BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Society Would Flourish Best Under Fascist Government

Vladimir Lenin once said, "Fascism is capitalism in decay." [1] Why would he refute my arguments when he talked about how the dissatisfaction of "fake news" led to Donald Trrump's presidency based on his agenda of extreme far-right populism? Why would he argue that "free press" is not free? Why would he say that news networks report distorted facts and stories that undermines the popular sentiment?" He made one miscalculation, that is, believing that equality would feel safer under a fascist government. According to the fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [2] In other words, equality would feel safer under dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and military citizenship. One such example of a fascist government is when Benito Mussolini ruled Italy at the height of World War II. Under that government, he allied with Nazi Germany, gained greater influence in world affairs, pursuing territorial expansion, and participated in the Holocaust. What would a fascist government bring to society? Oppression of free speech, oppression of opposition, more focusing on war, and creating a government similar to Sparta. Another example is when Francisco Franco ruled Spain from 1936-1975, where his goal is to turn his country into a totalitarian state similar to fascist governments in Italy and Germany. The consistent points in Franco fascism included above all authoritarianism, nationalism, National Catholicism, militarism, conservatism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism, as well as a frontal rejection of Freemasonry. [3] [4] My opponent just defined FLOURISHING to conclude that human flourishing is threatened by liberal democratic philosophy, he also stated that "free press" isn't free because of the notion that modern Western journalism is hypocritical, and he argued that United States under a fascist state would likely be defeated because of the lack of American conviction and pride needed to defeat an army of Kamikaze-level dedicated civilian soldiers. Three debate rounds had passed, but it all summed up with this reality: society will decline under that government because of the consequence it would bring. Society will flourish better under a liberal democracy. I presented with the claims and historical facts. He, on the other side, gave references but lack its luster and clarity. [1] http://quotes.lifehack.org... [2] John Horne. State, Society and Mobilization in Europe During the First World War. pp. 237"39 [3] Unearthing Franco's Legacy, p 31, and Paul Preston, "The Theorists of Extermination" essay in Unearthing Franco's Legacy, pp 42-67, University of Notre Dame Press [4] "Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective"
Society Would Flourish Best Under Fascist Government

Society is better in a liberal democracy because minorities can defend themselves by pointing out how proposed laws would damage their position, and also protect minority beliefs and values against a powerful majority. [1] Liberal democracies have rights for the ethnic groups, as well as other sectors such as the LGBT community, the elderly, the youth, the poor, and the working class. Under a fascist government, freedom of speech is oppressed and any opposition to such laws was prohibited, unlike under a liberal democratic government where freedom of speech is a fundamental right and opposition can reflect their interpretative views on the big issues such as gender equality, socialism, free trade, and others. Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, advocated equality when he won over Stephen Harper. Under him, he showed respect for the LGBT community, he openly criticized Donald Trump's actions, he even mentioned his father's legacy by French discourse because he is a Member of Parliament from Papineau, a Quebecois constituency. The future generations adhere to such ideology and they will never look back to the dark days of World War II with a fascist government. It is better if society would flourish if equality is the norm, racism and sexism are oppressed, freedom of expression is encultured to the minds, bringing feminism and libertarianism, and most especially, keeping together from all aspects. [1] https://www.quora.com...
Society Would Flourish Best Under Fascist Government

Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. [1] August Comte, the father of sociology, saw society as a social organism possessing a harmony of structure and function, while Emile Durkheim, the founding father of the modern sociology, treated society as a reality in its own right. [2] Based on those two definitions, I can make an argument that society wouldn't flourish under a fascist government because it poses a grave threat to other societies who adhere to the democratic principles of man. Fascist governments installed during the Second World War such as Italy and Germany are allied with Japan to form the Axis, which ultimately ended in a failure by invasion from the Allied Powers such as United States and Great Britain. Fascism is also communism as seen in the Cold War when Soviet puppet governments installed in Albania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, forming the Warsaw Pact to rival with the capitalist North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In short, fascism is not the only solution because it would recreate modern dictatorships like Duterte, Trump, Erdogan, Kim Jong-Un, Orban, and Putin, and putting their futures locked aside by extreme far-right nationalism. In my opinion, society would flourish in a democratic government with non-authoritarian leaders, liberal policies, and equality to all, creating like the Scandinavian countries and Canada. In short, society would flourish in an Athenian government. Those are the only arguments that I stand for and I am willing to make a formal debate on the matter. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.sociologyguide.com...
Society Would Flourish Best Under Fascist Government

Definitions for this debate: SOCIETY: "A community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests". [1] FLOURISH: Based on the ancient Greek translation "Eudaimonia" from Aristotelian ethics, meaning to achieve a life that is ethically pure or virtuous, or to ascend to the final stage in our human spiritual evolution by practicing virtue in daily life.[2] BEST: Promising to affect (beneficially) the greatest number of people possible to the greatest extent possible; (FASCISM) Being the only ideology that adequately satisfies this utilitarian axiom. [3] FASCISM: Anti-Liberalism ( NO to Capitalism and free markets), Anti-Communisim (NO to Marxism, creeping socialism, global cooperation and integration), Anti-Conservative (Anti-Status Quo, anti-aristocracy, rejection of "establishment"religion); A militarized and highly nationalistic society organized under a rigid hierarchy, directed at the top by an autocratic tyrant who enforces invasive laws upon the social and economic life of the people HE rules; "Involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture". This debate consists of three rounds and will proceed as follows: 1. Acceptance 2. Debate 3. Rebuttal Cite sources. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.philosophybasics.com... [3] https://plato.stanford.edu... [4] My definition of Fascism for this debate Inspired by Stanley G Payne's definition of the term
Apple Helps Stifle Innovation

Innovation is defined as a new method, idea, or product. It is not a re-hashing of the old methods, ideas, or products.Apple may churn out a new phone every couple years (or even re-release the same phone with different letters), but the iPhone has looked and functioned the same since the first. Even though, on occasion Apple may come out with a new product, like the iPod, iPad, updates to MaxOSX, or some other new product, they still assist in stifling the innovation they claim to have.It is a known fact that Apple (and many companies like it) spend more on legal and patent lawyers than R&D[1]. With that, Apple sues other companies, like Samsung, based on patents they somehow obtained for rounded corners[2]. By spending less time on R&D and using more money for patent lawyers than engineers, Apple is stifling their own innovation.That's not all, though; Apple is also stifling other companies' innovation by suing them, causing the other company to spend more on patents to fight back or to hire patent lawyers.Innovation is stifled because Apple keeps looking to the past rather than the future of technology.[1] http://www.theguardian.com...[2] http://www.fosspatents.com...
Humans are not different from animals.

Humans, the species to which you and me belong to, are currently not considered animals by society. This is not the point on which Con should argue, but rather on the fact that they should or not be considered animals. Human: "1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Animal: "1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Humans should therefore be included in the Animal cathegory, not only from a strict biological point of view but also socially. I am not saying humans should build houses for dogs or let apes vote, i'm saying we should consider animals to be equal to humans in rights. Please, no arguments coming from your religion. I want you to prove that animals are fundamentaly different from humans.
Uniforms

For the past decade, schools, parents and students have clashed over the issue of regulating student attire. In 2007, cases involving an anti-Bush T-shirt in Vermont, an anti-gay T-shirt in San Diego, and Tigger socks in Napa, California, made their way through the courts, causing many to wonder whether this debate will ever be resolved. Meanwhile, researchers are divided over how much of an impact " if any " dress policies have upon student learning. A 2004 book makes the case that uniforms do not improve school safety or academic discipline. A 2005 study, on the other hand, indicates that in some Ohio high schools uniforms may have improved graduation and attendance rates, although no improvements were observed in academic performance. You have not been wearing uniforms 24/7. Uniforms are good as they show formality. And nothing is a 50/50 subject one side will always win.
all humans (races) are not equal according to genetics

This topic does seem racist, I think, because it IS racist. Still, I'll say what you have to say about it. Also, since you say it can be proven "by genetics," post a few articles by leading genetic scientists that support your claim. You say that as humans migrated around the world, they adapted to their surroundings. True, but skin color is really the only example of adaptation. Humans didn't really change in any other way but skin color. Everyone's anatomy is the same. We all have two lungs, one heart, a brain, the same number of bones, and so on. Also, keep in mind that RACE is not the same as SPECIES. We are all Homo Sapiens. The only noticeable difference between Black and white people is skin color. There is nothing else that differentiates anybody. Our brains have the same capacity for learning and we all live on the same planet. Now, you don't seem to understand that BLACK people came first. Humanity originated in the African Rift Valley, where melanin was highly required. Even as other species, we still had lots and lots of melanin to protect us from the sun. Once we began migrating OUT of Africa, and up into the colder, northern regions, we had less and less use for protective melanin, so those people became white. Once humanity crossed the Bering strait about 30,000 years ago and started moving down into Latin America, back towards the equator, we developed melanin yet again. By the time we reached India, dark skin had existed for a long time. Here's a map of human migration. http://www.transpacificproject.com... Again, skin color was developed for nothing more than protection against the sun, and it does not affect the equality of different races in any way. We ALL came from Africa. And the change from black to white did not happen over HUNDREDS of years, but over THOUSANDS of years. Again, I'm not sure how you can claim skin color and sun protection affects the equality of all races. White people can just put on some sunscreen, which has highly effective chemicals in it, and with the development of better indoor cooling systems, there is very little risk of severe sun damage. I await your next argument.
all humans (races) are not equal according to genetics

I am very sorry if this topic seems racist but according to science as humans migrated across the world, they adapted to their surroundings. An example of that is how the heat in hotter countries affected their people. My parents come from Sudan, a country with people of the darkest skin color (it is also very hot there). Skin darkened so as to be a natural barrier from the hot sun in eastern countries such as Oman, India, and even Mexico (it's near the equator). *Keep in mind this change happened over hundreds of years.*Meanwhile, as this happened, some other groups of people moved from Africa and spread into Europe and some over to North America and Canada. According to a website (it'll be down there) people adapted a different skin color to adapt to their surrounding.A simple example is how it takes a longer time for a person with ancestry from those countries to get a sunburn than a lighter skinned person. Melanin was made to absorb sunlight so as to be less vulnerable to the heat. Darker skin tends to have a lower chance of getting skin cancer compared to lighter skin colors.Again, I am really sorry if this topic seems racist to you and also if this first arguement is too short (this is my first time debating).Thank you for accepting this and I look forward to seeing your arguement.***The reason I chose you to debate with is how you respond to icebeartheawesome (the guy's awfully racist)***http://www.pbs.org...https://www.skymetweather.com...
all humans (races) are not equal according to genetics

You said that humans were "not equal" according to genetics, so you've got to come up with something stronger than just how long a person can stay outside without getting a sunburn. That's a very weak argument as far as equality goes. Also, if white skin is better in Arctic conditions, and black people are bad at going into Arctic places, then we ARE equally equipped by the colors of our skin, just differently. White people can live up in Siberia and not be bothered by the freezing ice, Black people can trek miles across the Saharan desert and stay cool. That's equality if you ask me. You can't change the debate topic now, you have to prove that all humans are not equal according to genetics. Also, just so you know, the study of epidemiology doesn't have much to do with genetics. Maybe slightly, but you have to talk more about the "genetic" aspect of this. What does deoxyribonucleic acid have to do with your argument? I was expecting this to be about genetic material, not just melanin and pigment. To make what I'm saying a bit more clear, I'll take your metaphor and make it just a bit more realistic. If you put a man/woman with a darker skin tone and a man/woman with a lighter skin tone in Sudan for about a year without sunscreen, they'd all be dead by the end of that year. The black people might survive about an hour more. Black people aren't IMMUNE to sun burn or skin cancer, they're just a titchy bit more resistant to it. Besides the clear flaws with your so-called "experiment," it's unethical and it would prove something that's already been proven. I'm not sure why they couldn't use modern stuff like sunscreen. What do you mean by "modern stuff?" They could use ice to cool down, ice isn't really a "modern thing". Also, why a man and a woman? Why only a man and a woman? Why not two guys, or one guy, or just one woman? For the whole "Adam and Eve" type aspect? So they can have sex? If they had kids, the kids would die, without any resources. Please, in the next round, make this skin color experiment a bit clearer: Do they have access to food or water, or shelter, or anything like that? Also, for gosh sakes, why are you behaving as if Sudan, your own home country, is some kind of post-apocalyptic hellscape? They have towns there, don't they? Where these experimental subjects could go to buy sunscreen or whatever? Your title has to be proven. Sorry. You shouldn't have made a racist-sounding title if you weren't prepared to be racist, or pull your argument off without being racist, which might be even harder. You should have known the meaning of "genetics" if you wanted to talk about genetics. Go ahead, next argument. I'm all set.
all humans (races) are not equal according to genetics

I agree with all that the only way humans changed is of skin color and how the adaptation didn't affect anything like how we all have two lungs, a heart, and a brain. Actually i don't think skin color affects the brain and intellectual equality; i'm only saying how it affects like in the example i used: length of staying outside and not getting a burn (aside from sunscreen and stuff) I admit, the way I put the debate topic was misleading so I'll change it; Different skin colors have different strengthsYou're a great opponent that derserves a smart aruguement so i'll try to make mine stronger.All I'm trying to say is that it seems that according to a few studies that lighter skin is more resistant to the cold while darker skin tones tend to last longer in the sun.To make this more clear, I'm saying that if you put a man/woman with a darker skin tone and a man/woman with a lighter skin tone on let's say Sudan for about a year without any modern stuff like sunscreen, a darker skin tone will last longer but if you put the same two in maybe the north pole, the lighter skin toned one will last longer. Please excuse me if this isn't sounding sensible.I agree with your arguement but yet again i must state that my title was extremely misleading; we all are equal intellectually equivalent meaning a scientist could not say without being applauded by the KKK and Nazi sympathizers that races aren't equal.I have no rebuttals because all you said was sensible and proven.(and i guess i added the words "because of genetics" because i was foolish enough to not know the meaning of genetics beforehand)Again, thank you for your time and I excitedly wait for your next arguement.
It is Logically Impossible for God to Have Perfect Foreknowledge

(I have set a minimum elo requirement for my opponent, but I may consider removing it. Post in the comments if you want to accept the debate but are unable to, and I'll consider you. )Resolution: It is Logically Impossible for God to Have Perfect ForeknowledgeFor the purposes of this debate, it will be assumed that God exists. DefinitionsGod: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. Omnipotent: Is unrestricted in power. Can do anything he wants at any time. Unlimited in potential actions. Omniscient: Knows everything there is to know. Omnipresent: Exists everywhere there is to exist. Perfect Foreknowledge: Complete and perfect knowledge of every thing that ever will be, happen, and transpire in the future.
Homework should be band in all states

I would like to summarize Con's Argument. A) Homework is an extension of the work that should be done in class. B) The Teacher is responsible for assigning an amount of work that can be completed in class. C) Therefore, having homework that needs to be done outside of class reflects a failure on the part of the teacher. There are serious problems with this argument. First, Homework is not simply "leftover" work that should be done in class that doesn't, rather it is repetition that needs to be done in order to solidify the things being learned in class. Next, the Teacher is not assigning work that needs to be done in class, they are assigning work that should be done outside of class. .. hence the label "Homework. " This isn't "classwork" it is "homework. " Also, the task of any educational structure is this: To prepare the student for either A) The next level of education, or B) The workforce. Because of this, it is important to assign homework because in both College and the Workforce (at least in most desirable jobs) your work rarely stops when you leave for the day. In college you are EXPECTED to spend 1-2 hours working on material outside of class for every 1 hour you spend inside of class. In most desirable jobs (Unless you want to work at McDonalds or Walmart for the rest of your life) you are going to be doing some work at home, this is almost unavoidable. Furthermore, I would like to submit into evidence the first post of my opponent's argument. It is not uncommon in the age of Facebook, Twitter, and Text Messages to see statements like this. In case it has been changed, here is the original content of his opening round "To me being a High School teen who gets homework daily I think that since I am in school from 8:45 to 3:45 with 4 classes that are 1 hour and 30 minutes long and I feel like that when we get home teens want to relax and sit back not do 30 math problems and if teachers don't get what needs to be done in that hour and 30 minutes then I feel like it there fault teachers overload young kids with work and it is ridiculous Good luck to my opponent" Note a few things. It is entirely void of any punctuation. That's right, the whole thing is one sentence. Furthermore, there are several spelling and grammar mistakes. "I feel like it there fault teachers overload. .. " represents not only a typo, but a grammatical nightmare (In addition to the mistaken use of "there" rather than "their". ) Honestly, this post makes it clear that this particular High School student would benefit from some increased homework lessons on Grammar and Spelling.
Homework should be band in all states

To me being a High School teen who gets homework daily I think that since I am in school from 8:45 to 3:45 with 4 classes that are 1 hour and 30 minutes long and I feel like that when we get home teens want to relax and sit back not do 30 math problems and if teachers don't get what needs to be done in that hour and 30 minutes then I feel like it there fault teachers overload young kids with work and it is ridiculous Good luck to my opponent
Pokemon one round Debate

My favorite Pokemon is DRAGONITE. Dragonite is a dual-type Dragon/Flying Pokemon that's been in the franchise since the original three games (Red/Blue/Yellow), which makes it the original dragon.I. Dragonite's speed and the EarthWithout getting into the specifics, the distance it takes to travel from any one point around the entire earth to get to the same point is just around 24,901 miles. [1] It's mentioned numerous times in Pokedex entries that Dragonite is capable of circling the Earth in just 16 hours. [2] This means he'd be flying at around a rate of 1,556 miles per hour; this is over twice the speed of sound (itself 768 mph [3])!II. Dragonite is the best Bro.In the majority of Pokedex entries (specifically Gold, Pokemon Stadium 2, Ruby/Sapphire, Emerald, Diamond/Pearl/Platinum, HeartGold, B/W, B2/W2, Y, and OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire), it's mentioned to rescue individual people and lost ships and the crews of shipwrecks safely to shore. [2] III. Just look at it: References:[1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://bit.ly...Thanks for this, Valosabirdy, by the way. This was pretty enjoyable.