BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tea Partiers are Nazis

Interesting that my opponent neither confirms or denies that the Tea Party dislikes Obama because he is black, I will agree that it is not the sole reason they dislike him although it is the major one. My opponent claims that they protest the policies that are unconstitutional (except of course what they don't like and would want used on their enemies so say Muslims. The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, secenth, and eighth they would not mind being broken if done to Muslims) but if that were true then those people should have protested Bush a lot more since he literally said that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper. " It just seems to me that the person that said probably the most unconstitutional thing that could be said barely got any flak to them since Teabagger protests didn't any good turnouts until Obama was just inaugurated not inacting ANY policies yet, how could he? It was his inauguration! Maybe Obama being President is unconstitutional to them? Wonder why that is. .. . My opponent forgets a peculiar thing about Teabaggers and the Republican Party. While they want a smaller government for economics to be taxed less they only protest against things like health care and welfare, never war. So they must be fine with the government using tax money to go to war then if they don't object. So if an invading army is fine with them then they could support it committing a genocide. Thirdly, yes it is correct that they care about terrorist attacks on American soil but only American soil, anywhere else and it doesn't matter to them. A fear of al-Qaeda however is just irrational, a majority of the attacks they have done (not that many for such a feared organization) they just claimed responsibility for, it could not be them at all. All Guantanamo Bay is for is to kidnap mostly innocent Americans and torture them which is probably going to make them become terrorists in effect of being tortured for no reason and harboring a resentment towards the country that did such a thing to them. Finally, much to contradict my opponent I will say that Shari'a Law could never be implemented in America because there has to be a separation between church (religion) and state which isn't gong to be broken to please a minority any time soon. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Wishing luck to my opponent in the final round.
Tea Partiers are Nazis

Now to rebuttals. .. Firstly, my opponent points out that the Tea Party simply doesn't like Obama because he's black. There may or may not be some truth to that statement, however, it's certainly not the sole reason. Tea Partiers have been widely known to protest his policies which they feel are unamerican and unconstitutional. Many of these protests have been to address issues such as wasteful spending and high taxes, two things Tea Partiers feel Obama's policies are contributing to. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... It is also worth noting hat if Tea Partiers were Nazis they would certainly not be protesting as Nazism traditionally calls for dictatorship. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Secondly, my opponent feels that Tea Partiers want to exterminate Muslims in concentration camps. This is untrue for a few reasons. Tea Partiers often emphasis that they support small government that doesn't interfere in the lives of individuals. This would extend to all American citizens. There would also be no need for them to exterminate Muslims since many Tea Partiers support more restrictive immigration policies instead. That would already reduce the numbers of Muslims entering America. Also, again, killing anybody off would be opposed to the American constitution which Tea Partiers strive to uphold. Trying to amend anything to allow genocide would also likely result in political suicide. Why any politician would want to do such a move is beyond me. Thirdly, my opponent mentioned Guantanamo Bay. Like immigration, there's mixed views among Tea Partiers on whether to keep Guantanamo bay open. Those who support it genuinely feel that it'll protect America from terrorist threats. After 9/11, it is perfectly reasonable that some Americans would be concerned about further terrorist attacks happening on American soil. America, along with Canada, Britain, Spain, and Australia, is one of Al-Qaeda's top targets so it's a perfectly legit fear. . http://www.nationalterroralert.com... Nazis targeted individuals for no legit reason at all. Lastly, my opponent mentions the point about Shari'a and states it would never be implemented in America. This is quite incorrect and there's a very real possibility it could. Here in Canada there has been debate over whether to introduce Shari'a courts. Some European countries already have Shari'a courts in place in order to settle domestic disputes. . http://www.timesonline.co.uk... As I mentioned in round 2, most aspects of Shari'a contradict the American values that Tea Partiers fight to uphold. Good luck to us both in the next round!
Tea Partiers are Nazis

My opponent claims that the Tea Party is just genuinely concerned about their country so they do not want someone that wasn't born in America to be President in order to stay true to the Constitution which they do want, that is the parts of it that they like. While this may be true to an extent it is irrelevant in this case as Obama has already been proven by the state of Hawaii to have been born IN Hawaii, Teabaggers just claim it is a conspiracy because they just cannot accept that an African-American was voted into office. Next my opponent says that because Muslims are not being exterminated in concentration camps that Teabaggers cannot be Nazis but I say just give them some time, the Nazis didn't start out killing Jews either but built up to it while showing their discontent of those who practice the Jewish faith just like Teabaggers are showing their discontent for those that practice the Islamic faith and don't hide it unlike what my opponent says. http://www.youtube.com... The tactic of dehumanizing the enemy to make it easier to kill them is an old one indeed. Also many innocent Muslims and Arabs are sent to Guantanamo Bay all the time where they are tortured in ways that lead to death. Finally, I would like to say that only idiots/FOX News audience and hate mongers actually believe that Shari'a Law would ever be implemented in America. They are just sheep that must be easily tricked if Sarah Palin is their leader to be an obedient army against Muslims to distract them from the real issues much like shiny keys to infant or in this case Hitler misleading Germany to hate Jews in orde to distract them. Awaiting my opponent's response.
Tea Partiers are Nazis

Good luck to both of us! First off, my opponent addresses the issue of Obama's citizenship. While I don't necessary agree with The Tea Party's approach to this, it is a legit form of political protest. One concern seems to be that Obama may be an African rather than an American and Tea Partiers have a goal to stay true to the US constitution which says only Americans can be president. At first glance anybody could be confused without knowing his background, considering he's black with a Kenyan father and his middle name is "Hussein", generally associated with Islam and Islamic countries. Also, it takes much more than just a few racist remarks to make one a Nazi, which I'll expand on in the next rebuttal. Secondly, my opponent mentions protests against Muslims. While this can be viewed as racist, it's still not representative of Nazism. Muslims are not being sent to concentration camps to be systematically slaughtered nor are Tea Partiers preaching that. In fact, their party platform mentions nothing of the sort, emphasizing Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, and Free Markets. (. http://www.teapartypatriots.org...) In a Tea Partier's ideal government state sanctioned genocide would be impossible(it's against the US Constitution which they strive to uphold) as would a corporatist society, which is another defining feature of Nazism/Fascism. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Lastly, the Tea Party is active against Islam due to certain groups such as Shariah 4 America who want to implement Shari'a across America, a system that is contrary to American values, something as I emphasized before, is something the Tea Party strives to uphold. . http://shariah4america.com... I'll now be handing this over to my opponent. Good luck, once again!
Tea Partiers are Nazis

Obviously due to this being the 21st century they could not belong to a party that no longer exists so I will go with the second definition that they hold similar views. The Teabaggers are well known racists, the only reason that they are trying to say Obama wasn't born in this country and is Muslim is because he is black but try not to openly say this and instead of hatred of Jews they have a hatred of Muslims. For example the Teabaggers protested a Muslim fundraiser for a women's shelter and homeless just because they were Muslim even with little children with the Muslim parents they didn't relent of their remarks of telling them to "Go home Muzzies! " and personally wouldn't be shocked if they were the ones that performed another kristallnacht. . http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com... . http://blogs.creativeloafing.com... . http://wonkette.com... . http://wonkette.com...
Tea Partiers are Nazis

I'll be arguing that members of the US Tea Party are indeed not Nazis, contrary to my opponent's claim that they are. In order to avoid tricky semantics I'll be laying out the definition. Naï¿½zi    /ˈnɑtsi, ˈnï¿½t-/ Show Spelled [naht-see, nat-] plural -zis, adjective –noun 1. a member of the National socialist German Workers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under adolf hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Fï¿½hrer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II. 2. (often lowercase) a person elsewhere who holds similar views. http://dictionary.reference.com... Obviously by Tea Party I mean the US political movement and not the English social gathering where people get together and drink tea. Arguments will come next round once my opponent accepts this debate. Thank you.
The government does us more harm than good.

The topic of debate above is entitled "The government does us more harm than good." Against such a strong statement and an equally strong position in your initial argument that the government is RESPONSIBLE for all of the high prices or shoody products facing our nation, all I had to prove is that government is A) Actually generally responsible for mitigating high prices or shoody products foisted on the consumer by corporate monopoly or control and B) Vitally needed because no market force equivalent would arise without a strong government actor. Your subsequent arguments have only been rooted in metadebate an attempt to show that my examples were no topical, but you have clearly failed to do this. You have failed to show how food quality or prices is in someway disanalogous to posion gas, led pain or any other such example you brought up. Moreover, you failed to argue why my 20th century example is not perfectly analogous to today. As I stated in my last argument, I used the turn of the century as an example because it is the most clear divide between deregulation and corporatocracy and a regulating government involved in managing affairs and making life better for its citizens. What this shows clearly is that when government gets actively involved in people's lives, their quality of life goes up in measurable and sustainable ways. It is a lack of vigrous enforcement of government standards that brings us to where we are today rather than government being a bad agent. From your arguments logically flowed my question of what alternative form of government do you purpose. If something does more harm than good, the logical solution is to try as much as possible to mediate or eliminate that harm. You have failed to answer my resonable questions about what exactly you purpose and have failed to present a coherrant defense of your positions. Because your initial arguments really were similar to my responses and your completely failed to substantively adress them, I win the round. I have shown that government is both needed and capable of providing good in individuals lives and improving them
The government does us more harm than good.

Actually yes, I have heard of both inductive reasoning and proving a point through examples. I declared practically your entire argument irrelevant because it really had nothing to do with my initial argument. Debates do proceed from a premise but as the con team, your responsibility is to try to argue against the pro teams arguments, not drop what they said and try to bring up your own arguments. My examples do fall under a similar mold, but the key word there is "similar." Technically they can be and are separated into different sub examples in which you did not even attempt to talk about in your opening argument. Since you did not attempt to talk about them at all until I brought up that they were dead subjects, I am completely unclear as to why you even brought them back up. That shows me that those subjects in this debate were unimportant to you until I declared them dead. That would be the lead poisoning, the gas and utility prices, and even the food. That part also makes no sense seeing as I never brought up anything about the FDA or them inspecting the safety of food, so why would you try to prove your point in an argument that was never even something this challenger had brought up in her opening case? That is also untopical. I was not asking you to spell out your case, but your first one made no sense and almost completely untopical. I never said our government should be abolished. Re-read the last sentence in my opening argument. It said, "we need to get better people into those positions." Please explain to me how that sentence could even slightly be interpreted into, "there should be no government" which according to you is what I said. I was saying that we need to replace the current people that are in governmental positions with new people. That right there clearly shows you did not read my opening statement very well. As to the fact of you not accepting this challenge, not only is it not right to bring personal attacks on yourself or your opponent into a debate, but it is also your responsibility to understand what you will be debating against. Therefore, that is completely not my fault and should not have even been brought up because no one made you choose this topic to debate. So just to clarify everything, you basically dropped my entire case in your opening argument and only brought them back up after I declared them dead. It also shows me that what I initially was talking about was unimportant to you so you must agree with me on some level or you would have at least attempted to disprove my entire case in your opening statement. You also said that you thought I was saying that we need to abolish our government which if you had read my opening statement more clearly, you would have known that that was not what was on my mind at all. And the last part about you not accepting this challenge had I been more clear, that has nothing to do with this case and should not have been brought up because you are the one who had to make the choice to debate against me. Therefore that argument is thrown away because it has no significance to this case, just like your thought about the FDA.
The government does us more harm than good.

First of all, I would like to point out that you never said anything about the led poisoning or gas. The only thing you really attacked was that of the raised prices so that in itself shows that you agree with me about the gas and led poisoning, so that is a dead case which you cannot pick up again. Therefore I win on those two arguments. Also you brought up food safety which has nothing to do with my argument. I brought up nothing about food safety, just the fact of things at the store being raised in prices, so therefore I win on that to. You also brought up the American government from the 19th century, which has nothing to do with today's government and Iceland's government from the 10th and 11th centuries. That is not topical at all because I said today's government, not a government from 10 centuries ago and I also said AMERICAN government, not Iceland government. That may be a reference you're using for your case but what are you trying to get at? This is not the 10th, 11th, or 19th century and this is America, not Iceland. No to mention that I never said anything whatsoever about having no government at all. If I remember correctly, in my closing sentence, I said,"we need to get better people into those positions." That is nowhere near having no government at all, that is just saying that we need to replace the current people in charge. How am I supposed to "explain a system of law and order that cannot be enforced without government at some level" when I never said anything about having no government? So just to summarize what I am saying: I win on the led poisoning and gas topics simply because you did not attack that whatsoever, therefore being a dead case you cannot pick it back up and I win. I also win on the cost of living because you never said anything about electric, utilities, and everything it takes to live. The only thing you attempted to attack was the cost of food. That you did not even attack correctly because you talked about food SAFETY which was not even an issue I brought up. I have no idea where you got food safety, or the Iceland government in the 10th and 11th centuries or even our government in the 19th century. What I want you to see here is that you really attacked nothing I said in my opening argument therefore I win this case.
The government does us more harm than good.

Being that it is really obvious that there are a lot of problems going on in America right now, the government should be taking care of us right? They should be protecting us against things like led poisoning and not making it so hard to live. The gas prices are out of this world and only going to get worse and living in itself is not going to be easy. Who is at fault here? Is it us as American citizens? No it is the fault of the government. THEY are the ones raising the prices of gas, food, utilities, gas, electric, just about anything you can think of. Shouldn't we be able to live without having to almost go bankrupt every time we go to the store or fill up out gas tanks? The answer is yes. We should also have the right to be protected and not worry about being poisoned. How many times have there been toy recalls because someone over in China messed up putting too much led in the paint? The government should be checking these things out, and the news has already stated that led testing kits do not work. So what is your opinion about this? Do you think the government does a good job of protecting us? I surly don't and think we need to get better people into those positions.
Fools make a mockery of things they do not understand.

If you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? You say you are a Christian, so your answer to this question must be yess or you are a fool making a mockery of things you do not understand. If you say yes, your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven, tell me how you know or I will say you are a liar because you don't know what you just claimed to know.Thank you for accepting this challenge. Who are you and why did you choose this debate with me as your first since you became a menber 50 mins ago? You sure have your settings in place well for a new member. What was your screenname before you adopted this screenname you are using? Are you one of my favorite mockers and imitators?Again,....If you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? You say you are a Christian, so your answer to this question must be yes or you are a fool making a mockery of things you do not understand. If you say yes, your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven, tell me how you know or I will say you are a liar because you don't know what you just claimed to know. Liars are fools because they think they can fool God. Who are you?
Fools make a mockery of things they do not understand.

First, you must define your terms. Is everyone which mocks things they don"t understand a fool? Or do all fools mock which they do not understand? I will keep this debate to your original argument, as I am a Christian and this argument is not about whether or not fools go to heaven or hell, like you seemed to state in your final paragraph. People who engage in mockery may very well be foolish, but this is only because it is not a good way to handle a situation. According to dictionary.com mockery is defined as " teasing and contemptuous language or behavior directed at a particular person or thing". Teasing is never an efficient way to get your point across, but that is not what we are arguing. People who mock others may be very well educated on the subject they are mocking, perhaps they don"t find it worth their time, or they aren't taking the subject seriously because you haven"t explained your stance in a coherent way. Mocking, at least in the dictionary"s terms, does not indicate a lack of understanding. Of course people who engage in mockery may not understand the subject, but that can not simply be assumed.
Fools make a mockery of things they do not understand.

In this debate, I will offer evidence of many mockers and show that they do not understand what they are making a mockery of. I will copy and paste the comments of mockers and show they are fools as the arguments for my debate. Imitiation is the sincerest form of flattery. Several mockers on this site have imitated me by inventing a screenname as a direct response or imtitation of my screenname, or by imitating my debates. Of course these flatterers add a twist of mockery to their works. I guess that is the best they can do to come up with new material. I am honored by the groupies who follow me looking for a chance to throw peanuts at me, and I am honored by the ones who have so remembered my Hell fire and brinstone preaching in the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ who conquered death and offers eternal life to all who beiieve on Him. In appreication of my mockers and groupies who look for opportunities to throw stones at me, I will copy and paste their comments from other debates and show that FOOLS MAKE A MOCKERY OF THINGS THEY DO NOT UNDERSTANDI don't want anybody to slide to Hell. I want everybody to get saved and go to heaven, but I know few will. Most of the mockers will continue mocking untill their death is finalized and eternal in the fire pit of Hell where they will be swatted in doom by the flames and eaten by the worms which never die so their doomswatted bodies will look like ragdolls.
Universal Health Care

OPPONENT FORFEITEDOPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED OPPONENT FORFEITED