BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Nazis were not Conservative

Regards!TheUnexaminedLife will be taking to this debate, good luck to him. Normal rules apply: first round acceptance, second opening arguments, third rebuttals and fourth closing arguments. 10,000, characters, select winner voting system, BoP is on me. To clarify, I am arguing that the Nazis were *not* Conservative economically, politically, and socially. ==Definitions==(Nazis)1.) the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was a political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practised the ideology of Nazism. (Conservative) 1.) the inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.1b.) a political philosophy or attitude that emphasizes respect for traditional institutions and opposes the attempt to achieve social change though legislation or publicly funded programs.***************2.) Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred on preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy. The aims of social conservatism vary from organisation to organisation, and from country to country.
Extreme sports should be banned

As I said before, family members should be supportive, not discouraging. You said that extreme sports athletes don't think of their families, but that is a sweeping statement. Everyone cares about their families, no matter how not filial they are, and they will always remember them. Proposition did not rebut some of my points and they are: 1)There is a small amount of injuries occurring. 2)The solution I offered, decreasing the amount of people doing extreme sports. I think they are important and I should take those points. Now onto the clashes Clash: Which side gives the best solution to reducing the rate of injuries of extreme sports? Under Proposition's model, the solution offered was to ban extreme sports. I do not agree as I believe in the Freedom of Choice. No matter how dangerous the sport is, no matter how concerned their families are, the athletes still have the right to do the sport. I think that the government can demote extreme sports but not ban it, as there is still some people who like to do extreme sports. I think I should take this debate unless Proposition can counter my policy.
Extreme sports should be banned

Extreme sports, for most participants, are often a way to escape the reality, from stress and monotony. "You don"t have to think about your problems, you just have to think about yourself." Thoughts like that are often in an extreme sport participant"s mind. And while they are doing that they are not thinking about their family and friend"s feelings. They are doing risk for fun, they know that they can ruin their life in an instant. But they do not care how much their families are concerned for them and risking their own lives for fun and thrill. It is their family who will care for them if anything happens.
Extreme sports should be banned

Opposition brought up my main argument, Freedom of Choice. Extreme sports athletes usually die because they are not careful enough and refused to obey safety precautions. Few had died due to the sport, as the percentage of having an accident while during extreme sports is low. As I said before, I believe in the Freedom of Choice. If an act does not cross the barriers of law, a human has rights to do it. I will offer a solution to the small percentage of deaths while doing extreme sports. My solution is that the government can decrease the amount of people doing extreme sports but not ban it, as they should believe in Freedom of Choice (which many governments believe) and at least allow some people to do extreme sports, so the percentage of the dangers of extreme sport are lowered. I think I should take this debate as I am more fluid and gave a good solution.
Extreme sports should be banned

While doing extreme sports, one tiny mistake can ruin the athlete's life. Since year 2000, extreme sports are linked to more than 4 million injuries. Now, extreme sports is causing more than 40,000 head and neck injuries annually. For example, the death of a famous extreme sport athlete taught us a painful lesson. He died in a wingsuit accident while BASE jumping, and his partner also sacrificed. Before this accident, he had lost four of his friends during wingsuit flying. This makes the difference between extreme sports and non-extreme sports clear: the chance of risking your own life while doing extreme sports are much greater than non-extreme sports. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.theguardian.com...
Extreme sports should be banned

I oppose to banning extreme sports as I believe in freedom of choice. Firstly, I define extreme sports as a popular term for certain activities perceived as having a high level of inherent danger. These activities often involve speed, height, a high level of physical exertion, and highly specialized gear. Yes, I agree with Proposition that extreme sports can cause injury or death, but if some people want to risk it, it's their choice. Their family could be worried, but if the people doing the sports are confident enough, they could do extreme sports. Besides, family members should encourage and not discourage them. Side Proposition came up with their case but they did not explain their solution, I hope I will see that in their next round.
Tejretics v. Lannan13, Resolved: God Exists

This is a debate about the existence of God and a direct challenge to Lannan13. Thanks to Lannan13 for pre-accepting this debate and making all chosen modifications to the rules/definitions. Rules 1. All arguments must pertain to the definitions and rules. Any deviation from the established rules/definitions will result in the violating argument to be declared void. A second violation will result in the violator's complete forfeiture of the 7 points.2. Appropriate conduct must be maintained. No insults, profanity, and trolling. Any violation of appropriate conduct will result in the argument being reported to the DDO authorities. 3. Burden of Proof (BoP) lies with Pro. Proof cannot be from religious texts such as the Quran, the Bible, and the Bhagavad Gita.4. Logic must be accepted or rebutted, not ignored by claiming, for example, that God is beyond logic. Format 72 hr/argument, 5 rounds, max. 10,000 characters (DDO max. limit)Open voting; Select Winner point systemRound 1:Con - rules, definitionsPro - opening argumentsRound 2:Con - opening arguments, rebuttalsPro - arguments, rebuttalsRound 3:Con - arguments, rebuttals Pro - arguments, rebuttalsRound 4:Con - arguments, rebuttalsPro - concluding arguments, rebuttalsRound 5:Con - concluding arguments, rebuttalsPro - waives this roundDefinitionsGod - the sentient, intelligent, and benevolent personage who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being who wields maximal and great levels of powerExist - have objective reality and being Sentience - the ability to perceive or feelIf Lannan13 has any objections to the rules whatsoever, he may contact me via PM.
The united states should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts

Sorry, but unless I'm mistaken, round two is supposed to be used for questioning the opponent's case. It seems as though you have no questions for me, but in response to your "general refutations," The point of an online debate is to practice writing speeches. Your refutations seem to be entirely plagiarized from the source you conveniently left me. Therefore all these arguments are null. You also claim that my sources, since they are "organizations" and yours seem to be an exact copy of a government resource, my arguments are invalid. That isn't the case, because these "organizations," such as the Board of Economic Advisors, are federal organizations run by the government. In response to your short case: "subpoint a Spending cuts should be prioritized because tax increases would put to much pressure on the poor according to new York times these tax increases on the whole population would make the average American pay 3 and half thousand more in there taxes. suppoint b Spending cuts will provide a budget for the united states vs tax increases all it does is give more money to the united states government more money to spend that is unneccesarysly helpful." For Subpoint A: I'm not talking about the average american; in my case I specifically mentioned in a proposal that the US government would rase the tax rate to 33.3% for the top 1% of Americans. However if that's the scenario, the pressure won't be on the poor because more money is going into public sector growth, where jobs on infrastructure, education, and health can be opened. Why would there be more pressure on the poor? For Subpoint B: Can you name any specific programs that can be cut? -How much money annually would cutting these programs save? Wouldn't cutting spending mean less money going into public sector growth? That would mean less jobs available.
The united states should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts

(this first arguments are going to be short) subpoint a Spending cuts should be prioritized because tax increases would put to much pressure on the poor according to new York times these tax increases on the whole population would make the average American pay 3 and half thousand more in there taxes. suppoint b Spending cuts will provide a budget for the united states vs tax increases all it does is give more money to the united states government more money to spend that is unneccesarysly helpful.
Everything or 100% Existence and, Life the subset of Everything is a Machine.

First, the blog post that Pro is referencing (http://sagargorijala.blogspot.in...) has 84,507 characters. It is impossible to post any arguments over 10,000 characters on Debate.org without breaking the rules. As such, I choose not to respond to Pro's blog post, because it would not be possible for it to appear on Debate.org. Instead, I ask Pro to provide a concise version of his argument.Second, the blog post that Pro is referencing never gives an argument for the universe being a machine. The entire blog uses the word "machine" only 11 times, 2 of which are the titles of the blog post, and the other 9 of which occur in the statement "World is a machine. Life is a machine. Sagar Gorijala: I'm a machine and, I've to become a better one," which appears 3 times. As such, there's no argument for the universe being a machine in the cited source.
Everything or 100% Existence and, Life the subset of Everything is a Machine.

We live in our home. Our home is 100% Finite Existence or World or Universe or Everything. This Everything collectively known as Single Entire World or just World is a Machine. World is a Machine. Life is a subset of this Machine. Life is a Machine. Entire World is one Changing World. Changes are localized or can be said to have Frames of reference. So one World has many events or different parts changing or having different clocks. Everything is a variation or picture or event. There are unlimited variations or pictures or events. Life also has unlimited individuals differing is something chemical and also differing in patterns. Life is a machine. Some machines have logic, some reasoning and, some both. Every word in dictionary is related to Life's patterns, stories, emotions, possibilities, memories, simply put variations. Life is a machine. Machines have variations. You are a machine. I am a machine. We are machines. Machine or Machines are constantly changing. My final word: No no I'm not dieing... lol Life is a machine.
Everything or 100% Existence and, Life the subset of Everything is a Machine.

My opponent likens the universe to a glass full of sand, where particles below hold particles above upwards. My opponent has proven neither that a glass full of sand is a machine, or that the universe is comparable to a glass full of sand. Vote Con. Reasons to vote Con:Grammar: Pro stated that, "No no I'm not dieing. .. lol," which has numerous grammatical errors. Arguments: Pro has not made any unrefuted arguments, defended any attacked arguments, or even come up with a better definition of a machine. Con has refuted all Pro arguments. Since the BOP is on Pro, Con wins. Sources: Pro has used 1 source. Con has used 3.
Everything or 100% Existence and, Life the subset of Everything is a Machine.

Pro states that the entire universe is a machine because a machine may be defined as "An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body."This definition fails in three ways.First, Pro must prove that the entire universe is an intricate natural system, not just parts of the universe. Pro has not proven that everything is an intricate natural system.Second, "intricate" is defined as "having many interrelated parts or facets; entangled or involved: complex; complicated; hard to understand, work, or make:" [2]. An intricate entity must have many interrelated parts (ie, parts that work together), which Pro has not proven that the universe has.Third, this definition clashes with my definition of a machine, and we have no evidence that Pro's definition is any better.Thus, Pro has not yet proven that the universe is a machine.REFERENCES[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Everything or 100% Existence and, Life the subset of Everything is a Machine.

RESPONSESPro: "What my theory proves is ... Gods can't exist."This is irrelevant to whether or not the universe is a machine.Pro: "You do agree non-life is mechanical in nature, don't you?"No. If non-life is a machine, then non-life would have to work together to perform a function. I do not see any function that non-life is performing. Thus, I cannot say that non-life is a machine, though it is possible.I remind Pro that the burden of proof is on Pro, not Con.Pro: "Evolution is non-life turning into life."No, that's abiogenesis [1][2].Pro: "World is a machine"Where was this demonstrated?Pro: "and life which has a beginning unlike World and, Life being the subset of World is also a machine."First, even if life is proven to be a machine, it is only a portion of the world, as Pro agrees. This debate is over whether "100% Existence" is a machine.Second, life has not been proven to be a machine.REFERENCES[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Healthcare is a right.

Pro has only made one point, so it baffles me why he thinks I "ignored several of his points." His only contention is that people own their own bodies and therefore if they are injured etc. should get healthcare. He didn't address the cost of such a treatment, the tax, the constitutionality. Therefore, I extend all contentions. Pro never stated why people should get healthcare if they're injured - just because "they own their own bodies" it doesn't mean they should get healthcare.
Healthcare is a right.

I didn't address your point because you made the character limit so low, and usually rebuttals come in later rounds. By saying that people "own" their bodies, that doesn't show why healthcare should be a right. There are numerous cons to having healthcare as a right, which I've stated in the comments etc. I hope you address my points. Just because someone owns their bodies, that doesn't mean they can just get access to medical services. You haven't addressed the monetary aspect of this issue.
Healthcare is a right.

Contention #1: The founding documents of the United States do not provide support for a right to health care.Neither the constitution nor the Decleration of Independence mention that citizens are titled to healthcare as a right. Therefore, the constitution must first be ammended if healthcare is to be a right. The purpose of the US constitution is clearly stated that it "promotes the general welfare" - however, this does not mean it should provide it. Rest in comments (500 char limit seriously).
Genetic Modification on Humans

I agree that we still have much to learn, and CRISPR is still in infant stages compared to what I predict it will become. However, I think that we cannot stop genetic modification on humans. Just as you stated, people would start to build CRISPR labs in their own homes, or go to other countries to carry out their research. If we keep it legal and well regulated we can make sure that it does not get out of hand, whereas if we make it illegal we have completely lost control. In summation of my argument, I believe that although CRISPR is not ready to make designer babies outlawing genetic modification on humans would lead to a much less safe world of genetic modification.
Genetic Modification on Humans

You say well regulated as if someone is going to listen, here's the thing designer babies (what genetically modified babies are called) can be cured of all diseases, but is it right for us to be playing god? the answer is no, we are still a primitive species with so much to learn. what if when we create this first designer baby that is immune to all diseases gets contracted with a brand new disease that is incurable. back to the well regulated thing. you cant stop drugs from being regulated because people started to grow it at home. someone can steal these tools of genetic modification and create what you don't want such as a human with gills. you also may never know because if you change the child eyes to blue something may go wrong and now he/she (or it, we never know about feminists these days) is born without a kidney.
History Revisited #001: Jamestown Colony Should Have Failed

The following four reasons are why I think Jamestown Colony had a low chance of survival:1. The Lack of Discipline- "He who does not work, will not eat. "The above is the infamous Biblical phrase often attributed to Captain John Smith during his time in Jamestown Colony. John SMith was elected as leader of Jamestown colony in 1608. John Smith helped maintain the colony from 1608-1609[1]. The colonists failed to work hard before John Smith and after him[2]. John Smith was notable for bringing the discipline the colony lacked. I will explain later how the lack of discipline resulted in a low chance of survival. [1]. http://apva.org...[2]Jamestown Colony: A Political, Social, and Cultural History By Frank E. Grizzard2. The Lack of Necessary PeopleThe colony lacked the necessary people to have a sucessful colony in the early period of Jamestown we are discussing. A significant amount of the early settlers were "gentlemen. " These "gentlemen" did not engage in hard work. The only useful people were soldiers, laborers, and fishermen. The useful people were a minority as you will see in the passenger list. If you read the passenger list, you notice most of the passengers were "gentlemen" who were in search of riches. [3]. http://www.nps.gov...3. The Overreliance on PowhatansSince the Jamestown settlers were not familiar with the "New World" or how to survive in it. The settlers had to learn from the Powhatans about how to survive. The Powhatans were the local Indian tribe. But the settlers(the "gentlemen") refused to learn how to survive and farm for themselves. In the winter, settlers would have to trade with the Indians[4]. [4]. http://www.jamestown1607.org...4.The results of all three. The settlers would starve in the winter because they were unprepared for it. People would go on to resort to cannibalism in order to survive[5]. Between 1609 and 1610, 90% of the settlers died[6]. This was known as the "Starving time. " The settlers in Jamestown in the early period that we are debating had a low probability of surviving and the starving in the long winters is the best representation of it. [5]. http://www.smithsonianmag.com...[6]http://www.pbs.org...I will elaborate further on all four points in the next round. I will especially focus more on the role of the Powhatans and how they went to war with the Jamestown settlers.
History Revisited #001: Jamestown Colony Should Have Failed

This is the first debate in a series which I call "History Revisited. " I as Pro will be arguing that the early period of Jamestown colony from 1607-1627 should of seen the colony fail. I am arguing that the colony's probability of survival was low. The Jamestown Colony seemed to survive based on chance versus a solid plan. Con must argue that the Jamestown colony had a high chance of success or a solid chance at success.
Funding a massive border barrier is wrong.

So you don't think that the border patrol stops human trafficking? You think that's just a police thing? (https://www. Cbp. Gov/border-security/human-trafficking) Here is an article on all the DHS does to prevent human trafficking. The wall is a deterrent. It provides time to the overwhelmed border agents. Time to focus on other things such as drug tunnels. If you think having a physical barrier to get around won't slow people crossing then I just don't know what to tell you. That's just like physics. It takes time to dig tunnels. Forcing people to dig tunnels because they can't just walk it anymore is common sense and border agents will be freed up to address new problems. The fence set up at the border seemed to deter the Honduran caravan long enough for troops to react. Now you bring up the federal emergency and the division in the U. S. Trump has called out all of the people who aren't making the wall possible. It's also partly the republican's fault that the wall wasn't funded when they held the majority. There is definitely a divide in the GOP. It could also lead to a split GOP. I can support a border wall without supporting everything Trump does. I'm here to debate the necessity for border improvements including physical barriers along urbanized borders. I am not here to defend Trump's every stupid tweet. His tactics and Rhetoric are stupid. His border proposals seem legitimate. Lastly, Why are you proposing that Illegal immigrants who overstayed their visa's should break the law by crossing an international border illegally? Breaking one law doesn't justify breaking another. Besides, I'm pretty sure the problem is that they plan on staying. I don't think you just accidentally stay too long in a foreign country. To directly answer you're question I'm not advocating for less personnel or equipment. Barriers are a type of equipment.
Funding a massive border barrier is wrong.

Police stop smugglers and human traffickers. The idea that a wall is a deterrent to these people is absurd. With the network of tunnels that presently run under the border it wouldn't even serve as an obstacle. If most illegal immigrants are visa over-stayers, The wall would actually trap them inside the country out of fear of prosecution. The need for a wall, And to call for a national emergency is further negated by the fact that the counties on the border are among the safest in the United States with exceptions of two out of 23. The wall is already proving to be to expensive. The fight for the wall has caused us to experience the longest government shut down in history and about 16 states are now filing suit due to him declaring a public emergency, A move that is highly objectionable even to many republicans This could end up costing the GOP the next presidential race. Walls divide. And Trump's wall is doing a great job at not only dividing this country, Capital hill and his own party, But caused many government employees to suffer needlessly. Mr. Trump, Tear down this wall. Tear it down before it costs us even more than it has before it's construction has even been initiated. My question to you is why is a wall a more reasonable alternative than increasing personnel and equipping them more efficiently?