BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Neo-Nazis are morons who are ignorant of who the real Nazis were

I will start with a few important pointsOne, neo-Nazism is distinctly American, coinciding with the fall of the Ku Klux Klan as a terrorist group (though that can be contested) and more as a group that perpetrates hatred through speeches, much like the neo-Nazis.Two, the liberals (mostly butt-hurt liberals) have been rewriting history to make it seem that the KKK and Nazis believed in the same thing, when they clearly weren't at all.Three, this has created an atmosphere in which neo-Nazis claim to be the same the KKK.Here's where they go wrong:The KKK was the only group favoring Nordicism. The KKK came from Northern European groups (Scots-Irish, Danish, Swedish). They were strictly Protestants-only. They believed in imperialism (that is conquering other countries and looting them). They were also very brilliant and cunning in their ways and deceit.The Nazis were completely the opposite. It was mostly nationalistic (Germany), and their allies were southern and eastern countries (Italy, Japan). As a matter of fact, the south of England, along with the Highlands of Scotland and Wales, probably the closest ally of Germany of all of Great Britain. Nazism was also Catholic for the most part. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. His leading officers were Catholics. Anglicanism was perhaps the second biggest supporter of the regime after Catholicism. Two of the most famous supporters of Hitler was Anglicans: Henry Ford and Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain was a southerner (England). Churchill was never really religious, and there's evidence that his family ancestry was from the north (England).Inherently two different things. The mostly Scots-Irish and Swedish Klans were heavily in favor of the USA's entrance int World War II. They were against Fascist beliefs in general (in some cases for racially motivated reasons). The KKK was interning German, Italian and Japanese citizens. The two ideologies are different. In many cases the Nazis, though not always explicit, are anti-Nordic. Now, I will say that Hitler loved Norway and Norwegians, so much so that Qusiling made a puppet government in favor of Hitler. But that's as far as it goes. He despised Denmark and Sweden. He despised Denmark for what they did to Germany in the Schwelig Wars, and for stealing Schewlig from them. He despised the way Denmark treating Greenland, which is why he had allies amongst the Inuits. He hated Sweden for what they did to Finland, which is why Finland joined the Axis. Hitler was inherently anti-imperialist. Germany and Austria never had a history of imperialism that Britain and Denmark had. Neither did Italy. It's only when the liberal hippies started rewritting history in the 1970s to fit their goals that everything dumbed down.
Neo-Nazis are morons who are ignorant of who the real Nazis were

I will argue that neo-Nazis are a bunch of idiots who Hitler would laugh at. I will also argue that they are wannabe punk high school drop outs, that have mixed up a Nordic Ku Klux Klan with a mostly Catholic (anti-Protestant/anti-Jewish/anti-Nordic) movement that made Germany what it was -- Nazism. (As a side note, I partially blame wimpy butt-hurt liberal politicians who creating the atmosphere that has allowed for these morons and fools to perpetrate, by mixing up the KKK and Nazis as though they were the same).
Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the effects of climate change

Despite forfeiting in the last round I will assume that you will post in the final round. A developed country does not have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change (assuming this is natural climate change instead of human induced climate change.) for two reasons. 1. A nation is not a moral entity but is a vessel led by moral groups or individuals. A nation whose leader has no morals has no obligations to lessen the effects of climate change because the nation being an entity that has no morals there further augmented by the leader who has no morals. 2. Natural climate change is the natural process that Earth has caused for the past 4.5 billion or longer years ago. The global climate change has occurred at a rapid rate during the late 20th-early 21st century, but to mitigate the effects of a natural change is implausible and disruptive in that humans are denying the Earth to change.
BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports

Thank you for joining the debate. I would now like to take the time to present my first point, Desensitization.believe that if we have violence on TV then that will lead to even more violence. People thought that watching violence on TV would get violence out of their systems but there have been many studies that show that watching violence on TV and being around violence will lead to even more violence. People will slowly start to think that fighting is ok and start fighting other people or letting their children watch and this will go on and on if we don"t abolish all combat sports. look at the world we live in there are stories every day about people fighting and going to the hospital because of injuries or even worse death. If you watch something over and over again than your brain starts to think that it is ok and if people watch violence than their brain starts to think that they do whatever they want and people will start fighting everywhere and this will lead to more injuries, death and people will steal more because they think that they can now knock out a store owner and that would leave a store unsupervised. If we ban All combat sports than Most of this fighting will go away, If people do not see people fighting on TV than they will stop because the main reason they are fighting is because of watching it on TV. There have been studies were if a crowd of people do something than the test subject will do the same, so if we ban all combat sports than people will stop fighting because they won"t see people on TV fighting.
BIRT This house will ban Combat Sports

I graciously your invitation and take up the Negative position on the challenge. To insure that we are talking about the same thing I give the definition of a combat sport as a sport in which the competitors make physical contact with each other and engage in one-to-one combat. Examples are: Boxing, Karate, Jujitsu, MMA fighting, etc. It is now my job to argue that the Government should not pass laws banning combat sports. Rounds 1 and 2 are for preliminaries, 3 and 4 for case development, and whatever rounds remain for rebuttals and closing arguments. Good luck in the debate!
Should the US government develop oil fields in the US and not big business.

Thank you for clearing up your argument. It makes much more sense now. One of your main arguments that the oil companies will go into this reserve themselves and take our oil is not completely true. I know I made a statement in my first argument about the government controlling the oil companies to an outrageous extent. I would now like to recognize my statement as false and I apologize for being misleading in any way. With that said, I would now like to say why your statement for oil companies just taking it to be false as well. The deposits of oil are "under federally owned and managed lands. Thus, the federal government directly controls access to the most commercially attractive portions of the oil shale resource base." so the government already does have the power here. In short, you are wrong that the companies get the oil, but you are right in that it is "Our land, our taxes our oil!" The government already has the power to do what you want them to. I cannot deny that the use of the oil would be a benefit to the world economy. Oil prices everywhere would go down due to the sudden increase. I did mention before that the oil industry is big business, this is just reiterating the fact. "Developing oil shale [is] economically unviable", however and "crude oil prices are highly volatile" (RAND xiii). I must still contest though that digging up this oil shale would not be good for the environment. You are first of all wrong about the use of water. According to the RAND Corporation, "About three barrels of water are needed per barrel of shale oil produced" (RAND xiii) Our country and world is already having water scarcity issues. But this is not the only environmental impact. The production of the oil alone will admit many greenhouse gases such as CO2 which will greatly disturb the air quality in these regions and elsewhere. The land in these regions will also be greatly disturbed and unlikely to be replenished. All of these things will directly affect the people who live there now. There are high chances that their health will worsen, their property value will go down and the most they would ultimately get out of it is lower gas prices. While yes, it is true that the oil will last for 400 years in theory and that solutions to the greenhouse emissions problem will be solved by then, there is one main issue with this: we do not have 400 years to figure out an alternative to greenhouse gases and the natural elements (like oil) that cause these gases. Global warming is happening fast. We may have the means to keep our way of life going for 400 years, but our means of life are destroying the earth, our ultimate source of life. If we have alternatives 400 years later, our mother earth will be almost deteriorated by then. sources: http://ostseis.anl.gov... http://www.rand.org...
Should the US government develop oil fields in the US and not big business.

The Green River Oil Shale field is the second largest concentration of oil in the world. It is approx. 200 more dense than Saudi Arabia. Each square mile contains over 1 billion barrels of oil and there are over 1650 square miles just in Colorado. This oil used to be cost prohibitive, around $55 per barrel. A company called Oil-tech has devised a new retorting process to get the oil out of the shale for around $6-$8 per barrel, cleanly also, with almost no need for water. The byproduct is propane, which is bottled and sold. President Bush, in His 06 energy bill called for the developtment of this oil. However, the way is stands now, Exxonmobil will just go in and pull this oil, and put into world supplies. We, the average american, will see no benefit, while the oil companies will continue to post billion dollar profits. You and I will still pay $4 per gallon of gas. The catch is, the oil sits in national lands. Our land, our taxes our oil! My proposal is simple. The Government, like ALL other oil producing countries, develops that oil and sells is for a profit to big oil. Let us just say the gov. pulls the oil for $8 per barrel. It then sells it to Exxonmobil for $15 per barrel and makes a $7 per barrel profit. Exxon is then allowed to refine and sell gas at the same margin as it does now. So it makes its money! In the meantime, the government has a profit of $7 per barrel on Oil sold to the US. This is enough $$ that we could put say $1 per into a fund to find better energy sources. We could put $1 per to pay the deficit, $1 to social security, etc... The oil we sell to the world goes at the price of oil and a huge profit. Enough to get rid of income tax, have a clild health plan etc... There is enough oil to max produce for about 120 years. Then we are onto better energy sources and out of the middle east and energy dependance on them. In fact, it is very possible THEY run out in 12-15 like experts say and need to buy from us, and we can reward their greed.
Should the US government develop oil fields in the US and not big business.

First of all, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. You're seem to be saying that instead of helping big corporations, the U.S. should focus its energy towards finding oil within the U.S. and then charge the big oil companies within the U.S. to buy from the government. If I have this wrong, please correct me. Going off of this statement, I see several fallacies here. First off, the oil industry is big business. You cannot separate the two. Finding oil is about making money, and making money is what big business is all about. Second of all, it sounds to me like you're supporting what could ultimately end up as fascism for the government's benefit. If the government did find oil and then force the oil companies to buy it from them, we would lose a main part of capitalism and these companies would be forced to the government's demands. I'm not sure why either side would really this. The people would then want to overthrow the government due to a no longer truly capitalist society in terms of business. Even if this particular situation did not happen, it would not be good. Lastly, what would really be the most economically sound and best for the people, the country, and ultimately the world would be working on developing a environment friendly replacement to oil for several reasons. 1. We are running out of oil fast. 2. The oil that is left is creating conflict, especially in the Middle East. 3. Oil used in cars and other industrial equipment releases CO2 emissions into the air along with other greenhouse gases and quickens the effects of global warming. Finding oil on our land also destroys natural habitats. 4. Upon finding an eco-friendly alternative to oil, business will boom for that particular item, especially if the U.S. found it first, and the three issues above would become void. Please let me know if I have misunderstood the original question at hand. I look forward to this debate.
Right wing politics (Pro) vs left wing politics (Con) with regards to economic prosperity.

I will argue that left wing polices lead to greater growth than right wing policies. A key point for me to make before we begin is that right wing economics is touted a way to create more jobs for Americans and increase the standards of living for the average American (you have no doubt heard the mantra "a rising tide lifts all boats"). The metrics for economic prosperity should be whether job are more available and if the average American is doing better financially. Finally I am confused by what you mean by "BOP is to be shared by both sides", could you please clarify.
Right wing politics (Pro) vs left wing politics (Con) with regards to economic prosperity.

The debate topic is as follows: Right wing politics allow for greater economic prosperity than left wing politics. I will take the pro / for position and will attempt to prove that Right wing politics is better than the left wing counterpart when it comes to economic prosperity. BOP is to be shared by both sides. The con position is to prove that left wing politics does a better job at growing the economy than right wing politics. By the way, this is my first debate, so I beg my fellow con to make it a pleasurable experience for both sides. Definitions: Right wing politics - characterized by Lower taxes and less regulation on businesses; reduced government spending; balanced budget; Left wing politics - characterized by Income equality; higher tax rates on the wealthy; government spending on social programs and infrastructure; stronger regulations on business. Economic prosperity - a state in which the economy is growing and flourishing at an increasing rate.
The Treaty of Versailles Was Unfair to the Germans

I would like to have a debate of a historical nature. The central question here is the fairness of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany after the first World War. I will argue that it was very inordinate and reactionary and created more problems than it solved. I am sure there is someone here in this community who thinks otherwise. Of course, as this is specifically about history, sources must and will be cited, and I would encourage the MLA format. The voting will be open to everyone, and the voting period will last a month. This first round is purely for establishing the setting of the debate and accepting the terms. The next round will be for arguments only, and the one after that will be for rebuttals. The final round will be for conclusions only.
Rapists Should be Castrated

Fitting the CrimeSome of the main reasons that rape occurs have their roots deeply in reproduction, sex and desirability. Subconsciously, men tend to rape in order to create the most favorable reproduction combination available. Another reason men rape is for the feeling of power over a victim. [1]All of these reasons can be done away with by castration. What castration can accomplish:a) eliminates most sexual desire from a man drastically reducing (if not eliminating) the desire to rapeb) eliminates the urge to reproduce and therefore the urge to reproduce favorablyc) eliminates the ability to have sex which renders repeat offences impossibled) reduces testosterone production which would reduce that "macho" urge to feel power over a womanWhat this will do is make sure that once a rapist is convicted they will never have the ability to rape again. i. Repeat Offenders67.5% of all criminals released from prison are arrested again within 3 years. [2] In the short run (3 years) 2.5% of rapists will commit another rape. [2]In the long run, some studies show the repeat rate for sexual offenders can be as high as 88%. [3]This being said, by castrating rapists, all of these numbers will drop significantly or disappear entirely. Rapists won't be able to rape again so the rate of repeat offence will shrink away to nothing. This practice would save the 2.5% of rape victims which are raped again within 3 years of the rapists release and the potential 88% of rapes that happen in the long run. DeterentCastration would act as a major deterent for criminals. Men might think twice about raping someone if they know that the punishment will be so severe. This will work especially because rapists stastistically are more prone to indulging in sexual behavior and to be more concerned with "manly" or "macho" behavior. If you threaten to take away the things that drive these people they may be more inclined to to think twice before committing such a crime. This would help to prevent future crimes in order to bring the rape rate down as well as eliminating repeat offences by rapists. i. Sense of JusticeAnother benefit to castration can go out to the victims themselves and the families of rape victims in the form of comfort. Comfort knowing that the rapist that hurt them or their families will never be able to rape again. A deeper sense of justice would resonate even after the rapist is released because they have been permenantly deprived of the ability to rape and will serve as an eternal source of justice and peace of mind for the victims. In Conclusion- Castration will eliminate repeat offences- Castration can bring the rape rate down through deterence- A sense of comfort and justice will be provided to victims long after conviction and potential release[1] . http://iranscope.ghandchi.com...[2] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...[3] . http://blogs.wsj.com...
God exists

Resolution: God exists In this debate, we will use the Christian God. Rounds: Con (1) Rules (2) Contentions (3) Contentions/rebuttals (4) Rebuttals/Closing Statements Pro (1) Contentions (2) Contentions/Rebuttals (3) Rebuttals/Closing statements (4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else Rules (1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he or she will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss. (2) 10k character limits. (3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff. (4) Plagiarizing results in a FF. (5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started. (6) It is accepted that the BOP in this debate is on Pro. Thanks to whoever accepts the debate.
This House Believes that Hell exists

I'm rather excited about this one. I'll attempt to keep everything clear. I must start off by saying that the bible (or any religious book, for that matter) does not offer a very accurate representation of what Hell is, or could be. It's about as useful as Dante's Inferno, which is a nice read if you enjoy gruesome tortures being inflicted on people you hate, but not a good source of true evidence. A good depiction of Hell would most likely be Michigan, Hiland Lake in all honesty. However, I'll try to refrain from making jokes about that and will stick to the Hell you have defined. Hinduism is the best place to turn if one wishes for evidence on Hell being a real place. Now when I say this, I do not mean "eternal damnation", because that is not what they believe in. I'm speaking of karma. Put as simply as possible, Hindus believe that we all have free will, but of the decisions we make we either get bad karma or good karma. This karma will follow a person even to death and into the next life. That being said, everything that happens to a person is well deserved. If a woman in Africa has her genitals mutilated, which is something that happens quite often in certain parts of that continent, she deserved it. If a child is born without legs and has to suffer hardship his entire life, he deserved it. What does this have to do with Hell? "Hell: the place where the souls of bad people are believed to be punished after death, especially in the Christian and Muslim religions"". The Earth is a "place", and no one in life is ever truly innocent, and so the evidence of it's existence is the suffering of mankind at this very moment. It need not be a McDonald's hiding somewhere in the cosmos with the intention of giving bad customer service for eternity with a broken air conditioning unit. It is here, a current thing that we can all see and feel. Reincarnation is a very real thing, and IS something that has been scientifically proven. This means that every single thing will always be in Hell because mistakes can never be corrected, only repeated. This is because the past cannot be remembered when we are born. And the evidence that reincarnation is real? Let us for instance say I have just died. Because I wish for a natural burial, I will not be put into a coffin. This means my body will properly decay in the Earth, giving back what I had been given at birth. The decomposers being efficient recyclers, would be sure to take care of that, making death become life once more. Thus the cycle of life. And so, we are forever in Hell, which is indeed a place. I patiently await your rebuttals, and hope you are having a good day as well. :) Sources: 1. http://www.himalayanacademy.com... 2. http://www.collinsdictionary.com...
This House Believes that Hell exists

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments from both sides Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Short Summary of Arguments Definitions: Hell: the place where the souls of bad people are believed to be punished after death, especially in the Christian and Muslim religions http://www.ldoceonline.com... Exists: To have actual being; be real. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Additional Notes: 1. Paragraphing for different points is a requirement. Each point or argument must be put into different paragraphs 2. No ad hominem attacks. We all want a nice and smooth debate. 3. No bringing in of additional arguments in Rounds 1, 3 or 4. Acceptance, Rebuttals and Summary must be made in Rounds 1, 3 and 4 respectively. Let's all have fun, alright? :)