BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir protect

To start off, it is very important to realize that we would be fundamentally wrong in treating the two problems as mutually non-interdependent. In the majority of cases, the problem of hunger and lack of clean drinking water (both are components of poverty) arise mainly due to reasons such as lack of sustainable environmental practices, land degradation, river pollution etc. . The U. N Food and agricultural organisation (FAO) predicts that the food production must increase by at least 70 percent to keep everyone sufficiently fed [1]. After years of intensive farming in place in many areas, the land has lost most of its fertility. How then are we supposed to increase food production when there is no arable land available? That is the reason there must be stress on sustainable agriculture so that we can sufficiently provide even for the future generations to feed the increasing population. By 2025, up to two thirds of the world's population is projected to live in water stressed conditions [1]. This means that with a majority of the rivers being polluted by industrial effluents and other forms of waste, environmental protection needs more prioritization than ever. Furthermore, improper waste disposal also leads to many diseases such as cholera and dengue [2]. If we do not act now to keep a clean and a safe environment, there would be widespread diseases in many areas, something very commonly observed in poor countries. If you look at the above problems (hunger, lack of potable water, diseases), they actually are some of the main components of poverty we must be worried about. By saying that poverty must be given more importance means that we are neglecting in many instances the factors behind poverty. To eradicate poverty, simply giving out food aid and money is not enough as it is not sustainable in the long run. Poverty must be tackled from its roots. One of them is to keep a healthy, clean and a sustainable environment. Thus, I shall conclude by stressing the fact that poverty and environmental problems are linked together. It would be wrong to blindly and absolutely favor poverty reduction over environment when in conflict. In every instance, the issue must be handled on a case by case basis and thus, it would mean environmental problems have a fair chance of getting a higher priority over poverty reduction. [1] . http://www.wri.org... [2]. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir protect

I would first like to state the format of this debate: Round 1: Constructive Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Summary I am in the firmest affirmation of the resolution when in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection for the following contentions; 1.The welfare of all people comes first 2. The UN states their purpose as ending poverty First, let"s address what the UN is. "The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. Due to its unique international character, and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the Organization can take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its 192 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees." (1) This answer was given by the UN on a Q&A website, as you can see on the website. Now, on to my contentions. Let's talk about the welfare of the people. On the United Nations website (2), it says that their number 1 priority is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Ensuring environmental sustainability is number 7. Some might say this ends the debate as it has already been decided by the UN getting rid of poverty is at the top of their to-do list. That is the correct way to think. If there are no people left, what does it matter if the environment is sustainable. Next, the UN says in their explanation of their purpose; "The work of the United Nations reaches every corner of the globe. Although best known for peacekeeping, peace building, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, there are many other ways the United Nations and its System (specialized agencies, funds and programmes) affect our lives and make the world a better place. The Organization works on a broad range of fundamental issues, from sustainable development, environment and refugees protection, disaster relief, counter terrorism, disarmament and non-proliferation, to promoting democracy, human rights, governance, economic and social development and international health, clearing landmines, expanding food production, and more, in order to achieve its goals and coordinate efforts for a safer world for this and future generations." (1) Notice how it talks about ending hunger and poverty, not environmental sustainability. If it is saying it's purpose is to end poverty, then they should focus on ending world poverty. It is for these reasons that I stand in the firmest affirmation of the resolution. If my opponent wants to see my citations, the URLs are below; (1) http://usiraq.procon.org... (2) http://www.un.org...
When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir protect

Well, I would like to differ. The point of this debate is to evaluate and weigh the REASONS behind U.N's decision to either target poverty or environmental problems. Simply quoting a post does not suffice as there is nothing much to debate there. We need to look into the explanation and justification behind U.N's decisions to have a scope for a debate. For example, I might say "ice cream is better than candy". However, there would not be much to debate in my statement. A scope for debating comes in when we JUSTIFY our choice with proper illustrations and references to back it up. For the above example, the justification from my side would be "ice cream tastes better", to which my opponent can rebut with other reasons to show candies are better. I did not rebut your argument as I did not find any justifications by you to back up your point. In other words, there was no scope for a proper debate. Anyway, It has been a pleasure discussing this topic and I thank you for posting it. May the best man win.
When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir protect

I would like to apologize for forfeiting that round, I could not find the time to post, I was busy. I believe I won because neither me nor my opponent rebutted, and I feel as though I had the better constructive. I did not copy and paste the motto, instead I cited my sources from a post made by the UN when asked what the purpose was. I obviously used quotation marks and gave credit at the bottom. Also, I feel both my points touched on exactly what the resolution talked about. Thank you.
The Federal Reserve Should Be abolished:

Hi, I registered as a new member at debate.org and accidentally accepted your challenge (I was going to vote "yes"). Anyway, I think I would still give it a go regardless of my feeling towards the Fed's undemocratic and pro-business bias. I'm not a native English speaker so please pardon me if my English isn't perfect. Before we begin, there is one thing I would like you to clarify. When speaking about abolishing the Fed, are you referring to the abolishing of the central bank system in the U.S. or the private company status of the Fed? This is the first time I have an online debate. I hope I can do a decent job.
The Federal Reserve Should Be abolished:

There are a few terms to this debate that you should agree to before accepting the challenge, they're really simple I just have to state them to resolve a few issues. First of all you are not allowed to "drop out" of the debate, once you accept the challenge you must respond to my arguments in their entirety within 3 days, that way if you start to lose you don't get to flake out on me. Secondly, google documents are not a conduct violation, you could just as easily as I can start a google document and respond to my arguments that way. If you do not respond to my arguments, it will be considered to have been dropped. I've had some issues with people flaking out when they began to lose, reiterating their arguments rather than responding to mine, and whining about google documents.
The Federal Reserve Should Be abolished:

The story that JP Morgan was behind the 1907 panic is merely a conspiracy theory with no solid evidence. Since this is an intellectual debate, facts and proofs are needed to support your arguments. Moreover, I failed to see how the JP Morgan story is related to our discussion about the Fed at all. The Fed would have been established in 1913 with or without JP Morgan intervention in 1907 (if that was really the case). Despite the irrelevance, allow me to share with you my views on the 1907 panic. If we look back at the economic conditions between 1897 and 1907, 10 years before the panic, it's not hard to see the why lots of the financial institutions including banks were already in stressed or distressed situation. Out of that 10 years, America was in recession for 8 years. The panic in 1893 caused by the Reading Railroad triggered a large crisis in the stock and commodity (gold and silver etc.) crises. Profits and incomes of many businesses dropped substantially and the credit condition became more difficult. In fact, the years 1897 to 1920 are what we call the the era of economic instability. Many banks were doomed to shut down or to have bank runs with or without the 1907 panic. Let me get back to your response to my China argument. Since you are at the side of "Pro", if I'm not mistaken, you are at the side of abolishing the Fed hence no central bank. An establishment of a national currency without a central bank isn't impossible, but it's pretty near. Remember that the functions of the central bank isn't only to issue currency, but also to monitor the payment system and to regulate all state banks. The lack of a central bank will cause mass confusion of the credibility of the new US currency. The restoration of the gold standard isn't practical either. The current gold reserve of the US (according the the world gold council) is 8,133.5 tonnes. The current price for 1 ton of gold is $35,090,816. This means the total gold reserve in the US would worth around $314 billions The US debt is more than $19 trillions and around 30% are owned by foreign countries. China alone owns $1.25 trillion and that means it will take the entire gold reserve of the US to repay only 1/4 of the debt owned by China if the country demands. I personally like the gold standard but the US debt situation (especially after two rounds of QEs) is now too severely damaged to have the gold standard to be the remedy.
The Federal Reserve Should Be abolished:

The panic of 1907 was caused by J.P. Morgan convincing everyone there was a panic, causing a run on the bank. This wasn't caused by a lack of bankers controlling the economy, this was caused by bankers controlling the economy. In fact, every single economic collapse before the Fed was caused by either a) European manipulation of the stock markets or b) fractional reserve banking. If China wants to be played back in "official" US dollars which are accepted by all of America, and buisnesses need dollars usableaccross the U.S., that doesnt necessarily mean we need federal reserve notes, we can meet that demand for a national currency in a few ways, a) make gold and silver a tender across the U.S., or b) just printing United States Notes instead. I would make gold and silver our money to meat the demand of buisnesses in America but pay China in US notes.
The Federal Reserve Should Be abolished:

The Fed was created when the situation was the most dire in 1913 after the massive panic in 1907. The structure of the Fed is strange since its establishment because President Woodrow Wilson had to strike a deal (or to compromise) with Aldrich's supporters at the time. I haven't had a chance to read through the entire Aldrich-Vreeland Act but can reasonably imagine the proposal was much more bias towards the private banks. The Glass-Willis proposal was already heavily debated and reshaped before it was signed into law by Wilson. The Federal Reserve System wasn't perfect but it was already the most doable solution at that time. Another important factor which needs to be considered is the current ownership structure of the US treasury notes and bills. Foreign countries such as China owns a massive amount of US treasury and expected to be repaid in the green paper issued by the Federal Reserve. If Federal Reserve were to be abolished and replaced by state banks or other chartered banks in the US, it will sure create a massive outrage regarding to credit default . Not only the new US currency/currencies will most likely be depreciated, the vast amount of redemption of the treasury notes and bills will probably bankrupt America as well. We live in an era that businesses are no longer only conducted domestically but internationally, and the ability to control exchange rate is extremely crucial for international trade for every countries. To abolish the Fed basically means to forfeit the core weapon US has in a currency war. With the rise and liberalization of RMB and the already weakening petrodollar, it's not difficult to see where the US will be heading after shutting down the Fed. In short, abolishing the central bank of the US will not only create chaos but is also an act of irresponsibility by itself. It's like killing Jon Snow only because he is an illegitimate bastard but ignore the fact that he is the only person who can protect us from the white walkers.
eating a pinnapple before bed gives nightmares

I remind everyone that my opponent has the burden of proof. And since my opponent clearly has no proof, he/she has not won this debate. Because this is the rebuttal I will have to refute the points made by the proposition, (even if I have already refuted them). \\\I have lost my proof to an enraged gorrila. ./// Everyone here knows that is BS. And even if this was true, I doubt you have written evidence, you most likely have evidence from a website, even if you did have it; a gorilla cannot steal websites. \\\pinnapples are maade of useless plastic/// Last time I checked Pineapples are made of plant cells. \\\Therefore nightmares occur/// Eating plastic may make you sick, or die, but it will not cause nightmares.
Nazis adhered to Christian Principles

Thanks Con. Least I have to remind you. You accepted the debate on the premise that you would not use the No True Christian Fallacy. As such to now claim its unfair is absurd. Firstly, I need to point out again that my opponent makes and appeal to ignorance (and No True Christian Fallacy) as Christian is defined as "a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings." As such this continual argument that the Nazi Party was not Christian when professing to be is ridiculous. When Pro says "If I go around telling everyone that I am a cow, does that make me a cow?" this shows that Con does not understand the argument. We are talking about a position (immaterial thing) and not a material thing (cow). Pro says "Swastikas are originally from Hinduism and Buddhism. Does that make Nazis Hindu or Buddhist?" No, as the Nazi Party never said they were Buddhist. However, as I keep pointing out they said they were Christians.In this debate, I have shown multiple times that the Nazis were a Christian Party. According to the definition of Christian this means they adhered to Christian principles as I pointed out.Additionally, Con has not rebutted any of my arguments from round 2 which stand unopposed and has neglected the bible versus which show the Nazis were carrying out the will of God. In fact It seems simple that I have met the burden of proof multiple times. Con never once showed that the Nazi Party made any official statement showing that they were not Christian. I now hand the debate over to the voters. It seems to me an easy vote, and I would urge you to not be swayed by fallacies especially the one fallacy that was agreed upon not to be used in this debate. Thanks again Con.
Nazis adhered to Christian Principles

There is a fatal error in Pro's argument; Pro apparently believes that the only Christian principle is that you say that you are a Christian. The debate is not on whether or not Nazis identified as Christians, but weather they adhered to Christian principles. Now, anyone can see that there is flawed logic here: "In the previous rounds I have shown that the Nazi adhered to Christian principles as they identified as Christian." So, by your logic, the only requirement of being something is that you say that you are. If I go around telling everyone that I am a cow, does that make me a cow? Also, Pro uses several Nazi objects with Christian symbols or words on them. However, these also have swastikas on them. Swastikas are originally from Hinduism and Buddhism. Does that make Nazis Hindu or Buddhist? During this debate, the only fallacy used is the "No True Christian Fallacy" fallacy. The only "goal post changing" has been on your part. You debate me on Christian Principles, and then tell me that I am not allowed to talk about Christian Principles. Also, Pro claims that Hitlers personal views are not representative of Nazism. It is common knowledge that Hitler was the leader, founder (not the only one but still a founder), preacher, teacher, and protector of Nazism. Hitlers auto-biography is often referred to as the Nazi Bible. To say that Hitlers personal views are not the views of the Nazi party is frankly, absurd. You say that my sources are committing the no true Christian fallacy, when in fact, one of them is from Rosenberg's book. (unless he was somehow committing the "no true Christian fallacy") The fact is that Nazi leaders, while not agreeing on much religiously, did generally agree on one thing- Their hatred of Christianity. Now, if the leaders of a party were anti-Christian, why would the organization be Christian? Now, I again remind the voters that the burden of proof lies on Pro, and since Pro has not delivered any evidence other than Nazis using Christian symbols and claiming to be Christian, which is a totally flawed argument, I urge you to vote Con. Thank you.
Nazis adhered to Christian Principles

Thanks Con. You said in the previous round my sources say that “Hitler was a Christian come from his speeches, which, as you know, were used to try to gather support from his people”. In fact this is not what my sources say at all. My sources are specifically Hitler (the Nazi Part leader) talking about the Nazi Party. These sources have nothing to do with Hitlers personal views they have to do with the Nazi Party. The quotes you mentioned from Goebbels, Dill and Speer have to do potentially with Hitlers personal views and not with the Nazi Party. I mention potentially, as this is not the debate topic whether Hitler was a Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever. This debate is explicitly about the fact that the Nazi Party was adhering to Christian Principles. As such my sources from round 2 remain unchallenged. In fact according to my opponents qoute if anything the Nazi Party was very accepting of Christianity and religions in general. “Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration: 1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted...“ Additionally, at this point I would also like to point out that my opponent has attributed a quote to Einstein which in fact is not an Einstein quote at all according to Barbara Wolff at the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem.(1) As such my opponent has revealed nothing in his third round argument to enforce the idea that the Nazi Party did not adhere to Christian Principles. I now hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) http://www.skeptic.com...
Nazis adhered to Christian Principles

Thanks my opponent.Now let me address a core issue. My opponent has committed the No True Christian Fallacy in the first round of this debate when he says. "Now, if all of the Christian law hinges on those two commandments, ask yourself, were Nazis following Christian Principles?"As such my opponent concedes the debate. However, I will look past this digression if, and only if, my opponent does not pursue this line of reasoning again. This rule was agreed upon before the debate. I also ask that voters disregard my opponents opening round statement as it was a clear violation of the rules.But to elaborate further that the Nazis did in fact adhere to Christian principles I will here cite some speeches and communications by Hitler about the Nazi party. I have bolded the important parts.(1)"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest. ""The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.""While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions""The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle. If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument. "To win this debate, my opponent has to prove these statements of Hitler regarding the Nazi Party false.Again I ask my opponent to not use the No True Christian Fallacy in the remaining rounds.I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://www.nobeliefs.com...
Nazis adhered to Christian Principles

Now, I have agreed not to all of the typical "no true christian would do that" arguments. However, since all Christian principles come from the bible ( THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOT THE OLD TESTAMENT), I am allowed to quote it in my argument and show that Christian principles were not only not followed by Nazis, but in many were directly disobeyed. I would like to begin with this quote from the bible, this is Jesus speaking: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Now, if all of the Christian law hinges on those two commandments, ask yourself, were Nazis following Christian Principles?