BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will have the exact amount of characters that the character limit allows.

The maximum amount the character limit allows is 8000. We know this based on the fact that the character limit for all debates was 8000 b4 V3. Since anyone with administrative power can quite easily change debates back to all being 8000 characters, the maximum potential remains 8000. Through making this a 500 character debate, PRO has prevented himself from being able to use the maximum amount of characters that the site limit allows And comment section posts are not part of the debate. :D
I will have the exact amount of characters that the character limit allows.

I intentionally made the character limit really small so I can hit it every single time and not have to ramble. I'll ramble anyway, it's fun. Somehow my opponent will have to prove that I do not have 500 characters every time. The only way to prove it or disprove it is copying and pasting into a word processor and doing a character count. I will take screenshots of my exact argument and post links to them in the comments section so I don't take up any space I may use to ramble. This is exciting.
I will have the exact amount of characters that the character limit allows.

1) PRO DID use the comments to help him. He said he would in his R1 and then went on to post in the comment section. Since he considered the comments as part of the debate, that's more than 500 characters on his part. There is nothing he can say to change this fact. 2) The proof of 8000 char. has already been explained in R1. In essence, it is something only administrators can do. All PRO is doing is doubting that Phil (the website owner) has any power over his website. Absurd.
Euthanasia

Pro has failed to provide definitions so I will do so. Euthanasia:the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering http://www.merriam-webster.com... 1.It is not reasonable to introduce radical legislation on the basis of the perceived needs of a tiny proportion of the population. The chances of a person actually needing Euthanasia are ridiculously low. Proposing such radical legislation that affects only a tiny part of the population is downright absurd. 2. The practice of Euthanasia is to case unique for it to be confined to guidelines Exposing guidelines would be all but impossible because as stated before this legislation will only affect a small fraction of people. In each case where a patient is beyond the help of modern medicine will likely be individualized. Guidelines would have to be imposed for each specific case in order for it to be validated. 3. Euthanasia has negative affects on doctors Doctors are healers, not murderers. We need to treat them as such. True, doctors have to deal with death often, but they are the ones trying to save the patient. Asking doctors to go against their teachings and basically murder someone is unreasonable, and should not be tolerated. Of course there is also the risk of a doctor losing his mind and becoming obsessed with death. This has been seen in Nazi Germany,where doctors sometimes euthanized people even when they suffered from perfectly treatable ailments. 4. The philosophy on which Euthanasia is based is flawed The entire idea of this practice relies on the "Death with Dignity" argument, meaning that it is better to save a patient from suffering and end their life quickly. However, pain is no longer the problem it once was, as even Dr. Peter Admiraal, one of the most powerful medical advocates for euthanasia in Holland has admitted. 5. Euthanasia is the wrong solution to the majority of the people that use it. In most cases where a patient requested Euthanasia the prospect of death was often months or years away, and most of the time treatment was available. 6. Euthanasia does not mean a "good" or "dignified" death As seen with prison executions, lethal injections can go horrible wrong. As the media has been keen to point out the process of lethal injections can drag on for hours, often bringing excruciating pain and suffering with it. Is it really worth saving people pain later on if they have to experience excruciating agony in their "quick" death? Source: http://www.life.org.nz...
Hitler was a hero

Hero:A person, typically a man, who is admired for courage or noble qualities This debate will be about whether Adolf Hitler should be admired for noble qualities. I just need to point to the holocaust to prove my point. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www1.yadvashem.org... http://www.pbs.org... The holocaust did happen and I can pull more links if you need more proof. This alone shows his lack of morals and we need our hero to have morals.This is very brief but the killing of millions of people should speak for itself. He claims that he led Germany to a better place by Hitlers leadership but by the end of his rule Germany was in as bad a shape as when it had started.
Hitler was a hero

during his time in power hitler helped reestablish an economy that had been destroyed by WWI, he improved the quality of life for all german citizens, and under his command many breakthroughs in medicine led to saving millions of lives not only in WWII germany but in all parts of the world. hitler was not an evil tyrant and contrary to what most history books will tell you he did not exterminate 6 million jews, he actually saved the lives of many jews by supplying them with food and medicine.
Hitler was a hero

My opponent admits that hitler killed and gassed millions of people. I will next point out how my opponent brings up new arguments in the final round. Vote on this how you wish. He says that " if it were not for the fact that allied forces bombed and destroyed german factories and farms and forced germany to pay undue reperations germany would have left WWII in much better shape than before hitler came to power. " They attacked Germany because Hitler attacked them. This was Hitlers fault. He says I have "my opponent has yet to counter any points in my argument and instead has simply cited the lies of the main stream media and juked and jived around the real facts just like a modern day politician" This is ironic because he neglects to deny that Hitler gasses 1.5 million Jews in concentration camps. (taken from my opponents source) He also does not say what arguments I have ignored. If you need further clarification I will respond in the comments. My opponent claims that hitler was a good soldier in WW1. (. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) In reality he was a cowardly pig. "The myth of Hitler as a brave soldier and the camaraderie of the trenches was used by the Nazi Party from the beginning in order to extend its appeal beyond the far Right," Dr Weber said Hitler was a cowardly pig and a bad person who killed millions of people. He does not meet the definition of hero.
Hitler was a hero

the portion of my previous argument discussing the economic impact hitler had on WWII germany was some how cut off, and i didnt have time to respond yesterday and for that I appologize. if it were not for the fact that allied forces bombed and destroyed german factories and farms and forced germany to pay undue reperations germany would have left WWII in much better shape than before hitler came to power. he united germany and gave them the hope they needed to return to greatness, both economically and culturally. my opponent has yet to counter any points in my argument and instead has simply cited the lies of the main stream media and juked and jived around the real facts just like a modern day politician . hitler on the other hand spoke the truth whether it was popular or not and for that reason I believe he was an uncommonly good man, by choosing to fight in WWI and requesting the most dangerous jobs he proved to be a man of extreme bravery, by creating a figurehead that his people could rally around he saved the identity of a people and in the process became a hero.
Hitler was a hero

I would first like to point out that you completely drop all your arguments making me win immediately.I will continue for humerus sake. You put many records that claim that the holocaust is fake. "Then, in 1990 it was discovered that only 1.5 million were gassed at Auschwitz". This proves my point to a perfect tee. You admit millions were killed. facts.randomhistory.com/holocaust-facts.html www.holocaust-history-facts.com I wish this to be a debate and not a link war. My opponent admits to the fact that millions were gassed at camps and drops all arguments about economy. Sorry for the short response but I am low on time.
The Big Lie: Republicans Balance Federal Budgets

Pro copied most of his case from a blog post without giving the source. He forfeited two rounds.I thoroughly refuted Pro's case, and he provided no rebuttal.Pro provided no sources for his most important contentions, while I provided thorough sourcing for my contentions. Pro's only sources were for economic data, and he failed to link that data correctly. Data that deficits have existed, and also some surpluses, does not argue who created them or whether they were justified.Republicans have been the ones trying to balance the budget. Clinton vetoed the balanced budget four times before Gingrich and the Republicans got him to go along. Ryan and the Republicans proposed plans to get to a balanced budget in 10 years, and subsequently a more politically acceptable plan to achieve a surplus in 20 years. Democrats under President Obama have never proposed any plan to get to a balance budget.
The Big Lie: Republicans Balance Federal Budgets

Pro seemed so hyped-up in his beliefs that I thought he would want to defend them.It turns out that most of Pro's case is copied from a blog post entitled "The Big Lie of the Day: Republicans Balance Federal Budgets" [12. http://www.nationalmemo.com...] The blog post appeared on August 15, 2012, which explains why Romney was cited in the piece, and why there aren't any references to any of the specific claims about Republicans. The blog post is by "@lolgop" which pretends to no authority. It's a campaign screed left over from the last election.It's permissible to use long quotation in a debate, but the debater must acknowledge the source of the quotation, provide source to back up the claims made, and defend the arguments. Pro has done none of that.
Buy Adderall pills online in cheap price

Adderall dosage Adderall is a prescription drug composed of two main components " amphetamine and dextroamphetamine. It is a part of a class of medications called stimulants and is prescribed for the treatment of lack of attention (ADHD) and sleepiness (Narcolepsy). When you have been prescribed a particular dosage of the drug and buy Adderall online or order Adderall overnight delivery from the USA, You"ll see that the drug increases attention span and focus, And reduces impulsive behavior. Adderall effects on personality When you buy Adderall online or order Adderall online, You get a prescription that gives you a lot of information about the drug, Including how it can affect you positively and negatively. However, There are times when the effects of buy Adderall online without a prescription is seen in the person indulging in the intake of the drug, For example, Mood swings. Long-term effects of Adderall When you buy Adderall online, You get a prescription drug along with a prescription. However, You must know that Adderall is considered a controlled substance, And it"s illegal to buy the medicine without a prescription. Those people who take the drug to stay awake might become dependent on it. Hence, Health experts choose to prescribe the lowest dose of the drug and increase the dose slowly over time, As needed. They also suggest that one should opt for order Adderall overnight delivery. Adderall withdrawal symptoms As you"re here looking for information to buy Adderall online or order Adderall online, Let us tell you that the effects of the drug don"t last long because they go away eventually. This can be called an Adderall crash, The condition in which a person starts feeling the opposite of what they would feel when they were taking the drug. When a person thinks of stopping the intake of the medication, They can reduce the amount of consumption of the drug so that they can avoid becoming a victim of the drug"s withdrawal symptoms. If a person manages to get rid of the intake of the medication very quickly, The following signs of the crash can be seen in him like:- A craving for Adderall Agitation and irritability Anxiety or panic Fatigue Feelings of depression Increase in appetite Insomnia Nightmares
Evolution is a more viable theory regarding our status (Existence) than Creationism

Rebuttals of your rebuttals for my argument. 1) Are you implying evolution is falsified or the laws of thermodynamics? Also I am not sure what your argument about an exploding barrel proves. Could you elaborate? From what I could see you are impaling that a person or thing put the balls into a specific order which would be an argument for intelligent design, or creationism. 2) The fact of the matter is there is still a lot of missing evidence. Also not all soft body things decay. There are plenty of fossils of plants out there[1]. 3) Actually we do. Not one animal has been observed evolving into a new species. If there is one that we watched please point it out. 4) The fact that I am trying to illiterate is that how many generations of off springs is it going to take for that one cell to mutate into the 16 million+ different species that are currently known to exist. That question I asked just re illustrates this point. How many different mutations will it take for the original cell to get to the point of a tree or a human? Is it feasible to think there has been enough time to pass? Rebutting your rebuttals to my rebuttals for your argument. 1) Whatever you want as long as you acknowledge this is a false fact. 2) Please see the argument above regarding the time it would take based solely on random mutations. 3) I am not arguing biblical creationism. There is no way to prove that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution is a more viable theory regarding our status (Existence) than Creationism

I would also like to apologize for my tardiness in posting my argument. Now In the interest of full disclosure I would like to mention that I am an evolutionist and I am simply playing devil’s advocate. With that said I feel that it is possible to argue for creationism logically and without relying on the bible. Presentation 1) The second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. The second law of thermodynamics states that states that energy and matter tends to go from order to chaos[1]. Thus how could it be possible for life to exist if energy and matter go from order to disorder? Life requires order to flourish and evolution shows that life goes from simple to more and more complex. 2) Life appeared spontaneously. If you look at the fossil record complex life forms appear spontaneously where as the theory of evolutions suggests there were gradual changes to lead up to this complex life[2][3][4]. 3) All current plants and animals have not evolved since creation, outside of extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created species of plants and animals has only occurred within narrow limits[5]. 4) Mutations and Natural selection would not be enough to divide species into completely different Kingdoms of animals[6]. What I am trying to say is, is it feasible to think that there are enough random genetic mutations that would have changed an organism from a tree into a human? Rebuttals 1) Where has a scientist observe a man evolve from an ape? Scientists have hypothesized such but it was never, at least to my knowledge, observed. 2) As addressed above there are many holes where there should not be. Along with that the fossil record goes against the second law of thermodynamics. 3) Grant you that we share a lot of DNA with apes. However we share 51% of our DNA with a fruit fly and we have nothing in common[7] 4) You are correct on all points regarding Noah’s Ark. Not going to argue that. The reason why I am not arguing this point is that Noah’s Ark has nothing to do with my argument. I completely argree with you that Noah’s Ark probably did not happen but at the same time Noah is not needed for Creation. [1] . http://www.zo.utexas.edu... [2] . http://www.icr.org... [3] . http://www.genesispark.com... [4] . http://www.truthinscience.org.uk... [5] . http://www.icr.org... [6] . http://www.icr.org... [7] . http://sciencecentres.org.uk...
Evolution is a more viable theory regarding our status (Existence) than Creationism

RulesIf either Con or I fail to comply with the following rules, 7 points will automatically be deducted from that person, regardless of its reservation.1. No plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of copying someone else's work and claiming it as your own.(Before the debate, I would like to remind you: You might realize that it can be both; We may have originated from a single-cell creatures, evolving overtime, while God initiated the evolution. However, I refer to our "coming into be" (Hence status). Don't be depicted; If we just popped into existed (That's how I'm reffering to Creationism right now as), nice and clear, then Creationism would be yours)PresentationObservationsScientists have actually observed (And some recorded and said documentaries were published) animals evolving into human (Thus that human originating as said animal).Fossil evidenceIn the fossil record: There are snapshots from the past in which, if arranged from oldest to earliest, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change overtime. The snapshots may be scattered in places and have bits missing, but that which we are left with clearly supports the claim that we originated from different animals, evolving overtime.Similarities between humans and related living organismsDuring and since Darwin was born, people have been studying animals. Scientists, lately, have been discovering that we humans share DNA with others as our former selves (Or at least some)(Monkeys)[1].Noah's arkWood is very brittle. And having established that fact, how did the animals and Noah survive?1. According to the Bible, there were many animals on the ark. So, from how much the ark had to carry, it should have crashed, regardless of grip (Which makes the middle of the wood more susceptible/vulnerable (Synonyms) to breakage).2. So, those drops, flood striking, etc. should have annahilated the ark (Hence, wood).I await my opponent's set of arguments.Sources[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Evolution is a more viable theory regarding our status (Existence) than Creationism

1) Biology still must follow the laws of physics. How does evolution follow the laws of thermodynamics. 2) The theory of evolution states that all life evolved from a single cell. Most decomposers are single cells. How can your claim “[B]ecause, there were no decomposers there yet” be accurate? 3) Like I said show me observations I have not seen one. 4) Where did you get the idea that its not accurate? I am assuming your not a genetic scientist, why should we take your word for it? 5) I had an argument here that I deleted. I didn’t notice my mistake with numbering. 6) Asexual reproduction results in EXACT copies. How were there mutations? In sexual reproduction you get half of you DNA from your mother and half from your father. In Asexual reproduction you look just like your parent genetically. How did evolution come about if cells reproduce asexually and the first life according to evolution was a cell? 7) I am not arguing what it implys I am arguing that this point is false. I don’t care about points or who wins or loses I think its fun to debate. 8) You did not debunk my argument you have not addressed them appropriately.
the christiangod has a variant of multiple personality disorder.

Not quite; I said a variant; that means that God doesn't necessarily need all of the symptoms; the only mandatory one is a split personality. Okay, but the definition I gave from WebMD, a website where doctors publish work, says that someone with MPD suffers from an identity Crisis. If you have multiple personalities, then you don’t really know who you are. So I’m not sure what this has to do with my opponent’s position. A person with multiple personality has the core symptom of having multiple distinct identities; exactly what is being siad in the trinity.This analogy is faulty because the family is made of multiple beings while the trinity is made up of three different persons in one being. Wrong. My opponent seems to have a misunderstanding of what the Trinity actually is. The trinity is not three persons in one person. The trinity is God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence or substance, not one in person. What my opponent is affirming here is actually Modalism- The idea that God is one person in three modes. And this is simply a false heresies that originated in the 3rd century. Also the example I gave of a family is not faulty. In order for a family to be considered a family, it must have a Father, Mother, and Child. If you don’t have any of these then a family is not complete. Each of these three have different roles, yet remain one in the same family. The same thing in the trinity, Three distinct persons, which means they have different roles, but are one in the same substance or essence. Conclusion: My opponent hasn’t really shown my argument’s to be false. In fact he agrees with me earlier in the debate that God is loving and just. He misrepresents the trinity, and commits many errors. He has not shown X, Y, or Z to be false, therefore my argument stands. I would like to thank my opponent for having this debate with me, and remember to vote wisely:D. Sources: http://carm.org... http://carm.org...
the christiangod has a variant of multiple personality disorder.

So according to what Pro is arguing, he is saying that God has a lack of connection with himself, and suffers from an identity Crisis.Not quite; I said a variant; that means that God doesn't necessarily need all of the symptoms; the only mandatory one is a split personality.Now my opponent got it right when he said that the trinity is three persons in one. The question now is what do we mean by persons? Personhood- is the state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality. So personhood is a property of identity. A person with multiple personality has the core symptom of having multiple distinct identities; exactly what is being siad in the trinity.A family is a great reflection of the trinity. In order for a family to function, it needs a Father, Mother, and Child. This analogy is faulty because the family is made of multiple beings while the trinity is made up of three different persons in one being.CONCLUSIONI have stated my case and refuted con's rebuttals. Therefore; I have proven my case.
the christiangod has a variant of multiple personality disorder.

Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD . Repent and live! (Ezek 18:31-32) Okay then; it looks like I was wrong about God being vengeful in the old testament. However my trinity argument still holds. "Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."--http://www.newadvent.org... "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another"--http://www.newadvent.org... PERSON: Any sentient or socially intelligent being.--http://en.wiktionary.org... Three DISTINCT persons in one. That means that they don't have the same personality. Bu since they are one that means that God has three distinct personalities; something the catholic church explicitly states. Since God has 3 distinct personalities he has multiple personality disorder.