BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The anti-Fascist movements are carried out by a bunch of hypocrites.

Now you're just outright lying. LITERALLY no anti-fascist has ever said that. I can't even formulate an argument here, Because there's literally nothing to go off here, Except "oh, By the way, I know for sure that my political opponents said XXX and did YYY, So they're evil! ". No evidence, No reason, Nothing. The idea that anti-fascists call everyone they disagree with fascists is propaganda spread by fascists in an attempt to discredit anti-fascists. I probably can't convince you of this, But maybe I can show you an example using Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer is a white supremacist. White nationalists are white supremacists. He is also a fascist. Did you know that fascists are bad people? Allowing them to spread their rhetoric will lead to genocide. Everyone knows this, And learned this when the Holocaust happened - except people like you, Apparently. Punching a few bad people is way better than genocide, Don't you think? Actually, I can do better than that. Go on Wikipedia and look for the article on Richard Spencer. There's so much information about who he really is there, That I bet you won't read any of it, And will come up with an excuse not to view that evidence. White people literally committed genocide against the Native Americans and enslaved black people in the US for centuries, In the recent past, And the effects can still be felt by black people today, While you just want to moan because someone called you a mean name once. I think you might have skewed priorities. As far as I'm aware, The kind of leftists that would become anti-fascists don't like Israel either. Oh, And simply trying to stop certain kinds of speech is not fascist. If someone tells you to stop swearing, Are they a fascist? If your teacher tells you to be quiet in class, Are they a fascist? I think not. You just want to apply that label to anti-fascists, Because you're scared of them. I wonder why.
The anti-Fascist movements are carried out by a bunch of hypocrites.

Anti-fascism is simply a political philosophy that advocates for fighting fascism and preventing it from rising up again through any means necessary. Given what happened in the Holocaust, I think that is a good goal. Violence is not enough to be fascist - otherwise, Most countries would be fascist. Fascism usually implies a belief in racial superiority and nationalism, Which anti-fascists are opposed to. Neither is suppressing any kind of speech, And anti-fascists only serve to suppress speech that can result in things like, Y'know, The Holocaust. I'd also like to briefly mention the "free marketplace of ideas". Essentially, The idea is that if you allow free speech to reign, That people are 100% rational and care about everyone, And the bad ideas will be weeded out. I personally think that this is not the case. Especially when politics is simplified into terms such as "left" and "right", And simple binary issues such as "gun control" and "climate change", People tend to form tribalistic groups that don't really debate or try to convince each other, As they do try to recruit the audience of people that are on the fence. Human brains weren't designed for rational thought. This is why I think that certain kinds of speech, Such as those espoused by fascist groups, Have the danger to convert moderates to their cause, Or at least cause moderates to tolerate them and view them as normal, Allowing them to gain influence and power. This is why anti-fascists may try to suppress that kind of speech, As bad as that sounds. It would be much worse, Otherwise.
gun control

Ill accept this challenge on the full-definition that gun control should be implemented and enforced. If you want go off the idea of "freedom", so be it. 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is nothing ambiguous about the definition of the two words "regulated militia," seeing fit an authority that has some "control" (over guns) in our constitution.
Practising an organised religion is a hinderance to human intellect

The idea was to rebut against Con's arguments. Nevertheless... Organised religions promote the belief in one book, and that one book as the sole truth that has revelation about this character named 'God' and/or other deities. You are not a follower of that particular religion unless you believe this (according to the book). The majority of these books are quite fictional, and do not place much emphasis on the individual to learn and discover outside of the scope of this. Followers are inclined to not utilise modern tools of science and logic to confirm some theories and revelations presented to them in these books, perhaps in some organised religions- not permitted to.
Practising an organised religion is a hinderance to human intellect

My argument is that practising an organised religion leads to a suppression/hinderance of human intellect. An easy definition of 'organised religion' : a set of formal rules and procedures derived from an ancient scripture (Bible, Qur'an, Veda's, Guru Granth Sahib, Torah etc.). I will take a pro position on this and challenge any arguments that rebut.
Practising an organised religion is a hinderance to human intellect

God could ave definitely existed:In the beginning, there was nothing but the black hole singularity according to the big bang theory. This is as far back as we know. All of the matter/energy in the universe was stored inside the singularity. Some choose to argue that time was brought upon by the big bang, so there would be time for god to exist. To this I say, what more is time than a dimension? How does one rule out the existence of a creator simply because he did not exist in this dimension? An intelligent designer could have existed outside of the singularity and created it using just his will. It would not make any sense for the creator of everything to be limited by existence within a dimension. It is plausible to believe that the universe must have a cause based on http://worldview3.50webs.com... these odds, like the source says, the idea that all of these would each work out together so perfectly is about the odds of you selecting one single subatomic particle correctly at random from all the particles in the universe.Many Scientists and intelligent people are of faith or were driven by faith- Just to name a few, Issac Newton, Galileo Galilei, George Washington Carver, E.T. Whittaker, Max Planck, Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla etc.The list goes on and on.It is futile to argue that scientific discovery is yielded by faith considering most scientific discovery was from those of faith.Heck, even The big bang theory which we base our scientific undertanding of the universe on was founded by Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic Preist.To the contrary of what my opponent believes, many people of fath are very interested in science and their belief in a creator only motivates them. Back to Pro Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://worldview3.50webs.com...;http://listverse.com...;http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Jellon deserves to lose this debate

This doesn't seem like much of a debate. Con and I both agree on the resolution that I should win this debate. Because we agree on the resolution, there is no debate. I should win. Con pointed out that if I made a strong argument for why I deserve to lose this debate, than I would deserve to win. If I deserved to win this debate, than I would be going against my original resolution. Therefore, it would be illogical for me to make any statement that would indicate to voters that I deserve to lose. Thus, I maintain my position that I deserve to win on my original argument. Con claimed that my first premise was wrong by stating, "This debate isn't in the Funny category." However, this is clearly wrong. It is a trivial task for the voter to check the category and validate that it is labeled, "Funny". Con claimed that my second premise was wrong by stating, "This debate isn't funny." But I never stated that this debate was objectively funny. Funny is a relative term, and thus there is no such thing as objectively funny. So to state that something is funny is not to state that everyone should laugh at it, but rather it would not be unexpected that someone sharing the same culture and language would laugh at it. So far, all my friends and family that I've showed this to have laughed at it. I have personally shed tears in laughter. Therefore, I claim that this debate is objectively funny. If it is objectively funny, than my premise holds and so does my conclusion that I should win this debate. Given that Con has such weak arguments against my premise, I claim he has not performed well in this debate. Therefore, I deserve to win this debate.
Jellon deserves to lose this debate

"My BoP is to show why I should lose this debate. I refuse to accept that BoP." This is a fallacy. "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning." [1] "instead, I propose that I should win this debate." Such confidence shows that he clearly deserves to win this debate. Pro then provides us with a syllogism showing that he should win this debate. I agree. Pro should win this debate. Now, Pro has conceded as the resolution was "Jellon deserves to lose this debate." Pro has admitted that he should win this debate. So, even though he deserves to win, he has negated his own resolution, so the only possibility is to vote con. [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Jellon deserves to lose this debate

My BoP is to show why I should lose this debate. I refuse to accept that BoP; instead, I propose that I should win this debate. P1) This debate is in the "Funny" category P2) This debate is considered funny to some or all voters who read it C) I have created a funny debate P1) I have created a funny debate in the Funny category C) I should win this debate
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Answer 1# - Even if there bad for society it would be bad in the beggining but it would get better in the end. People will get use to it and go along and forget of the problems there use to be. Answer 2# - Well blacks and latinos are much a like they are excluded from anything they are treated not equal as others liek whites. Answer 3# - Race should be used to asign kids to a school if not nobody will get along with each other in the future.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Christopher Abreu In 1974, court-ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston"s public schools. "Neighborhoods were segregated by race, and kids went to neighborhoods schools "Boston built new schools, but there were still segregated "Things got worse in Boston even after the law said schools had to be desegrated Race should be used as a basis for school assignment. "Aggravating race related conflict "Seattle there is no attempt to give members of particular race political power based on skin color "Including black kids will exclude white kids Courts have the power to reduce the effects of racial discrimination. "Society have to follow all laws "Schools wouldn"t be allowed to decline any type of race
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

This is Mark! I am not really on this side! Assertion #1: Race should not be used as a basis for school assignment Drop out rates are still 50% Schools are still kind of segregated Stop worrying about race and send my children to a neighborhood school Assertion #2: To create a desegregated school system, a judge should be able to tell parents where their children must attend school The mayor think thinks the new plan will create quality and equality in schools Assertion #3 Students and society do not benefit when more children are able to attend racially integrated schools Is this only for blacks and latinos Self esteem could be from something other than diversity Kids still have separate groups in a diverse school
Gay Marijuana should be Legealized

You may bring up valid ponts as to why gay marajuana should be legalized, but my question is this: why should other people be able to choose who pollinates who? If a CanniBro and a CanniBitch get married, no one seems to care. They are two plants who feel affection for one another and those two people want to start a plant family. If we change the scenario a little bit and a CanniBro and a CanniBro, or a CanniBitch and a CanniBitch, try to get married, it causes uproar! They are not allowed to be married or raise a family. Why? Because a few stoners can't get as high, or have a higher risk for a certain disease? Here's a solution: don't smoke it. There's plenty of straight cannibis out there for you to munch on. Put that in your CanniBible.
Gay Marijuana should be Legealized

Cannibis is a plant which is used for its medical and recreational uses. The female species contains the buds with the drug THC is the one which produces europhic effects also known to smokers as a "high". The male species or the pollinated species produces a reduced effect which can still be smoked but it is much less effective Having a homosexual breed of cannibis would mean that one of the species is a hermaphrodite and the other is a female, the pollination result for this breeding occurrence is 25% the potency because of genetic matching. This is both inefficient and result from bad practice resulting from amateur growers with much more negative health effects detrimental to society. http://howtogrowmarijuana.com...
Gay Marijuana should be Legealized

I am tired of living in an oppressive society. In the pledge of allegiance, it clearly states, "With liberty and jutice for all." Now I guarantee that that phrase was written by an old, dead, white guy who probably had slaves. And I'm not just gonna say that that included plants as well. Even so, gay marijuana should be leglized? So what if it's a bit fruitier than other types of kush. It's not fair, their people too. I know that their not, but they are. You can't win this argument. Remember, I'm not talking about that lame, colorless, dank kush in overused memes. I'm talking about that fruity, colorful, gay marijuana. Thank you.
Is Donald Trump "racist"

Before I start, I would just like to ensure that this debate stays civilized and respectful for its entire duration. The last debated I had was on a much less political and "touchy" subject, but its contents were quite offensive for some. So, let's make sure that this one stays in the neutral zone. The definition of the word "racist," according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "a person who behaves violently towards people who belong to a different race, or who treats them unfairly." Donald Trump definitely fits this description. The most notable of this racial profiling goes to Trump's mistreatment of immigrants. He has repeatedly stated that hispanic immigrants are bringing nothing but crime to the US society, and these statements can be found all around his speeches before and during his presidential run. On June 16, 2015, he started off his presidential campaign with a speech in which he labelled Mexican immigrants as "rapists and criminals." The full quote integrated from his presidential speech is "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." During his entire campaign, he has emphasized this sort of criminality that he is associating with immigrants, but does not pay the same amount of attention to crime amidst majority Americans, because of his racial profiling. That is definitely treating a group unfairly due to their ethnicity or, in other terms, racism. He has also proposed "tagging" muslim Americans, creating a database which would keep track of this minority group with no proof of guilt whatsoever. This is not hard to prove, and it is part of his campaign platform, according to his own website. That is a violation of basic constitutional rights, and the unfair treatment of minorities. He has also pledged to send refugees home, despite rigorous standards of security screening already in place. If that is not considered racism then I don't know what is. Also, you have to admit that Trump won the US elections with a strategy of divisiveness. Simply look at the recent increase in discrimination against minorities, even in schools. Donald Trump is certainly using this sort of ripping in the fabric of a multicultural society to gain popularity and to assert control. Whether it is or is not his intention, I have a hard time believing that a fair, unprejudiced person would win power at the cost of inciting hate between ethnic and/or religious groups. Sources, to prove that my arguments are based in proof: https://www.donaldjtrump.com... http://www.nytimes.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... Tim Kaine shamelessly admitted to his running mate (and potential PRESIDENT) calling a major ethnic group RAPISTS. Without any dispute, Donald Trump is quite the racist.
Is Donald Trump "racist"

I would like to start by asking how is Donald trump racist, i see lots of people throwing these "buzzword" labels around like xenophobic, transphobic, sexist, homophobic, racist, misogynistic or whatever they can make up that ends with "phobic" . Which makes me bring up a big question, when has trump ever said that he hates black people or that he hates gays? , In fact, I would say he's the opposite of Homophobic proven by this video right here! Does that sound like he hates gay people?
privatization of health care in Canada

Citizens across Canada are becoming enlightened to the fact that our current health-care system is becoming less financially feasible and if serious changes are not implemented Canada is going to face a state wide tragedy. A raging debate is what has become of this question. Should Canada convert to a privatized system or is the publically funded system still in the citizens' best interest? According to the Canadian public in 2004, the greatest Canadian to have ever lived was a politician named Tommy Douglas, praised for creating Canada's public health-care system. This evidently means the public is still behind the publicly funded system. That being said, there would not be a debate unless there were supporters for the opposing side. Supporters of privatised health-care in Canada argue that it would cut wait times dramatically, increase quality of service and provide greater choice
God is not real

Hello. God is a mythical and superstitious being created by primitive humans to explain natural phenomenon. There is no logical basis for the existence of a God. If there truly was a creator of the cosmos who is outside space and time then there had to be a creator for the creator, if your argument is that God is eternal and has no beginning our end, may I ask how is it that you know this about a being that has no measurable evidence at all? If you only believe or have faith that there is a creator of your thinking then you can just leave it at that, pure belief, nothing else. If you are an academic who is here to present arguments as to why there has to be a god you are welcome to give arguments P.S This is not about a god of any religion but a supernatural being who many believe has created the universe. And please do not bring morality into this. This is another matter entirely.
The historical Jesus of Nazareth most likely looked like this =======> (Go to the arguments)

"This was all I needed to win, thank you. =)" Just because something might be true doesn't mean that it most likely is true. O. J. Simpson might have actually been guilty. He might have actually been innocent. These can't both be the most likely event. "Take this into consideration, Jesus was Jewish and lived in the middle east (Born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city). He would have, most likely, looked like many Israeli men do today. In other words, tanned skin, brown or black wavy hair, blue or brown eyes. Which is exactly the picture, is it not? " Don't forget that Jesus also came from divine descent, as God is his father, so he might not look entirely Israeli. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people shown to be Israeli have blond hair, green eyes, and/or white skin. Hmm. You lack a source to support your idea of Israeli men fitting your description. . http://upload.wikimedia.org... Here is a man born in Tel Aviv with white hair, pale skin, and LIGHT brown eyes. You provide no examples of any Israeli men that share any characteristics with your image of Jesus. ' My opponent provides no statistics or sources to back up his claim. If he could have sourced anything that talked about hair color, eye color, and skin color in Israel, and had statistics showing that a large enough majority of Israeli men in Israel had these characteristics, he may have won this debate. However, due to his lack of sources, one really has no reason to believe his claims. ". .. .. .. .. SO? What's your point? Because my picture doesn't come from CNN. com that it can't be used? Riiiiiiiight. .. .. " I'm just saying that it isn't as reliable as one could hope. It's just a fact for the voters to consider. In conclusion, Jesus may have looked exactly like the picture shown, but then again, he may have looked completely different. We don't know, and my opponent has not backed up his claims very well.
The historical Jesus of Nazareth most likely looked like this =======> (Go to the arguments)

"Sure, he might have looked like that. "~You This was all I needed to win, thank you. =) Most likely is best described as (basically)-the best chance of happening Take this into consideration, Jesus was Jewish and lived in the middle east (Born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city). He would have, most likely, looked like many Israeli men do today. In other words, tanned skin, brown or black wavy hair, blue or brown eyes. Which is exactly the picture, is it not? If I say "Chong Lee" was born by chinese people, in China [...] is it unlikely to believe that "Chong Lee" will look like chinese people? Of course not! In fact, he MOST LIKELY will look like Chinese people. Your argument of "Though depictions of Jesus are culturally important, no undisputed record of Jesus' appearance is known to exist" is irrelivant because i didn't state, "JESUS DEFINATELY LOOK LIKE THIS"... Just that he MOST LIKELY did. >>>>"The picture posted doesn't even come from a horribly reliable source"~You .........SO? What's your point? Because my picture doesn't come from CNN.com that it can't be used? Riiiiiiiight.....
The historical Jesus of Nazareth most likely looked like this =======> (Go to the arguments)

My opponent says that Jesus of Nazareth most likely looked like the picture he posted. "Though depictions of Jesus are culturally important, no undisputed record of Jesus' appearance is known to exist." http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus, there is no reason to believe that my opponent's picture is accurate at all. Sure, he might have looked like that. He also might have parted his hair differently, or had bright blue eyes. The picture posted doesn't even come from a horribly reliable source, either. Thank you.