BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Your not born gay

I will post my arguement here since its only one round. I want to give you an open mind on homosexuality that it is a choice to be gay, your not born under the influence of turning gay around a very young age. most people who goes for the same sex starts at a very young age, at that time of surness they say there gay how would they know if they just think there gay. some gay women/men has not even experience the other sex only same, so how so sure they could be gay if majority never experience sexual intercourse with different sex. I for gay marriage i believe if two people love each other then let them be happy. i just trying to say your not born gay, yea scientist would say its a genetice pass on from ancestory. Last time i checked what if all your ancestory was straight and your born but turned gay down the line of your life, you can't blame genetics no its a choice. here are some questions: Are you forced to date the same sex? Were you forced to sleep with the same sex? Did ancestory say well this seed of generation will be gay when born? to the first question is no your not forced everything you choose is a choice, can not blame your ancestories, can not blame genetics. It is all a choice, now if you say well i was very young when i found i was gay, how is that very possible. Lets say oh i was very yound and i experience the same sex first, it does not make you gay, but unsure and confused since you never experience a woman. Let's say you had experience both sex, and you turn out to actually like the same sex more then other sex how is that being born gay. You choose who side you picked more. if you want to get religious, if God doesn't like same sex since he created MAN and WOMAN how could it be genetic, why would God create an guy or girl who likes the same sex, impossible since God is against it. Lets say well I was suppose to be a girl not a boy, you cannot use that as an excuse, like i said God made you who you are for a reason he made no mistake. so out of the religion view of it Gay is a choice to make, if anyone says well i was born gay how do you know if you were really born gay. But later on in life when you actually experience both man and woman and then you choose ( thats if you think you are not for people who are sure if they like different sex). Do not get me wrong I believe if two people are in love gay or not they should be happy I am not here to pass Judgement, just a topic I was gettting really bored today and just wanted to debate on something quick. All i ask is just to keep an open mind on this topic or really short debate. The reason I posted no sources, these are just my own thoughts, and my own work that I actually went and talk to people around my school for there views.
Hitler or Mussolini would have returned Reggie Hammond's money before Cates did

Red herrings k so opponent agrees the nordic thing was irrelevantDrops asian pointSupports KKK later ok.Persecution His pictures come from the Free Arabian Legion. Although some Northern Africans were used, the Germans were displeased with the Legion, and the legion had extremely poor morale--possible due to the fact some of the members of the unit were not, I don't know, considered anything more than a 'Jewish plot' (using Hitler's words... But I see you using them too). Further, it is likely the legion was used because the vast majority of the troops were Arab, not African [1]. The concession point I made is supported here^KKKCates, as a police man, was bound to be racist around 1982. There still existed racial policies in the police force in 1982, this does not mean he was a KKK member [2]. But the question still remains: Who hated minorities more, evil dictators who thought the Jews were using them to dilute the Aryan race and sterilized them, or a cop who uses the N word... Self InterestUm, what? I noted that Blacks didnt recieve social programs which other Aryans obtained and were often barred from employment... Jews' money was taken because they were all killed... and Hitler considered Nordics to be part of the 'master race'... so my opponent really makes no argument here. Oh, he forgot to refute the economic argument, which is a huge factor: they would have kept the money in order to win the war. But nope, my opponent thinks this is irrelevant to the debate, which is obviously illogical. That point alone refutes my opponents central idea: that it was in Hitler's or Mussolini's best interest to return the money. I mean this could have been a blond haired blue eyed Hitler Youth, and Hitler would have probably kept the money due to monetary issues. Vote CON, this debate didn't really make any sense anyway... but my opponent made no coherent case as to why Hitler would have returned the money, and he essentially dropped my case on mussolini...1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://militarymigrants.org...;
Hitler or Mussolini would have returned Reggie Hammond's money before Cates did

Red herrings Cool, I didnt mention being Nordic, I mentioned being Black. So, this is a complete red herring and irrelevant. Anything about the KKK, its origins, and where it is from has no bearing on this debate, and it seems mostly like conjectureAsians is also a straw manBlacks not persecuted?The Nazi regime was fully against blacks, claiming they were there due to a Jewish plot to undo the aryan race [1]. To deny the extreme predjudice and the hate crimes which the state sanctioned against african americans is denialism at its finest. It is a fact. My opponent is rewriting history to fit his needs. Although not mass exterminated, they were considered as low as gypsies [1]. I mean, the fact you think Hitler would have upheld his promise to someone he saw as inferior makes no sense. You have failed to refute this saying they were not massacred like the Jews, but that is a red herring; whether or not they were victims of genocide is irrelevant. It is whether or not Hitler would have kept his promise. Concession? "he Nazis were probably an everybody-except-blacks-Jews-and [perhaps]-Nordics party"Yep, even my opponent admitted that the Nazis were anti black, and even puts them next to Jews... That is basically a concession, as it proved my argument correct: Hitler hates blacks more than Cates would have, therefore, Cates > Hitler. Cates was KKKSo? KKK was terrible. However, the Nazi regime ended up killing 11 million minorities, if not more. However, my opponent makes a huge mistake: no citation. To make such an accusation--that a character, so central to this debate--is a white supremect with no reference is not credible. As this is not common knowlege, unless my opponent can prove his accusation, this point is null and void. Dropped arguments Opponent dropped the argument that it wasnt in either Mussolini's or Hitler's self interest to return the money. It would be much more in their interest to keep the money for (1) governmental needs, or (2) self-indulgence. Dropped arguments concede those arguments as true. Conclusion:My opponent's case makes no sense, is built upon red herrings, he drops key arguments and fails to back up major points which he brings up. CON > PRO1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Hitler or Mussolini would have returned Reggie Hammond's money before Cates did

1. Race My opponnent claims the blacks weren't really hated--this is untrue. Athough never subjected to mass executions such as the jews, they were considered an inferior race. A good example, as wikipedia states, is the slavs; they were not killed like the Jews, but were discriminated against. Blacks were forbidden to have intercourse with whites, many were sterilized. Although there was no official policy towards African decendents, they faced discrimination in many forms due to the Nazi 'master race' concept [1]. A good example would be similar to the United States. In the 60s, Blacks were considered by many to not even be human, and it is beyond dispute that people thought they were inferior. If an average Black man gave an average white man half a million in cash, it is almost certain that the white man would keep the cash and run. There is no logical reason to think that Hitler would have respected Reggie's demands, as a black man, and would have kept the money for other purposes. As for Asian SS officers, this actually makes sense. The Axis had accepted Japan into its sphere, and needed a 'logical' reason to support them. Therefore, the fact Hitler had some asians in his military makes sense--it would have been a poor decision to alienate against his allies. Further, Hitler granted 'honorary aryan' status to 10,000 Japanese people living in Germany [2]. The fact that Hitler had no issues with Asians is not surprising. 2. Economc Concerns in 1982 dollars, $500,000 = ~3.3 million in 1940. The US dollar was worth 4.2 Reichsmarks [3]. Therefore, Hammond's money was warth 13.8 million dollars. This means that Hammonds money would be worth near 4%* of the Nazi German Economy in 1940. You really think Hitler would give that back? 4% economic boost?How about Italy? About 9.8%.* CONCLUSIONIt would not be in their interest to help Reggie, as the boost to their economy would be tremendous; and in Hitler's case, helping a non aryan is not a valid question. *numbers 1940 GDP I mean seriously, the fact you think two dictators would help a nobody who they see as inferior who has the ability to boost their economy significantly is, well, preposterous. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Hitler or Mussolini would have returned Reggie Hammond's money before Cates did

1. Reggie Was Black The simple fact is, Hitler would not have paid Reggie because he was black. African children were discriminated against and not allowed to go to universities, in 1937 the Gestapo captured many African Germans and forcible sterilized them. The Nazi Regime was totally against Africans, and therefore, would not have honored Reggie's request to the monetary funds [1]. 2. The Axis needed the moneyMussolini and Hitler would have loved the extra half a million! In the early war, Hitler would have used it as an economic stimulus, Mussolini would have used it to fund his troops in Africa. Hitler in the war would have used it for munitions, and other supplies. Mussolini the same. They would use it for wages for their troops, etc. In the late war Hitler could have used it to give items to his men (by 1944 even the Russians were better equiped), or research technology for a nuclear weapon.ConclusionIt is not logical that Hitler would have awarded Reggie's money to someone who he saw as non-human and inferior, and it is simply not in either of the dictators' interest to give the money away. They would have needed it for other things. Honestly, its a bit like taxes. You pay in, the government can pay back with services, or in this case, to serve the regimes goals. All you get back is a tax return... Well, and Hitler probably wouldn't have done that, helping a minority... And mussolini? Mussolini liked womanizing and gambling... Kinda like his troops in battle (haha). Anyway, it is not in the character of either of these dictators to, well, give the money back. One would have taken him to a concentration camp, the other would have used the money to fufill self-passions. 1. http://www.ushmm.org...;
Hitler or Mussolini would have returned Reggie Hammond's money before Cates did

My opponent has to prove otherwise. First round is for intro. I think Mussolini and Hitler were better people than Jack Cates. I think if Hammond had been in prison in Hitler or Mussolini's regimes, he would have gotten the money he was promised on time, instead of being cheated like he was in Jack Cate's racist little world (he was openly racist in the first movie, btw).
The eastern European demographic problem . The government should give more aid to big families .

Again, I stated that financial considerations are relevant. However, your initial statement was that government should provide tax breaks and money for families with children. I have already shown from the recent example in Italy that simply throwing money at people does not change their decisions about having children. There are other things government must do. In France, the government's programs to help families are brilliantly complex. They include day care centers, maternity leave, transportation discounts, job protection, free preschool, more vacation leave, summer camps, educational opportunities, and other social services. http://www.washingtonpost.com... This proves that the only way to encourage family growth is by re-orienting society to value families by offering a full spectrum of aid that supports parents and children. Simple tax schemes or financial payouts are not sufficient.
The eastern European demographic problem . The government should give more aid to big families .

Money is an important factor . Let's look at France in the year 1994 it's fertility rate was 1.66 , but in 2007 it's fertility rate increased to 1.95 for metropolitan France .Because it increased it's aid to big families ( kindergarten , free public transport) and more flexible labour market. And now let's see Germany it's fertility rate didn't really change from 1.3 Even if it had the same number of immigrants . We can not say that Germans have usually more small families , because before in 19 century their population nearly tripled from 21 millions to 56 millions when French population only increased by a third 30 millions to 40 millions. But the difference is that France gave aid and Germany didn't give aid to big families ,also if you look who is more religious you will see that France has 44% of non believers and Germany had only 25% of non believers . ( wikipedia ) So if you give aid you can increase the fertility by even 0.6 which can mean an increasing or decreasing population . Yes religion plays a major role , but still government can play a big role in fertility rate as we have seen the German - French model .(Both don't have a lot of traditional families and still France has a bigger fertility rate )
The eastern European demographic problem . The government should give more aid to big families .

I will argue that tax breaks or financial incentives will fail to encourage families to have more children. This sort of scheme is already being tried in Italy, but it has not succeeded in motivating couples to have more children than they previously wanted. It has only spurred couples who already wanted children to have them sooner so as to get the money. The real demographic problem is much broader than finances, although money is a factor. As long as it is expensive to (1) have a child, (2) own a home, (3) provide child care, and (4) provide health care for a family, then families will have fewer children. However, a much more powerful factor is one of personal choice. Many individuals delay living on their own, or getting married, or having children because they want to indulge in a youthful lifestyle for as long as possible. They live at home for convenience, invest in cars and video games instead of homes and retirement, and view institutions such as marriage as "old fashioned" or "religious." Thus, they do not see marriage as desirable or necessary, or a prerequisite to having children. In America, there is a growing divide between traditional, religious people who marry earlier and have more children and modern, secular people who marry later and have fewer children. Europe is far more secular than America, and suffering far greater childlessness. It is reasonable to think the same causes apply to Eastern Europe as America. This indicates that if you wish to motivate citizens to reproduce more, you need to somehow promote more traditional family values to make marriage and children more attractive than a swinging single lifestyle. Money is an insufficient motivator.
The eastern European demographic problem . The government should give more aid to big families .

Most of eastern European countries have a decreasing population and aging population .I think that countries which have a decreasing population should give demographics as high priority as economic growth . If their are less births today that means that in 25 years their will be a decline in working age population . It will hurt the economy and led to political problems .First their will be less workers and then less tax money to give to elderly people . Statistics : Lithuania birth rate 9.1 per 1000 people Poland birth rate 9.5 per 1000 people And both have a birth rate lower 2.0 births per women and a declining population . ( wikipedia ) So the government should give bigger tax breaks or more money to parents which have children .
In this 21st century, e-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom-learning.

For me opinion, classroom learning is that I have the immediate opportunity to ask questions of the instructor. At the same time, I feel that this is overshadowed by the convenience factor, that is, being able to "take the course" whenever I am able during the day/evening. As you say, not all the people can easily catch-up, so classroom learning is the better choice because when the student cannot catch up the teacher still can guide and help student.
In this 21st century, e-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom-learning.

I agree with your opinion which is it is unfair for full-time student and some of the question need to have experience with it but they can also ask question to their lecturer through email. Other than their lecturer they can also get some opinion from the internet or their senior about the question. It is because some of the question may not have only an answer. Different people have a different opinion with it.
In this 21st century, e-learning is far more fun and effective than classroom-learning.

As a part-time student e-learning maybe good for them, but this don't not mean it fair for full-time student. In other hand, e-learning may not necessary can answer all the question. Some of the question need the experience to answer it, so in this point teacher can tell their experience to student and get different way to answer question. In my opinion, experience is more important memories the text book theories and classroom- learning may be more effective and efficiently on study.
Single-Payer Healthcare

ViceRegent, I do not understand why you have to be so vile and ungenteel about this matter. This is a debate, my friend, and not philosophical mudslinging. I understand if you have a legitimate concern about tax increases and personally would like to see a different system. That is why we debate. Please provide some sources and make your case. By the way, I was born in Germany and lived there most of my life. I know Europe like I know the back of my own hand. There is no way you can call Canada, Europe, Australia, and regions like that fascist. No way. Adolf Hitler, for example, was a political Fascist, as the whole party and Reich revolved about him, a god-like saviour figure. The state is the justiication for any heinous act in Fascism. Censorship, strict policing, and the banning of other parties and limits on free speech are characteristics of Fascism. But econonomically, Hitler was more of a Socialist. A pure one, too. I, on the other hand, am a Social Democrat. Social Democracy incorporates the basic tenets of Capitalism with a strong social safety net. I am seriously confused as to why we now digressed to this discussion. The debate was initially about single-payer healthcare alone. When you accepted it, I would have expected you to take it seriously.
Single-Payer Healthcare

ViceRegent, Fascism is by its very definition a political philosophy. What you are trying to allude to is a form of Communism. You have your definitions mixed up, and you are not providing sources to defend your claims. As to your comments on "theft," do you oppose taxation in every single case? Militaries, roads and bridges, schools... Taxation is only theft when it is without our consent. This is a major reason for the American Revolution against Britain. The problem was taxation without representation. Now that we live in a new political order, the United States, we are able to influence public policy. One person, one vote. European countries elected their Social Democratic leaders and approved of the tax plans. The Canadians Justin Trudeau as prime minister because of his liberal positions. Ours is taxation with repesentation. ViceRegent, could you please make a coherent case against single-payer healthcare?
Single-Payer Healthcare

Anyone who opposes single-payer healthcare (a system where government handles most or all medical costs) and has sincere arguments and intends to make coherent points in this debate will be welcome. I will be arguing in favour of the proposition, while my opponent will argue against it. Each side will have 72 hours to construct and complete an argument before it is counted as a forfeiture. The argument length maximum if 10,000 characters, and I chose this one so we can flesh out our arguments properly. The voting period after the last argumetn has been posted will be a month long and will be open. All sources should be cited, either by simply posting the link or in the MLA format. Let us be courteous and not digress too much from the central argument. Single-payer is an aspect of Social Democracy. Let us not go into the other aspects of that system. Just healthcare. I will be discussing the positive achievements of the Canadian and European healthcare systems and will make a proposition for the implentation of single-payer in the United States.
see=no god

I accept.I am glad my opponent wishes to debate this topic and hopefully further our understanding of the universe through every single debate.While many debates can be made on the existence of God, this is your argument *sigh. Well I will debate two rounds with you.RESPONSES: Your argument is quite short. Essentially you argue with the support of the resolution's wording and your round 1 sentence that you have to see God to know he exists. Because you woke up today and did not see God, then God must not exist per your argument. I have a couple responses. A) Your eyes can deceive you. Have you ever heard of mirages? They are real, and are proof that your sense of eyesight is not as omniscient as you claim it to be. B) God is not dependent on your seeing him. If he is actually real, then God could exist without you seeing him, because you are highly inferior of a being to God and God could easily hide himself from your knowledge because of that. Common logic.My only argument (right now).1. Universal Negative Proposition.You implied through your argument something that in logic is called a universal negative proposition. Essentially you argue that A does not equal B. In order to make this claim however, you must know everything that exists within A (and I mean everything), and everything that exists within B, and be able to spot the difference that shows they do not equate. So that sounds easy enough to understand right? So where is your universal negative? You claim that God does not equal existence. But to claim this and be believed, you essentially have to be God himself. Why? Because you claim to know the entirety of God (which no man can claim), and the entirety of the Universe itself and everything that exists in it. You have claimed to have examined the entire universe for a trace of God and have not found him. But to be able to do that you need omniscience, which is a trait only possessed by God.So ultimately you must either prove that you are God in your response, or forfeit the round over a poor logical argument being your only argument for the resolution. I leave you the choice, and hope that you have a good day.