. Its basically a 1v1."Keep in mind that Napoleon crushed his enemies during his wars against the European powers. It is no surprise that they would do nothing but defend themselves. Also, while France might be distracted with Austria, you can build up and strike them from Prussia.Arguments1. More scenario battles in NTW.2. Most units look the same in ETW, in NTW they look so different for their nations.3. Different generals in NTW, not the same generic general in ETW.
Empire Total War is better than Napoleon Total War (the computer games)

Napoleon Total War is definitely a worse game than Empire Total War for several reasons. -You can only play as four countries in Napoleon Total War. -The rebellions are too large. -The map is limited to only Europe. -The AI does little. For example, I play as Prussia and I'm at war with France. Austria, Britain, and Russia don't do anything. Its basically a 1v1.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Solar Energy

"Saves your money After incurring the set-up cost, solar energy will be practically free. The recovery period for the investment is also short depending on the electricity consumptions. The government also offers rebates and incentives that will reduce the cost further. The savings are immediate and last for several years. It saves your money on electricity bills and if you generate more energy than you require, you can sell it to your utility company through net metering. Other costs that are eliminated include transmission and transportation costs and maintenance costs. With advancement in solar energy research, the costs are decreasing while the efficiency is increasing. "Environmentally friendly Solar energy is clean and does not pollute the environment and therefore doesn't affect our health. It does not promote global warming like most of the other energy sources. It produces no smell or noise. Its wide use will ensure a reduction in harmful greenhouse gas emissions. https://greentumble.com... "Renewability Solar energy provides an enormous amount of free energy that is naturally replenished and can never be exhausted. http://www.exeloncorp.com... "CONVENIENCE Solar energy can be tapped in remote locales. Solar energy can provide electricity no matter how remote the location is as long as there is sunshine there. This is important to areas that are inaccessible to power lines. Solar energy systems can operate independent from grid connection. Use of solar energy minimizes reliance on foreign or centralized sources of energy which are influenced by natural disasters and other international events. "Maintenance free Solar energy systems require little or no maintenance at all. These systems are also very durable and can last for decades after installation. With most parts fixed, maintenance is almost unnecessary. Expansions can easily be done on the existing installation with no much revamp. https://greentumble.com...