BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democrats, Fascists and Socialists go Hand in Hand

Love your profile pic by the way. It depends on what you mean by 'hand in hand'. If you are speaking in terms of ideology then already you have lost the argument before you even asked the question. Democrats, Fascists, And Socialists all have different ideologies. That is why there are three groups separately distinguished as being "Democrat, Fascist, And Socialist" on the basis of ideology. Also if you study their philosophies there are clear differences in political ideology. I won't elaborate as I'm assuming this isn't what you're asking but I can if you'd like me to or if that is what the debate is on. Now don't get me wrong, (in my opinion) Socialists and Fascists go hand in hand as being bad, Dangerous ideologies. This is fact. We saw this with Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, The Kims, And numerous other dictators over history. No matter what strain of Fascism or Socialism manifests itself in society, They are always destructive and lead to horrible outcomes. Democrats are a little more complex, Although it's certainly easy (if not tempting) to group them in with Socialists and Fascists because particularly radical forms of ideology have entered the mainstream views of Democrats in our contemporary Western Society. Though that is not to say that all Democratic views are bad or that all Democrats are bad people. Sure there are the man-hating, PC, Radical liberal, Neo-Marxist, Feminist, Trans supporting refuters of scientific fact, And so on who are Democrats. But this isn't how all Democrats act, Or what it means to be a Democrat. I would say the majority of Democrats certainly hold these views or hold relatively less radical versions of these views, But there are also many intelligent Democrats out there that provide society with opinions and views that are incredibly beneficial. Christina Sommers and Yuval Noah Hureri are great examples of this. For the record, Yeah, I hate CNN, The NY Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, And etc. As well. To group in Democrats with the other two is a little naive (no offense) in my opinion because whereas Socialists and Fascists are advocates of specific political ideologies that focus on social structure, Distribution of wealth, And governance (Socialism and Fascism, Surprise surprise), Democrats are advocates for a political party that upholds views of democracy. It's like saying "Senator Graham, Senator Flake, And President Trump"; one simply doesn't belong with the others due to position in accordance to definition. Now I can understand if what you are getting at is that Democrats, Fascists, And Socialists go hand in hand and your implication is that they are all vessels of bad ideas; To an extant I can agree with you, Although I would point out that it is much much more complicated than that, But I am admittedly a little uncertain as to what you are trying to get at with your topic.
Democrats, Fascists and Socialists go Hand in Hand

"From healthcare to Occupy Wall Street to eviscerating the Constitution, To persecuting conservatives shows that the Democrats not only support Fascist tactics and Socialist ideology, But also encourage it. " I am not arguing whether or not Democrats (and some Republicans) are Socialist in their ideology. Surely that is a good debate prompt for another time, But the debate prompt here is "Democrats, Fascists, And Socialists go Hand in Hand. " So you can say all you want that all Democrats are Socialist in ideology (and I will agree with you BUT ONLY for the sake of carrying on the argument, As I believe the statement untrue and much more complicated then that), But unless you can prove Fascism to also go hand in hand with Democratic ideology you have, Unfortunately, Lost by conventions of the debate. All the examples you have provided above are examples of Democrats trying to initiate Socialist (not Fascist) ideology, And there is no such thing as "Fascist tactics". There are specific tactics that can be attributed to Fascists because they are often used by Fascists, But that doesn't make the perpetrators Fascists even if they utilize them (and you haven't given any examples of such tactics at all by the way. You've provided stances held by some Democrats on some issues, Not "tactics" as you put it) "I will not discuss this with a Canadian because I am talking about American politics. " That is a fallacy of reasoning, "appeal to authority". To assume that my argument is irrelevant or invalid or not the one you are looking for simply because I am not American implies that you believe I do not understand American politics as well as an American. I have proven to be a worthy adversary that you've been unable to out logic or outdebate me thus far, So why would you assume the argument to be undiscussable because I'm Canadian? That just seems like a convenient way to invalidate an argument that you haven't proven yourself victor in. "If you want to read some good books try 'The Big Lie' and 'Death of a Nation'. " Thank you but I already have, And I've pored through hours of De Souza's lectures. Though by your arguments I was half expecting you to recommend Chomsky or some other conspiracy bs. I recommend the Communist and Fascist Manifestos, So that you may better understand the differences between Socialism and Fascism.
Should schools have servaillence cameras

I accept. Seeing as this just seems to be opening claims, I'll post mine here: 1) Freedom of a Private Life 2) Cost Efficiency 3) A Failed Solution Firstly, everyone has the right to a private life. Our right to do something without prying eyes is a cornerstone to our freedom. Thus, we should be promoting our liberties by not allowing schools to peer over the lives of students. The power leads to corruption, as all of history tells us. The liberty that students rarely possess would be squandered, diminished, and inevitably removed, from the initiation of such equipment. Secondly, it is extremely cost ineffective to get cameras. For the cameras to work well, they must cover masses of a school, with each costing around "600 or $1000 dollars each[1] for a good model. The cost, then, would be of purchasing a couple hundred cameras per school, as well as maintenance, replacement, spares, and techies to run the whole shop. This would be extremely excessive for the budget of any school. Thirdly, and most importantly to rebut my opponent's case, it doesn't work. Cameras are in place in many schools, and they don't drop the level of petty school banter such as taking a pen for a bit or the very, very rare fight. These are done impulsively as a joke, or from highly sprung emotion, both of which being spotted wouldn't change. In crime, there is good reason to say CCTVs don't work[2]. Thus, the resolution is negated. 1 - http://www.iviewcameras.co.uk... 2 - http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Should schools have servaillence cameras

I strongly believe that Ilam School should have surveillance cameras and I am going to talk to you about three different reasons why you need them. 1# My first reason is SAFTEY and in this case they could be very useful because if some ones getting hurt or bullied we wouldn"t know and you can"t stop what you can"t see I think that it would be useful even though you would most likely like to think about bullying in this school it is still happening the sometimes and we need to stop it. 2#My second reason is theft if someone were to steal something or even another student steals the Ilam school sign again it"s another serious reason and it"s also another reason why YOU NEED IT because like I said before if you can"t see it you can"t stop it so THINK ABOUT IT YOUNEED IT. 3# My third and final reason is COST I think everyone was thinking and wondering about it. it would ONLY be a small fortune and IT IS WORTH IT about the theft and bullying it can all be easier JUST THINK ABOUT IT YOU NEED IT . By: Marina Goodrich
Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool.

Let me go point for point on what my opponent said. He says that oil should not be factored in this debate. Well, the oil is in the ocean, and it is a reason why many animals have died. He says that "people know people" will be swimming in chlorine. That is my point. People know that they will be swimming in chlorine, so it has obviously been proven safe. However, the oil was not meant to be spilled into the ocean and has not been proven safe (because it isn't). He says that he has evidence on hand but decides not to use it because he is using rhetorical power to win... Ok, but if you don't give anyone sources for your flawed logic and reasoning, there is no reason to believe you. Just saying. He uses a rhetorical moment to situate this debate. Right, but he has no evidence to show that chemicals affect eyesight while I have evidence in the first couple of rounds stating that animals have DIED from the BP oil spill. He says that chlorine can weaken teeth. Again, he provides no link and disregards that fact that if chlorine were harmful, it would not be used in pools. He says that the ocean's salt water cleans the mouth. Again, a link would help us validate this argument as we do not know whether the website says salt water or the ocean's salt water. Big difference, as I have aforementioned. Reasons to Vote for Me: 1) I have backed my arguments with evidence, so you know they are true. My opponent has not. 2) The only thing he has going for him is that chlorine is harmful- but he completely ignores the fact that chlorine would not be used if it is, in fact, as harmful as he says it is. 3) I have clearly shown how oil is harmful to animals and could be hazardous to humans as well. These claims are backed by evidence. 4) He has, several times, disregarded his own resolution and strayed off topic. Thank you for your time.
Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool.

Just let me inform you that this debate is NOT about oil! Which clearly you seem to think it is. Yes we have oil spills in the ocean, but not as often as chlorine and chemicals are poured into pool that people know people will be swimming in! End of story, forget the oil. You keep saying that I have not evidence to support my statements., this is untrue, I do have evidence on hand but I feel it is not needed and that all I need to prove my theory is my arguments... Think about this, if you spend one hour swimming in a chlorinated pool without goggles and you spend the same amount of time swimming in the sea, which are you most likely to be affected by? Quite obviously the pool, the chemicals in pools affect and sometime even alter your eyesight. Chlorine, which is often used in swimming pools, can erode and weaken teeth; whereas, the ocean"s salt water decreases bacteria in the mouth providing a healthy oral environment, making ocean activities your optimal choice. That is a statement I relieved from a dental website... So there, chlorine in pools affects a vast variety of things...
Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing you to respond to my extensions in Round 4. If you don't, that will have proven that I have when those two arguments, and therefore, the debate. You do bring up your own arguments in this round, but you still don't have evidence. Thus I still have already won. Refutation to Argument 1) I concede the validity of your statement. However, it most be pointed out that while salt water is soothing and as medicine properties, salt water contaminated with oil does not. Also, you do not respond to the comparison between the BP oil still and chlorine, but I am giving you Round 4. Regardless, at this point in the debate oil is much worse than pool chemicals because, as I have already stated, oil was spilled INVOLUNTARILY while chemicals were put in the pool WILLINGLY. Refutation to Argument 2) Again, I concede the validity of the statement. However, the feeling of sand between one's toes has nothing to do with swimming, either in a pool or in the ocean (unless you can somehow prove that a person can swim while standing on dry sand). Refutation to Argument 3) Please specify what the endless entertainment is. If it is watching the sunset or something like that, it is non-topical and does not apply to swimming in the ocean. Thank you.
Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool.

I am refuting against your arguments, therefore, I am doing what I should be. Thank you for expressing your concern though. Here are some arguments of my own: Argument 1) The chemicals in pools are extremly harmful when exposed to skin, if not dissolved properly and even when dissolved properly in some cases. Therefore it is not good for your health where as salt water on the other hand is soothing, good for healing and cleansing. Pools clearly, do not have quite the same medicinal properties... Argument 2) There is nothing like the feeling of sand between your toes. That is something you can't deny :) Argument 3) The ocean has endless entertainment when it comes to swimming. Pool are some what limited in this area of focus although you may argue that lilos and pool toys can be quite fun to muck around with, only for a short time though... Thankyou
Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool.

I would like to point out why I have already won this debate. 1) I have evidence and you do not. Thus my arguments should have more creditability and therefore be stronger than yours. 2) You do not have any offensive arguments of your own. All you do is respond to mine, so in the worst case scenario, this debate is a tie and in the best case scenario, I win. Extension Argument 1) Maybe it is true that you can swim at the ocean, but if you wanted to purely swim (as the resolution states) you should prefer a swimming pool. People only go to the beach for leisure activities (as you were so kind to mention) which, unfortunately, should not factor in this debate. If you looking at just swimming, would you rather swim in a fresh-water no-wave place or a salty-water oil-filled waves place? Extension Argument 2) Argument 2 is my strongest, and you've said some incorrect things. You say the ocean moves to spread out the filth, and thus traces are washed away. The Center for Biological Diversity said that breaking the oil into smaller chunks did not make it less harmful but actually killed MORE animals (1, 1st paragraph). Even a year after the spill, the death toll continued to rise. The chemicals in a swimming pool were WILLINGLY implemented to clean the pool. Therefore, these chemicals should have little to no affect on one's body compared to the oil from the BP oil spill and the plastic trash which were "SPILLED" (meaning they DIDN'T WANT it in the ocean). Again, look at the facts. Extension Argument 3) You merely say that no one wants to inhale pool water more than salt water, but you have no evidence to back it up. This argument should no longer factor in the debate. Agreed? In summary, I'm winning in three ways. The first two were mentioned at the beginning of this round and the third is that I'm winning on pure arguments (Arguments 1 and 2). (1): ANOTHER SOURCE- current evidence count (3-0 in favor of me) http://www.biologicaldiversity.org... Thank you.
Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool.

Thank you for accepting, this is sure to be a good debate. First of all I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion and the arguments you put out. Swimming in a ocean is better than swimming in pools. The first argument you made was rather weak as you can and do swim in the ocean. Regardless of the waves,people still swim, for example,at a beach you swim out deep and ride the swells back to shore. You swim and dive in the waves and body board on the whitewash. Out deeper, (Not at a beach) you jump off your boat, go diving, snorkeling or whatever your leisure activity may be. Fault one. You argued that pools are cleaner than the ocean, well that is hardly reasonable considering the ocean is always changing and moving and rips and currents take place, washing away any traces of filth. Where as in a pool you are swimming in other peoples bacteria and even sometime urine, a position most uncomfortable to be in... You may argue that there are certain chemicals to remove these germs and bacteria but just think, if the chemicals your using are strong enough to kill bacteria then what on earth is happening to your body and skin when you swim in pools. Yuck! There is nothing worse than swimming in a public pool among several other people, it is exactly the same as swimming in someone else's dirty, used bath water... You went on to argue that the ocean is filled with salt water and well no one wants to "inhale" salt water. Well in saying that you are quite correct. No one does want to inhale salt water, almost as much as no one wants to inhale highly chlorinated pool water. Your digging yourself into a hole my friend...
Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool.

Thank you for providing this debate, and for any voters, thank you for voting. I am arguing against Swimming in the ocean in better than swimming in a public pool- therefore, defending public pools. Keep in mind that this debate consists of swimming only, not about the general setting of the area. Argument 1) I win by default, as you cannot swim in the ocean. Waves prevent one from swimming in the ocean. A family would only go to a beach to have fun in the water, not to swim in the water, as it is not possible. Argument 2) While swimming pools are kept clean, there is a lot of trash and pollution in the ocean. According to CBS, over 300 billion pounds of plastic are floating around in the ocean (1). No one wants to swim in such a place like that. Whereas a swimming pool has chemicals to keep it clean, the ocean is filled with a lot of bacteria that no one enjoys. Only in 2010, there was a massive BP oil spill. Estimates have shown that 102 high school gyms could have been filled from the amount of oil that was potentially spilled (2). Oil has spilled- harming animals, and humans could be harmed too. Again, swimming pools are kept clean. Argument 3) The ocean is filled with salt water, and no one wants to inhale salt water. (1) http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com... (2) http://www.thedailygreen.com... Thank you and I await my opponent's arguments and responses.
The US Should Build a Death Star

PrefaceI am really saddened that Con cannot finish this debate, I was really looking forward to it. I will use this round for conclusions. Thanks ConservativePolitico for the interesting debate. ConclusionA multi faceted solution to a whole host of defence, security, technology and economic issues has been proposed in this debate. Con conedes that the US lacks any extrastellar defence capabilities, not does the US have any contingency plan for if the Earth was subject to an extinction event, be it natural or artificial. The Death Star is effectice as a detterent, space-port, living quarters and fortress. Moreover the Death Star has uses in asteroid mining, intrasolar travel, and as a launch platform for intra solar craft. A pragmatic plan has been put forth that can be commenced immediately which will lead to radically accelerated development of technologies which will garner long-term benefits for mankind. For these reasons, the resolution has been affirmed.
The US Should Build a Death Star

*Leave message to accept this debate*Full Resolution: The United States Government should opt to build a Death Star with comparable capabilities and specifications to the Death Star depicted in George Lucas' Star Wars series.Definitions:Death Star: (See Link) [http://starwars.wikia.com...]Should: For the greater benefit of the US civiliansFormat: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments/Rebuttals Round 3: Arguments/Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals/ConclusionBest of luck!!!
Gun Control Advocates are Severely Misguided

I would like to note that I am devils advocating this debate, but think that my opponent’s arguments are false views anyway. 1. Angry, do-gooder, media corrupted scum? My opponent provides a lot of assertions about people who support gun control. He has never proven that they are misled. He merely claims that the common sense view is wrong, with no proof whatsoever. Merely assertions. 2. Data for gun control There is significant peer-reviewed data supporting more controls on guns. The Brady law has been demonstrated to actually reduce firearm fatalities. The Brady Law requires background checks on people who obtain guns. One study indicates, “Performing local-level background checks was associated with a 27%-lower firearm suicide rate and a 22%-lower homicide rate”[1]. People storing firearms improperly in the home is a significant risk factor for accidental injury and suicide. Studies repeatedly have shown that suicides occur more often when guns are not locked up [2]. States which have implemented safe storage laws have had faster decreases in crime then those who haven’t [3]. Overall research concludes, “States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death” [4]. Since my opponent provided a small case, spamming references and data is not necessary (yet). 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. Brent D A, Perper J A, Allman C J. et al “The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a caseR08;control study” JAMA 1991. 3. http://www.theatlantic.com... 4. http://vpc.org...
Gun Control Advocates are Severely Misguided

I've done some fairly extensive research into the effects of gun control, the main arguments put forth by both parties, and the main focuses both sides have in this debate. I have come to conclude that proponents of gun control are severely misguided. I am not arguing that pro-gun advocates aren't misguided, but rather the gun-control side has practically no legitimate arguments for their position and the overwhelming majority of them refuse to properly consider the previous effects and the potential effects of their proposals. Definitions: Misguided: Based or acting on error; misled (please note I am not saying they are stupid or idiotic, simply misguided) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Debate Rules:Please be RespectfulNo PlagiarismMust Cite Sources for any Statistics UsedMy Arguments:Virtually all gun control proponents have an improper fixation on preventing gun violence, and nearly all of their proposals will or are already generating more harm than good. The more extreme proponents possess a media-corrupted view of gun owners being dangerous, evil, or uncaring individuals. They "demand a plan" because they are emotionally responding to a tragedy rather than considering the true ramifications of their ideas. They desperately need something or someone (like the NRA) to be angry at, to take out their fears and emotions on. Inevitably they fail to realize that gun control isn't much of a solution, they're "feel good measures." In the words of Colion Noir, gun control is "a band aid on a bullet hole."
Homeschooling is better than public schooling

My opponent stated that being in public school allows students to be up to speed with the exact level of intelligence... might I ask what the EXACT level is? There is no such thing; it's different for everyone! My exact is different from yours which is different from his and so on. My opponent also stated that there are no distractions because distractions aren't allowed. While distractions may not be allowed, don't we still get distracted? Sitting in a room full of childern your own age, thinking about earlier conversations, thinking about next period, hearing the clicking of pencils tapping desks next to you... that can be VERY distracting.My previous arguements still stand. Thank you!