BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An Authoritarian Model Of Government Is Superior To A Liberal Model.

I will keep my argument short. While pro has provided many examples of how authoritarian government works, he has not provided any indication of his acceptance of living in this type of control. Me, I would love to live in a society controlled by santorum or Gingrich; however, I could not stand to live in a society controlled by Obama or Clinton. Pro has claimed that the Chinese government provides Confucian centers. But, look at Obama. He supports gay rights, abortion, and taking all traces of religion out of government. You called liberal governments godless, try an "all hail dictator Obama world". You have used China as part of your evidence and one of the reasons it has succeeded is its biggest resource. Not bamboo, people. Yes, I would love your idea of autocracy if I was in charge, or even one of the conservatives I agree with, but I am not willing to allow a Dictator Obama or King/Queen Clinton America. NO! Besides, a declining godless society would be exactly what would happen if these were in charge. Pro, I ask you to emphasize a refusal of my claim in your next round of debate. Please answer: Would you be willing to live in a society controlled solely by people you disagree with?
An Authoritarian Model Of Government Is Superior To A Liberal Model.

While I must say I would love for one person I agree with to make all the decisions quickly and decisively. I like how it would get things done. However, what if I do not agree with that person. What if Obama or Clinton were our autocrat. NO!!! I am strictly republican. If Reagan, Gingrich, Cain, or Santorum were our autocrat(s), I would be more than happy. But, I am not willing to risk it. I do wish that the current government would agree and get things done and could find a solution for extreme bipartisanship.
Right wing extremists must be a priority to law enforcement

I was able to find the same start study you are talking about here "1" There's a few discrepancies here. You're original percentages are wrong even by your own sources. Secondly, You list off 7 different motives for terrorism on one side and 2 on the other side. No wonder the percentages are in your favor. Anti-Semitic, Homophobic, Anit-government, And xenophobic could all describe Islamic extremists as much as a far right ones. Don't just clump people together! Next I'd like to point out that this study is particular to the USA. As I pointed out in round 1 "Of all the active terror groups in the world: the top three are all Islamic. (3)" When referring to a shooting in NZ this, Worldly scope, Seems important. In the shooters manifesto he describes how he wants to divide the USA and that is the sole reason he chose to use a gun instead of a bomb. His plan was to literally incite people into being fearful and banning guns to start a civil war. Please don't promote this lunatics agenda by supporting a gun ban. Also, Why can't you just type a paragraph? You should also be using quotations for the last 3 paragraphs. If you are going to direct quote somebody please do it right. In conclusion I believe I've shown how guns are not the cause of this tragedy. I've also shown that terrorism is bad enough without trying to group all your enemies into a box you've labeled far right. Terrorism is a sad part of life nowadays but on a positive note terrorism is on an overall decline. That is a real victory I think we can both be happy to end on.
Right wing extremists must be a priority to law enforcement

A new terrorism database analysis shows almost two-thirds of the terror attacks in the United States last year were carried out by right-wing extremists. A new terrorism database analysis shows almost two-thirds of the terror attacks in the United States last year were carried out by right-wing extremists. Researchers and journalists for the news site Quartz said they used data compiled by the Global Terrorism Database that has tabulated terrorist events around the world since 1970. The database is supported by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), Affiliated with the University of Maryland. “A Quartz analysis of the database shows that almost two-thirds of terror attacks in the (United States) last year were tied to racist, Anti-Muslim, Homophobic, Anti-Semitic, Fascist, Anti-government, Or xenophobic motivations, ” its posting says. The remaining attacks, The web site said, “were driven by left-wing ideologies … and Islamic extremism. ”Southern Poverty Law center website
Right wing extremists must be a priority to law enforcement

I'd like to start with some bridges. Firstly we agree that terror and fascism are terrible. We can also agree that white nationalist terror is overlooked. Where we disagree is that why these things happen is because of gun laws. While we agree that terrorism should be at the forefront of prevention we disagree that white nationalism is the priority. So my major point is that gun laws aren't the cause of white nationalism or terrorism. My secondary point is simply that Right wing isn't the same as White nationalist. It's important not to clump things together. With all the bridges we've been able to build I bet your wondering why I even oppose the statement "Right wing extremists must be a priority to law enforcement. " The first reason I felt prompted to juxtapose this point is that Left wing extremism is a real problem too. If you want to attack all of the right somebody ought to point out the left. For example the youtube shooter was on the far left. (1) Now just because she was responsible for a less effective attack doesn't make it any more or less an act of terrorism. It also doesn't make it any more or less an independent act of terror. So to attack all of the right for this one person's messed up beliefs is like attacking all of the left for this one person's belief. The next point you make is that these attacks happen because of lax gun laws. People are violent because of their extremist beliefs. People have always found ways to kill each other and still do. For example 33 people were killed in China with knives because of radical beliefs. So the style of weaponry has less to do with the violence than the will to inflict violence. (2) The last point I want to make is that neither the left nor the right are responsible for the most terrorist attacks. Neither the left nor the right should be the priority. Of all the active terror groups in the world: the top three are all Islamic. (3) Just because we are talking about racial, Political, And religious statistics I will put in a reminder that I'm talking about extremist groups not their extended communities. In conclusion extremists are a problem. These extremists, Regardless race or creed, Should be a priority. We agree White extremism should not be overlooked but no at the cost of all other extremism. We agree the violence is unwarranted. We disagree as that guns are the allowance. (sources in the comments. )
Localize Education- get rid of the Department of Education and Common Core

Localizing education can allow all 50 states to have different education plans. With 50 different plans they can all learn from each other to constantly have advancing education in the United States of America. Federal education provides a one size fits all methods, which doesn't work. The 10th amendment of the Constitution says that any power not given to the federal government is given to the states. Education is not mentioned in the Constitution so it should be a state issue. Common core is unconstitutional and irrational.
Localize Education- get rid of the Department of Education and Common Core

In the examples about snow plows, it is representing the case where the federal government would have to plow ALL the roads. DC workers just don't care about the quality of their work unless it is specialized or if they have an attachment to the place they are working at. Just like the federal government controls ALL the education right now, they don't know what each state Is in need of. The National Weather Service does not affect the quality of the work being done, they only direct workers to their positions. Proving Cons NWS statement pointless. Money spent by the federal government for plowing roads also has nothing to do with the quality of the roads. THE NUMBER ONE REASON TO CUT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS: Federal departments do give people benifits, but for a hell of a price. If Education is localized that means people are getting better benifits for a cheaper price. It is already shown that the quality increases In local areas, and the people of different states have more of a say in voting for education, allowing them to keep all of the benifits they want. It also gets ride of many federal employees who eat up OUR money. By the Way Con: math is by far my favorite subject, I am in trigonometry as a sophomore. That was only an example, my core beliefs are stated above. Do not put words in my mouth. Common Core was not simply a suggestion, it is required for states unless they want to be fined. The 50 state experiment that I outlined early demonstrates that state being specialized can learn from each other to create an evolving country.
Localize Education- get rid of the Department of Education and Common Core

Here are the facts: The Department of Education exists within the federal government Common Core is controled by the federal government Although Con says the federal government only controls 12%, and the rest is held by local levels, Common Core sets standards and regulations on those local levels. The federal government can create as much standards as they want, as long as the Department of Education still exists, giving them complete control over the local levels. The federal government is therefore largely involved in Education, going against the Tenth Amendment, which violates states rights. Cutting The Department of Education could save plenty of money for a nation deep in debt. Con mentioned all the local levels of Education, but I think Con has a misunderstanding of what local education really means. Local Education takes the subject of Education out of the federal government entirely Use this as an example to express the TRUE need of state power in Education: I live in New Hampshire. It snows it the winter. Someone has to plow the roads. The state plows plow the state roads. If DC had to come plow my street, the quality of plowing would be far worse. Pro expresses that localization = better quality States get limited benifits from the feds but yet they still have to pay tasks for their departments. Con says the US already has localized Education and education would get worse by getting ride of federal regulations. The truth is it would make education better. This Is because states would be able to go off on these standards, teaching specialized classes and electives instead of sitting in Algebra for the 3rd year in a row. The major problem with federal education is they make rules without seeing how they affect people. Pro = dynamic education Con = static education
God inspired prophets and a book

Con: "Atheism. SMH. It says you have to answer yes or no to the question which you finally did and lied to yourself by saying no. You know you are lying to me and you. Again, you posted a lot of copy and paste stuff that I did not read and did not click on. Next time you accept someone's debate, read the %$#@ criteria, idiot." Con knows he made a trash religion debate and was called on it. There is not one single argument in round 3 about "whether a god exists or not", only rebuttals to Con's round 3 assessments about religious types "building a wall" of which I stated was the same wall that Atheists have, of which Con does not rebuttle, but seeing the illogical construct of his argument, and my solid rebuttle, Con retreated back into a diatribe about me "not obeying his rules" after making an argument in round 3 of which I argued against. Con is playing a game that children play where you scream when you don't get your way. Then after a bit more you begin being rational. Then seeing you still aren't getting your way you go back to a tantrum on the floor kicking, screaming, squealing, and carrying on in embarrassing fashion. Let's see if Con makes any final round argument to support his case or if he reverts back into his round 4 retreat.
God inspired prophets and a book

Again, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. In my initial argument before you even accepted, it says that this debate is not about whether or not there is a God and what do you rant about? Atheism. SMH. It says you have to answer yes or no to the question which you finally did and lied to yourself by saying no. You know you are lying to me and you. Again, you posted a lot of copy and paste stuff that I did not read and did not click on. Next time you accept someone's debate, read the %$#@ criteria, idiot.
God inspired prophets and a book

Con, in his haughty "Atheistness" was trying to use a forced strawman argument and doesn't like being called on it, and thus exposed his real nature of simply wanting to attack someone. He was called out, then began whining like a schoolgirl and moaning like a hound. Con posed a system where you can do one of two things.1)Praise his "awesome" proposal, while then trying to dismantle your belief by saying, "Well your God is not like that", which dismisses all thought of omniscient morality(knowing how all things end and what all people think), and declaring a "highground" of logic by dismissing God's omniscience and a number of other philosophical arguments that make his proposal intellectual suicide and a philosophical false dichotomy by ommission.OR2)You dismiss his proposal as good, of which he then points to the "illogical" stance you are making by declaring things like, "This is what I would do if I were God." He knows it all sounds good and lovely to the ignorant mind, hoping his opponent doesn't have the intellectual insight to know that doing what "sounds nice" or "sounds pretty" is not always the correct thing to do. Example:I talk to my child in a soft tone, befriend them, and treat them as my equal. It almost sounds nice. But...in reality, my child turns out spoiled, a drunk, and commits suicide because I didn't teach them anything about real life, teach them skills, or parent them.What Con is proposing is a logical fallacy based upon a strawman. His "rules" corner you by making you choose the left strawman or the right strawman. Then he knocks down the strawman he has forced you to pick.What Con did not expect was brontoraptor, who couldn't care less if he wins or loses debates as long as he challenges piss poor concepts, ideologies, and ideas. If Con still wants to take me on in this debate, he is welcome to continue. If not, well...(Bronto stands over this debate and it begins raining on the debate. Wait....that's not rain!)(Bronto scampers off into the weeds)(Bronto theme music plays)http://youtu.be...
God inspired prophets and a book

Con is Con on a debate so named: "God inspired prophets and a book". That makes me Pro on a debate so called "God inspired prophets and a book". In round 1 I made an argument that God DID inspire prophets and a book being Pro in the argument. Instead of politely or neutrally attacking my argument or pointing out any perceived "rules infractions", Con went on a diatribe of insults and putdowns. Then, randomly, Con began debating again. I reingaged and rebuttled Con's argument. Con chose by his own discretion to then revert back to name calling, insults, and put downs once it was established that I wasn't somehow trapped in his web of semantical argumentation in round 3. And Con, after going on a mindless, negative psychological looped rant, seems bewildered that we don't want what he has going on in his mind...
The United States should immediately withdraw from Iraq.

Ok, so I don't have anything to respond to. I guess I'll just highlight a couple things. In case we're also debating whether it was right to start the war in the first place: I actually used to be in favor of the war, and largely for the reason you gave, that Saddam was defying UN resolutions and the UN was letting it happen. One reason I've changed my mind on this is that I realized that in many ways, the UN's integrity has already been severely compromised. Google "Oil For Food" if you need stark, depressing proof of this. Also, UN representatives are appointed, so it's hard to have faith in their benevolence. Evil, backward, selfish governments will be represented in kind. So it can't be argued that intervening in Iraq could have helped global harmony via restoring credibility to the UN or any such thing, it's already a corrupted institution. More broadly, it's tragically dangerous to oversimplify the terrible decision of going to war. Any reasonable citizen ought to be outraged that the UN shirked its duty to Iraq, but it's important for us not to let that emotion cloud our thinking. We and the Iraqis have lost so much in this quixotic struggle, a struggle against a country that really posed no threat to us. While righting wrongs and spreading freedom are both very emotionally appealing concepts, you have to admit that our army and their people have suffered grievously for our well-intended cockiness, and there's no guarantee that the country will end up better in the end. Right now, it seems likely that it will end up worse. So an important lesson is that we really can't predict what will happen when we intervene in a country preemptively. Even if it's well-intentioned, history has shown that it's almost always a bad idea.
US Health Care is Worthless

1 - Nope, look at what happens when companies go bankrupt. They still have assets, they just have to sell them on the cheap. 2 - Meh. 3 - But some people can use the current system so it's not worthless. *** It's worth at least five dollars because the offer is on the table. Anything with bidders has worth and the worth cannot be lower than the lowest bid. Think about a jug of milk. If someone will pay a dollar for it, it's worth a dollar. If it's great milk and someone else offers two dollars, it's worth two dollars. If it's rotten and no one wants to buy it, it's worthless. I would love to have the whole system at the price of $5, so it's worth at least $5.
US Health Care is Worthless

1-"For something to be "worthless," it has to be worth nothing, zero, zilch." "More importantly, even if something is "in the negative," it can still be worth something." I don't understand, you did say this, I did not put this in your mouth, you said this yourself. As for people buying bankrupt companies, I agree that people buy them; however, if they are bankrupt, they are basically worth nothing UNTIL someone buys them. But think about the time that it is not bought...it is worth nothing. 2-I only said that to please you...since you do not believe that it is fully worthless. But as I said, it should be considered worthless. 3- As I am debating the example, I am also debating the point. If you have a water gun that eventually stops working because its not made as good as the new and improved version, doesn't it become worthless because you cant use it? ***Your offer to buy the healthcare system with $5 is absurd! Just because you think your offer is on the table, it doesn't mean that its worth anything because it is still not bought.
US Health Care is Worthless

"We obviously need a better system, and my opponent can not deny that." Yes, but the current system is not worthless. 1 - I don't believe that something that is worthless has worth. But I didn't call it worthless, you did. It's only a contradiction when you put words in my mouth. My argument, which hasn't been responded to, is that even a business or system that is hemoraging money can be worth something - maybe only pennies on the dollar - but worth something. People buy bankrupt companies all the time. 2 - "Basically, this system should be considered worthless, or will eventually become fully worthless." If it will eventually BECOME fully worthless, then it is not CURRENTLY fully worthless. Slam dunk. 3 - S/he is debating the example, not the point. Just because other countries have better healthcare, it doesn't make ours "worthless." Maybe "outdated" or "terrible," but not "worthless." *** My offer to buy the healthcare system of the US for $5 still stands. With this offer on the table, the system's worth cannot be less than that $5.
US Health Care is Worthless

My opponent believes that, even though it doesnt serve a lot of people, it still has a positive effect on a "few" people. Well that is obvious, but do we want a system that does not help at least half the people of the US? We obviously need a better system, and my opponent can not deny that. Contention 1: I must clarify the real meaning to what I said about being "in the negative": I meant that it is LIKE that, not that it IS in the negative, so it is not "nonsensical" to consider the US healthcare system as being like in the negative. But what does seem odd is that my opponent believes that something that is worthless(opponents meaning of worthless: zero, zilch, worth nothing)can still be worth something. How is this possible? Doesn't it seem that my opponent contradicts himself? If we look at a scale from, lets say 0-10, everything less than 0 is in the negative, so how is it that the negative is still worth something? Contention 2: My opponent agrees with me on Medicare's flaws , but he still believes that even though it only helps a few people, it is still worth something good. If it is bad for so many people then it mine as well be considered useless and worthless because sooner or later those few people are not going to have healthcare because they wont be able to afford it with the sky-rocketing prices. Basically, this whole system should be considered worthless, or will eventually become fully worthless. Contention 3: My opponent states that his neighbor has a better water gun than him, and that it is not worthless; however, since they made a new and improved water gun, it will most likely last longer, whilst your supersoaker 150 could break more easily or will eventually stop working. Thanks again to my opponent and to the voters! Good Luck!
US Health Care is Worthless

While I appreciate the time my opponent has put into his/her research, s/he is not responding to my basic argument -- that the US healthcare system, although terrible, is not "worthless," because it does serve at least a few people. The argument's simplicity is its genius. Contention 1 is the only argument that responds to my opening statement. S/he accepts my definition of worthless as "worth nothing." Then s/he says that we spend a lot of money on it ($2 trillion/year) and that it is in the negative. Two responses: (1) it is nonsensical to talk about the US healthcare system as "in the negative" since the system is a mix of government programs, public/private hospitals and doctors, and insurance companies. More importantly, even if something is "in the negative," it can still be worth something. Look at the US auto companies -- negative earnings, but they still got bought up, even if it was on the cheap. So, not worthless. Contention 2 argues Medicare is not perfect or even decent. Granted. But it does serve some of the elderly. Paying 75% of the first $2,250 in drugs is not enough, I agree, but it is better than nothing and definitely not "worthless." Contention 3 argues other countries have better healthcare. I already pre-empted this. Just because my neighbor has a SuperSoaker 2000, it doesn't make my SuperSoaker 150 "worthless," just not as good. *** If you read nothing else -- I personally here and now will pay $5 USD for the entire US healthcare system. Since we have a bidder, the product is not "worthless."