BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nazi Economics

For the majority of my opponenets arguement he talked about the New Deal. Its obvious he didnt read the resolution and he didnt read what i said against his arguement. The New Deal or any other Western economic policy was not the point of this debate and i clearly stated this in the rules and mulitple times in previous rounds. My opponent did not argue througout the debate that Nazi Germany economics were not benefecial to the country so he by default does not fufill his burden of proofNot only this but he asks ME questions! I cant answer my opponents questions because i specifically stated that no new arguements were to be made in round 4! Only rebuttals! Now that thats out of the way onto the rebuttalsRebuttalsMy opponent made no arguement that i need to rebutt. All of his arguements were centered around the New Deal which had nothing to do with the debateCounter Rebuttals1. GNI increased under Nazi Germany"GDP was rising, because Nazi Germany occupied a large amount of Europe. .. .. .. .. .. .irrelevant. .. .. .. if it is purely about economics"I never said that it was purely economics. Again the resolution is "Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy". I did not say anything about focusing just on market descions made by nazi germany.2. Unemployment"Pro fails to explain where the jobs went. .. .. i assume alot of the jobs were focused on the military. .. "My opponenet doesnt really explain why job increase in the military is a bad thing he just states its not good. Not only that but again he brings up the New Deal which has nothing to do with the resolution. Again this point has no impact.3. Large Public Work ProjectsMy opponent does not mention this so i believe he conceded this point4. Moochers off welfare didnt exist"This could also be due to the fact the government killed those. .. .. .unproductive. .. .. .. .. Pro has yet to find evidence that moochers existed in the New Deal. .. .. .. "My opponenet doesnt explain why killing those who were unproductive to society negatively effects the economy. Again the morality arguement is coming into play. Also i dont need to rebutt the New Deal. That wasnt part of the resolution.5. Non reliance of global macro economics"Pro does not explain. .. .. how global economics hurts normal countries"Unfortunatley i did. I already had the example of China's stumble creating a economic fall of many countries including the US. See round 2 and 3 for more detail on thisFor the rest of the round my opponent again starts talking about the New Deal. My opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof which was "Nazi rule over Germany NEGATIVELY effected the economy".
Nazi Economics

The amount of money that the Allies wanted from Germany exceeded 30 billions US dollars (1), this kind of cost required Germany to stop focusing on its economy and start focusing paying back its debt. For example, because Germany ignored building infrastructure and jobs unemployment rose to an incredible amount, almost 30%! (2) Not only that but growth in Germany decreased significantly by 30 million marks (3). Inflation was also another problem in Pre Nazi Germany. Inflation was so high that it took almost 20,000,000 marks to buy one loaf of bread (4). "German children counting stacks of marks to shop with"Now that we have seen the economic collapse of Pre Nazi Germany lets look at the economics of Nazi Germany. 1. GNI increased under Nazi Rule As we can see the Gross National Income took a massive hit during the 1920's but as soon as Hitler rose to power the GDP increased massively (5). With economic collapse of WW1 it was obvious that Germany was in Great Depression. It had to take massive economic reform to raise peoples income during a depression but Hitler managed to do this with the following policies2. Unemployment As we can see as soon as Hitler took power (1933) unemployment took a drastic decrease to almost 8 percent (6). From 1933 to 1939 unemployment the unemployment rate decrease by 22 percent! Compare that to other US presidents where unemplyoment goes down maybe 5 or 4 points.3. Construction of HighwaysIn 1935 Hitler started the Reichsautobahn which started a mass production of highways in Germany. This caused massive growth in the Germany public and private sector job graphs (7). With these highways the amount of jobs skyrocketed and led Germany into the modern age4. Moochers off Welfare didnt existIn America there are many people who abuse the welfare system however in Nazi Germany people like that would be put in concentration camps because they werent contributing to the system. These people who were called "work shy" would be weeded out of the system and only the people who needed it would get welfare benefits (8)Not only did the Nazis save money by starving/weeding out the lazy they also set an example that you should do your work. So as we can see from the evidence shown here Germany benefitted economically under Nazi RuleI will get into more depth and more arguements in later roundsSources:(1): . https://en.wikipedia.org...(2): . http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...(3): . http://www.theholocaustexplained.org...(4): . http://www.history.ucsb.edu...(5): . https://en.wikipedia.org...;(6): . http://www.dailystormer.com...(7): . https://en.wikipedia.org...(8): . https://en.wikipedia.org...(badge)
Nazi Economics

Ive had an interest in debating this topic for a long time. We will be looking at economics and not the fate of Nazi Germany in WW2 due to the allies. Any point about the demise of Nazi Germany that is not related to its economics will have no impact in this debate. Resolution: Nazi rule over Germany created a better economy Rules -Round 1 acceptance ONLY -No kritiks -Round 4 rebuttals ONLY (No new arguements) -No use of semantics to turn rules or definitons in your favor -If you somehow accept this debate without my permission you forfeit all points to me. Basically you lose the debate if i did not pick you BoP is shared. My opponenet must make arguements that the Nazi economic policy was bad for Germany and rebutt my claims just like i have to. Definitions: Nazi Germany: The Nazi rule of Germany during the mid 1900's Economics: the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. Good: Prosperous or good for the nation
The Islamic face veil is a barrier to integration in the West.

To begin I will give a brief statement of argument to disagree with the subject title. What is integration? When one is seen part and parcel of a society; contributing happily and in harmony; this could be a general brief definition of what it means to integrate in the western environment. But this is all. There is no deep particular leading interpretation or understand of integrating, "...it must be emphasised that there is no single agreed understanding of the term ‘integration'. Meanings vary from country to country, change over time, and depend on the interests, values and perspectives of the people concerned"[1]. So who gets to define or decide when one has particularly integrated, or how much one has integrated? Every western society is not the same. Are there particular boxes to tick saying one must be ‘like this and eligible for that' to integrate or be accepted in a society? The West is becoming more and more multicultural. Multicultural by definition means difference and to accept difference, difference so long as it harms/offends no one. And to say a woman cannot integrate because of a simple cloth she wears over her face is in contradiction to what multiculturalism stands for. What must be understood is multiculturalism does not necessarily mean for an individual to like or approve the differences, but it means to at least respect them. It is the freedom to be different, simple. In western countries, we the public have to bare up with a lot of differences. For example, one may not like the way a punk dresses or hippies dress etc, but at least respect the freedom and diversity, so isn't it the same with the face veil? If a woman chooses to wear the veil, it is her right. If she feels she can make a positive impact in society while practicing her it, then what is there to stop her? The people who see it as a barrier? Isn't it time to realise that faults may lie on the other side of the fence? That the people who see it as a barrier may be ignorant or unaware of why Muslim women practice the veil, and how they contribute to society? I will build on these points more as the discussion goes further. Thank you. [1] Castles S, Korac M, Vasta E, Vertovec S. Integration: Mapping the field. Report of a Project carried out by the University of Oxford. 2002. Home Office online report 28/03. - http://bit.ly...
The Islamic face veil is a barrier to integration in the West.

I am sorry to Con and to our readers for forfeiting the last round, I was swamped with work and unable to write my response in time. In closing, I would like to offer a brief summary of this debate, as well as addressing new points that Con brought up in the final round. Con makes a single argument, stating: "I believe it is very clear Pro has an out-dated clichï¿½ view on the Muslim face veil." Does Con provide any source for this claim? The Qu'ran. What does the Qu'ran say? Absolutely nothing about the face veil, because the Qu'ran does not require it to be worn. That is the key to this debate. The "authoritative Islamic sources" that Con repeatedly refers to is the Qu'ran. But the Qu'ran does not argue in favor of the face veil! It explicitly says that we should not compel anyone to do anything. The Qu'ran in essence gives people freedom from having to wear the face veil. Con admits this point. Take a look at Con's final quote from Tawakul Karman: "Man in the early times was almost naked, and as his intellect evolved he started wearing clothes. What I am today and what I'm wearing represents the highest level of thought and civilization that man has achieved, and is not regressive. It's the removal of clothes again that is regressive back to ancient times." Exactly! Clothes represent something. That was what I argued. I am not saying we should be naked. I'm saying that what you wear matters. If someone wears a Nazi uniform, and is a neo-Nazi, they will not be able to integrate in Western society. Notice that the majority of Western nations outlaw Nazism of any kind. Holocaust denial is outlawed as well. I have argued what the face veil represents: female seclusion and patriarchal tyranny. Con has not adequately challenged the historical and academic sources I have provided. I want to make sure readers understand what Con has argued. Con has NOT argued that the face veil does not represent female seclusion. Con has argued that Islam does not require that women wear the face veil. So what? That is not at issue. What Islam permits or does not permit is irrelevant; what is relevant is what the face veil ITSELF represents historically, culturally, and socially. Asking if Islam permits it is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether the West would permit it. Given the negative Western view for patriarchal tyranny, it is clear the face veil poses a problem for anyone attempting to integrate in the West, as the West would not accept the face veil as a component of its culture. It simply would not happen, given what the veil represents. That's all there is to say.
The Islamic face veil is a barrier to integration in the West.

It is obvious that Pro has put his effort into this debate, and real life has taken a main concern for him to forfeit the previous round. Nevertheless I thank him for a rigorous discussion. With that been said, I shall make a last few closing comments on our debate. For a number of reasons, Pro has been unsuccessful in holding his case for the motion, some of which I have listed below: 1. Pro has been consistent in providing single lined arguments with no demonstration of examples or reasoning to prove his points convincing.2. He has ignored a number of my arguments supporting my case against the motion.3. Pro made a startling comment on the permissibility of the veil in Islam in round 3 without any underlining evidence.4. Pro could not prove the veil a symbol of oppression and seclusion etc from authoritative Islamic sources.5. Pro related to history (for the major part of his arguments) to prove the veil to be offensive to western society, to which I have given an adequate response in round 3. For these reasons, I still hold to my comments from earlier rounds, “I believe it is very clear Pro has an out-dated cliché view on the Muslim face veil”, and that he is not prepared to except his views regarding the veil are more of misconceptions. I believe I have given sufficient reasons, throughout the debate, to support my case against the motion: the Islamic face veil is a barrier to integration in the west. And so I will not be providing any more arguments, as I fear it would be unfair in this situation. Once again I thank my opponent for a lively and engaging debate, and I hope maybe there are other topics we can have a discussion on. I also thank our readers. Thank you and I would like to finish with this: when asked about her hijab by journalists and how it is not proportionate with her level of intellect and education, she replied: “Man in the early times was almost naked, and as his intellect evolved he started wearing clothes. What I am today and what I’m wearing represents the highest level of thought and civilization that man has achieved, and is not regressive. It’s the removal of clothes again that is regressive back to ancient times.” – Noble Laureate from Yemen, Tawakul Karman
The Islamic face veil is a barrier to integration in the West.

“The face veil is neither acceptable within Islam or in the West”, a startling statement by Pro from the last round. Throughout this debate it is clear that Pro has been consistent in providing single sentenced arguments to support his side of the motion, without any sense of valid justification. Pro has now chosen to tackle the issue of permissibility of the face veil Islam on a single basis of a Muslim judge. I ask that Pro needs to provide better evidence/examples preferably from authoritative Islamic sources to prove such a case. The face veil is acceptable in Islam, we know this simply by understanding that the wives of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) practiced it. One only has to look at these cases of why the Prophet’s wives took the veil, to understand that it is not meant to oppress or belittle any female. I have shown that forcing anything upon anyone is not Islamic by the least, even the veil. What Pro is not prepared to accept is that his views on the veil are misconceptions. Such understandings of his are no where to be found in authoritative Islamic sources. So he relates to history, and I believe I have dealt with that argument in round 3 to which Pro has given no underlining refutation. I suggested that ‘it is more ideal for a multicultural society to tackle the issue and reassure people of what the face veil truly stands for in Islam, because for it to be a symbol of seclusion and tyranny is a misconception and false. By doing so, it shows we are being multicultural by the true essence if the meaning, we are seeing its values in Islam and understanding it, and we are attempting to drive away the misconceptions of it that have built up through history’. Pro stated: “Whether Islam itself gives women the option of wearing the face veil or not is irrelevant”. Why it is irrelevant? I argue it is completely relevant to the motion, because the veil is a religious position, and it shows that it is up to the woman whether she wants to veil or not. The veil is not harming anyone and it is not intended to offend anyone. I have raised points in the previous round showing the veil is not a barrier to integration in the west, of which Pro has completely ignored. Maybe he is willing to answer them in this particular round or the next. I hope I have understood all of Pro's arguments and I look forward to Pro's next reply. Thank you.
The Islamic face veil is a barrier to integration in the West.

Con claims that because the Qur'an says "there is no compulsion in religion," that somehow the face veil is redeemed. What the Qur'an says about religion is irrelevant to the issue of what the face veil represents politically, socially, and culturally. Historically, it has been the symbol of female seclusion from the public sphere. This is well-documented and well-known, as even Muslim scholars, lawyers, and judges have clearly indicated. In the 1800's, Muslim Judge Qasim Amin explicitly addressed the fact that the face veil was incompatible with Islam itself. The face veil is neither acceptable within Islam or in the West. The fact that Islamic countries accept the face veil is a political fact, NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE. Con has provided no sources to suggest the face veil itself does not represent patriarchal tyranny and female oppression. A quick look at Western Constitutional democracies will clearly show that patriarchy is not accepted, politically and culturally. The American legal system has explicitly rejected patriarchal laws; the Supreme Court has ruled many times against patriarchy, even at the cost of religious freedom. For example, in the case against the Mormons, the Court ruled that polygamy was not acceptable because it was patriarchal, regardless of whether the Mormon religion requires its followers to be polygamous if they can. The issues in this debate are simple. The face veil represents patriarchal oppression. Whether Islam itself gives women the option of wearing the face veil or not is irrelevant. The relevant issue is what the face veil represents, not the question of whether Islam coerces women to wear it or not.
Do people who don't believe in Christ go to hell(in Christianity)

I am a christian and i do not believe the doctrine that all people who don't believe in Christ go to heaven. First round is acceptance, and name one scripture that proves you right. Matthew 7: 17-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'" according to this verse believing is Jesus isn't the only qualification to go to heaven.
Is Discrimination in America Still a Thing

A dictionary definition of discrimination exists everywhere and is unstoppable unless you're a totalitarianism. Yes, but that is ALL people doing their OWN things, personal freedom of speech. However, the LEGAL definition of discrimination, under International law- does NOT exist in the united states. Most international law deals with racial discrimination, however it is quite obvious that is not the topic, quote: "Consistent with the provisions of the 1992 Minorities Declaration, the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action urged Governments to create favorable conditions and take measures that would enable persons belonging to minorities within their jurisdiction to express their characteristics freely and to participate on a non-discriminatory and equitable basis in the cultural, social, economic and political life of the country in which they live." Legally, under international law, under the Geneva Durban Review Conference, 2009, in PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS BELONGING TO NATIONAL, ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTIC MINORITIES, which is on the UNITED NATIONS WEBSITE- An organization that seeks justice for all humanity, The United States of America, is DISCRIMINATION-FREE! Although there may be private cases, as mentioned, such as the internet, or in households, businesses, etc. It legally doesn't count as discrimination, because the government creates favorable conditions and measures, to ensure any law-abiding, honest citizen does not discriminate. And therefore, since international law takes precedence over state laws (Perhaps not in the eyes of the state, but in the eyes of the world? Yes.) by legal definitions agreed upon by the finest decision makers and policy reformers from across the globe (which are usually elected by us, the people), There is no discrimination. There may be discrimination by Private entities of a different ideology, that is against the state, although not hunted down, officially, as far as I know.
Is Discrimination in America Still a Thing

First of all I would like to explain that this was not meant as an easy win but as a study I'm doing at school. I'd also like to thank my opponent for taking this argument. Now as for some of the points you have brought up: 1) By saying that people are being discriminated against means that discrimination exist. You have literally stated that in some sense you agree with me. But in some sense I will agree with you about private servers or forums but that is because I honestly don't believe you can discriminate against someone who you truly don't know anything about. This is something I found that more or less agrees with you argument. The supporters of the United States" recent record on minority rights say that according to federal law we are all protected equally. Though small amounts of racism and prejudice may still exist in America, the US"s laws and policies are made to "promote total equality". When looking at the country as a whole and saying that discrimination is still a problem is completely illogical, the small amount of discrimination that still exists in America is only in specific and small corners of the country ("Minority Rights: Do""). This is what I found that argues against it. In March 2016, the House BIll 2 was passed. This law stopped local governments in that state to pass their own laws to protect citizens from discrimination based on their gender identity, and sexual orientation. Supporters of this law say that anti-discrimination measures that this law is trying to prevent, like the one passed in Charlotte, North Carolina, violate the religious freedom of those who have moral beliefs on homosexuality. They say that these laws do not approve of discrimination but merely allows them to practice their freedom of religion which the government should not have the right to take away from them ("Religious Freedom Laws: Should""). This here is a law that literally makes discrimination okay. It does not encourage it, but it basically says if it happens no one can do anything about it.