BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hitler was insane.

All but the last sentence of my opponent's first (major) paragraph in round 1 is directly copied from Wikipedia. My opponent's second paragraph is as well. The same goes with his third. "My arguments are not all directly copied from Wikipedia. " You are a liar. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... When the definition of "insane" in a medical dictionary is "of, exhibiting, or afflicted with insanity" (. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...), the definition of insanity requires application. I admit that I should not have defined insanity with a syntax dictionary in the first round, but this definition is clearly more valid, as insanity should be judged from a medical standpoint rather than the standpoint of an English teacher. The flaw in my opponent's logic is that having a mental "disorder" does not mean that one is insane, or mentally deranged. The phrase "mental disorder" means "any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, or other disability" . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com.... Therefore, the use of "disorder" in the phrase "mental disorder" does not deduce that one's mind is in disorder. Having a mental disorder cannot lead one to conclude that one is insane, as they are still responsible for their actions, or "sane". My opponent argues that because I conceded that Hitler had Asperger's, Hitler is insane. First, please note that my opponent dropped all other arguments relating to Hitler's possible insanity. As for this argument, all I must do is repeat that social disorders do not make one insane. The American Psychiatric Association (APA)'s reference committee released a study that argued that courts should not consider personality disorders to be insanity. . http://psych.org... My opponent asks why it matters that Hitler is responsible for his actions. His being responsible for his actions makes him sane according to the medical field. My opponent conceded that Hitler is responsible for his actions by saying "So? " So, my opponent has conceded the debate. "I just have a few questions. " Read Mein Kampf. It may answer your questions. . http://www.hitler.org... Fascism and racism have logical rational, and are not signs of insanity. My opponent's last argument is not sourced, so I will not refute it.
Hitler was insane.

My arguments are not all directly copied from Wikipedia. I used Wikipedia to set a background and then made an argument at the end based upon my own knowledge. My opponent wants to change the definition of "insanity." However, the resolution refers to the word "insane" and my opponent defined the word "insane" in the first round. It is greatly unfair to changed a definition in the middle of a debate, especially when insanity is not the same word tense as insane. Henceforth, it is necessary to keep the definition of insane and refer to your definition of insanity only when it is needed. Although it is a more proper definition, it is still a different definition and word form than the word "insane", which is what we are arguing, that Hitler was insane. (Look at the resolution) My opponent states that my logic is flawed. My logic is not flawed. It is correct, and if I am able to prove it is correct, then the resolution is affirmed. Hitler had a mental disorder. My opponent agrees that Hitler had a mental disorder in his argument. My opponent's definition of insane was "mentally deranged." I broke down the words "mentally" and "deranged" and defined mentally as being incorporated with the mind (mental) and deranged as disordered. Thus, Hitler having a mental disorder means that he was mentally deranged, because having a mental disorder is having disorder in the mind, which is what mentally deranged means. Since being insane is to be mentally deranged, and Hitler was mentally deranged due to a mental disorder, that means Hitler was insane. I have affirmed the resolution. I have supported my logic and find my opponent's logic innacurate to mine. My opponent follows by pointing out several issues that were related to Hitler: Meth, Schizophrenia, and Autism/Asperger Syndrome. My opponent states that Autism/Asperger is a mental disorder, which falls into my logical argument above, and since I have affirmed the resolution, I feel no need to further argue. "Therefore, Hitler was still responsible for his actions." So? Everyone is responsible for their actions. Being responsible for one's actions does not prove if one is insane or not insane, so this statement points nowhere. I just have a few questions. Would a sane person want to kill people just because they have different religions and beliefs? Would a sane person create propaganda and create one of the most destructive wars of all time? Would a sane person be in charge of the mass murder of millions of people? I think otherwise. Some say the onset of loosing his marbles began to surface before July 1944, although it was a very gradual process. It was around the time of Operation Zitadelle (Kursk) that his judgement and his reasoning began to unravel, although some will say that his judgement was always slightly circumspect. The July 1944 bomb plot really did push him over the edge into paranoia and fantasyland. I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Hitler was insane.

(My opponent's arguments are directly copied from Wikipedia.) I would like to propose to change the definition of insanity to "mental illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts". http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... I find that this definition is more proper, as it is from a mental dictionary, rather than from a semantic dictionary. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Despite that definition, my opponent's logic is flawed. -Being insane is to be mentally deranged -Being mentally deranged is to be disordered in the mind -Hitler certainly had a disorder in the mind THEREFORE -Hitler was insane Let's go through this again. If Hitler had a mental disorder, then he isn't necessarily mentally deranged. This is like squares and rectangles: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. So, we can now see the flaws in my opponent's arguments. -Being a square is to be a rectangle -Being a rectangle is to be a polygon -Figure A is a polygon THEREFORE -Figure A is a square One can easily see the logical fallacy here. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ METH Addiction to and the symptoms of methamphetamine are not mental illnesses. Methamphetamine affects motor function and impared verbal learning http://www.nida.nih.gov..., not judgement capability. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Schitzophrenia My opponent's Wikipedia Source does not source anything regarding Schitzophrenia. It only has a bunch of [citations needed]. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ AUTISM/ASPERGER While this is a mental disorder, it does not cause one to be incapable of thinking clearly and making logical decisions. Asperger's Syndrom is also a social disorder, not a behavioural disorder. http://www.scielo.br... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Therefore, Hitler was still responsible for his actions. I await a rebuttal.
Hitler was insane.

I stand in affirmation to the resolution, "Hitler was insane. " Thus, I must prove Hitler was in some way mentally deranged, according to my opponent's definition. I would like to further define several terms: mentally- in or with the mind . http://dictionary.reference.com... deranged- disordered; disarranged . http://dictionary.reference.com... Hitler suffered from borderline personality disorder, which manifested its symptoms in numerous ways and would imply Hitler was in full control of himself and his actions. Others have proposed Hitler may have been schizophrenic, based on claims that he was hallucinating and delusional during his last year of life. Many people believe that Hitler had a MENTAL DISORDER and was not schizophrenic nor bipolar, but rather met the criteria for both disorders, and was therefore most likely a schizoaffective. If true, this might be explained by a series of brief reactive psychoses in a narcissistic personality which could not withstand being confronted with reality (in this case, that he was not the "superman" or "savior of Germany" he envisioned himself to be, as his plans and apparent early achievements collapsed about him). Being insane is to be mentally deranged, and since being mentally deranged is to be disordered in the mind, I have shown that Hitler certainly had a disorder in the mind, thus the resolution is affirmed. In addition, his regular methamphetamine use and possible sleep deprivation in the last period of his life must be factored into any speculation as to the cause of his possible psychotic symptoms, as these two activities are known to trigger psychotic reactions in some individuals. Michael Fitzgerald, an expert in autism spectrum disorders, concludes that Hitler suffered from, and met all the criteria of Asperger syndrome as documented by Hans Asperger. As evidence of possible Asperger's, Fitzgerald cites Hitler's poor sleep patterns, food fads, dislike of physical contact, inability to forge genuine friendships, and an emptiness in his human relations. His conversations in the Men's Home in Vienna were really harangues and invited no reciprocity, for which he seemingly lacked capacity. In Munich, Hitler was distant, self-contained, withdrawn and without friends. His comrades noted that he had no humanitarian feelings, that he was single-minded and inflexible. He was obsessive and rarely made good or interesting company, except in the eyes of those who shared his obsessions or those in awe of, or dependent on him. I believe I have affirmed the resolution. I proved that Hitler had mental disorders, which shows that he was both mentally deranged and insane, by definition. I heavily urge a Pro vote. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I thank the readers and my opponent for this debate.
Hitler was insane.

Disclaimer: I am not a racist, a Nazi, or any of the sort. However, I do not believe that Hitler was insane. I do believe that he had every one of his beliefs rationalized. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hitler- Adolf Hitler, Leader of the Third Reich, also known as Nazi Germany, an Axis Power during the Second World War. Insane- mentally deranged http://dictionary.reference.com... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I await my opponent's arguments and assert that he/she has burden of proof.
The United States should explore space.

Hello, I am Joshua Pleco. I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, I am sure it will be enlightening. First off, I would like to clarify that I am not against the exploration of space, in fact I think that the survival of our race may one day depend on it. I shall start my side of the argument by defining country and government: Definition of Country •state: a politically organized body of people under a single government; •the territory occupied by a nation; •state: a politically organized body of people under a single government; •the territory occupied by a nation; SOURCE: http://www.google.com...= Definition of Government: Government: "gov-ern-ment n. The authoritative administration of public policy and affairs of a nation, stare or city; the system or policy by which a political unit is governed; any governed territory, district, or area." SOURCE: Webster's Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language 1.) It's a waste of government money to explore space or fund organizations that explore space. The US is still in a fragile economic state, and it isn't wise to waste money on exploration. 2.) There is no reason for the United States to explore space (besides the search for habitable planets, which I shall cover later on in the debate) 3.) Any government should focus more on other, more important, affairs it's own body.
Science has the ability to address existence of god

I'll admit I am slightly confused. Both Con and I agreed that it I was the one to begin the debate and set up the opening round. But Con has essentially doubled up on setting up this debate with a fairly hap-hazard introduction, in which I cannot respond to anything, as it's fairly nebulous. All Con has done in Round 1 is outline his format, which is not what I expected Con to do as I have given Con enough room to work with, but for whatever reason Con opted to not respond to my arguments posted in Round 1 at all, and instead opted to set up his own setting. Which I find extremely puzzling. In light of this, I will forego posing any more arguments for my Round 2 as I have already outlined why the notion of a god is outside the boundaries of science, and will instead wait for Con to posit arguments in his Round 2.
Science has the ability to address existence of god

Here is a powerpoint presentation I obtained from wikipedia that shows the steps of the scientific method and a summary as to how I will argue for my position:1. Make observationsA. Origin of the UniverseB. Fine-tuning constants2. Define a QuestionA. Why is there something rather than nothing?3. Formulate a HypothesisA. The God hypothesisB. A spaceless timeless immaterial cause (i.e. a mind) who possesses unlimited properties.4. Develop testable predictionsA. If my hypothesis is false, then there is a conceivable world or universe where God does not have to exist or is not necessary to explain it. B. If my hypothesis is false, we should find variations among the fine-tuning constants from any part or time of the universe.5. Devise an experimentA. Confirmation of Sean Carrol's past-eternal universe model.B. The Planck satellite are the experiments that should reveal any variations among the constants. I am going to just keep it short in this round since Con has made this into a long debate that I think probably should have been shorter as I mentioned to him before the debate. Its no problem for me though. In the next round, I will go in depth with my arguments I listed above, which will allow Con to have more material to respond and make objections.
Science has the ability to address existence of god

Introduction Con and I have had a discussion via messages and we have both agreed to debate on this issue. It is important to note that from my observations of Con's previous debates, he's arguing that there is evidence for a specific god - that being the Christian one. It is also important to note that this debate is not aimed to be a discussion of "scientific evidence"* for a deity. Rather, it is to be about whether science itself can even offer a stance on the existence of a god. In saying that, I will not object to discussing Con's lines of "scientific evidence" for a god as it is relevant to this discussion. I will ask that if Con does intend to do this later on in a debate, there is to be no gish galloping. Arguments I maintain that science cannot and does not offer any position on the existence of a god. To do so would make it pseudo-science, as science can only explain natural phenomena. Science most certainly does not have anything to say on the existence of supernatural entities and I do deem a god as being supernatural. Furthermore, there is a reason why you will find no credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal on whether or not a deity exists and that reason is that science does not offer any stance on the existence of a god. If science does support the existence of a god, I challenge my opponent to bring forth a credible, peer reviewed journal which outlines this evidence for his god. For something to be considered evidenced by science (which can be done via the creation of scientific theories), it must meet some basic criteria: i) The subject in question must be potentially falsifiable ii) A theory must have explanatory power iii) A theory must make predictions iv) A theory must have a substantial amount of competent evidence to back it up The above 4 qualities form the basic cornerstones of scientific knowledge. I maintain that the notion of a god cannot meet any of these qualities nor that any "scientific evidence" for a god can meet these criteria, and thus disqualifies a god from being scientifically vindicated. * Please note that when I put "scientific evidence" in quotations, I am specifically doing so because I believe that any such evidence supporting the existence of a god cannot be scientific, as it does not meet specified criteria. Thus the quotations. By putting this in quotations, I am not denying the power of scientific evidence, nor that science has tremendous explanatory power; the exact opposite in fact.
People with inheritable diseases shouldn't be allowed to have children.

Thank you for your rebuttal! Though I'd love to provide a defense against it, I'm afraid that this would be unfair, considering that you wouldn't be able to respond to the following rebuttal. With further ado, here's my rebuttal. I. It damages the genetics of the human species as a wholeYes, I will concede a bit to this. If one or both parents have inheritable diseases, it's very likely that the child will also get said disease. However, regardless of whether or not they reproduce, it won't eradicate the disease entirely. For example, someone can carry a recessive gene and pass it down to their child. "People who have a change in just one copy of a recessive gene are called 'carriers.' They don't usually have the disease because they have a normal gene copy of that pair that can do the job. When two carriers have a child together, however, the child has a 1 in 4 (25%) chance of getting a gene with a mutation from both parents, which would result in the child having the disease. Cystic fibrosis (a lung disease), sickle cell anemia (a blood disorder), and Tay-Sachs disease (which causes nervous system problems) are caused by recessive mutations from both parents coming together in a child." [1]So no matter what, there will always be genetic disorders, whether it with recessive genes, environment, etc. II. Most of these diseases cut off quality and hope of life dramatically for innocent people.My opponent mentions that "...genetic disorders can always happen at a random chance, and it never is anyone's fault." In other words, they're being punished for something they had no control over. It's not their fault that they got a disorder, whether it be mental or physical. Good bye.Citations[1]http://m.kidshealth.org...=
People with inheritable diseases shouldn't be allowed to have children.

So, why should people with inheritable diseases or deformities not be allowed to reproduce? These are my two main reasons: Reason 1: It damages the genetics of the human species as a whole. Pretty simple and short reason. By stopping an infected person's bloodline, you keep the disease from spreading at a minor grade, thus damaging the human species as a whole. Think of it as the butterfly effect; one person with one of these disorders could lead, in a few generations, to hundreds of people inheriting it. Reason 2: Most of these diseases cut off quality and hope of life dramatically for innocent people. Of course, genetic disorders can always happen at a random chance, and it never is anyone's fault. However, if you choose to bring a baby to the word with a high chance of it having a low quality of life, that is entirely the parent's fault and ignorance. And, as always, the effects of ignorance must always be prevented. You are probably thinking, "It's just a small chance, let them have children if they want to". First, I am not saying they should not be able to be parents. By "having children", I am referring to reproduction. Second, this can also be applied to people with sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, Chlamydia, Hepatitis C, Syphillis, and many, many more. No one encourages these people to reproduce just because, like any normal person, they should be allowed to have sex and offspring of their own. People with STDs are encouraged to not reproduce, or to stay safe when having sexual intercourse (I am actually not sure what's the law's standpoint on people that are aware they have STDs having sexual intercourse. I looked it up for some time but never got anything), to keep these infections from spreading to the rest of the population. Why isn't this the same case with people with genetic disorders such as Down syndrome, Angelman syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.? May it be a genetic disorder or an STD, the case is the same. You are, out of pure ignorance, spreading your infection to another unaware person. If this isn't discouraged, this will keep on to permanently damage the human DNA as a whole in a few thousand years. The only exception would be people with genetic mental retardation that can't physically understand the concept of heredity. This is only yet another reason to discourage, and even outlaw, sexual intercourse between people with inheritable diseases.
Age does not affect one's intelligence in a significant way.

Age is not the only factor that affects one's intelligence but it does have a significant affect. A brain is not fully developed until age twenty five. source:http://www.academic.marist.edu... This has a significant effect on one's decision making, problem solving, ability to understand, and many other areas of intelligence. Also, the brain deteriorates after a certain age, causing normal functioning skills also to be affected as well as these other characteristics. If a person has had more time to experience things and has made an effort to do so, then they probably have. If I have been in high school for three years and you only for two, I have most likely learned more in high school. Same goes for being in the world longer. Same goes for being in the world. If you have been in the world longer than I experiencing things, you have probably experienced more than I. This is by no means a rule, there are so many other factors. Someone younger can easily be more intelligent than someone older. But, age is a factor. You usually assume a parent is more intelligent than a child. Why? Because they have been in the world longer and probably experienced more and have developed fully.
Age does not affect one's intelligence in a significant way.

I think it is very brave of you to try to debate someone with the language barrier which is an obvious setback. Good luck. I do not understand your definition of age. I think you were trying to point out that age is not the only factor. The problem is that I already pointed that out and have said that is true. You need to prove that age does not SIGNIFICANTLY affect intelligence. Not that it isn't the only factor because that is an accepted fact in the debate.
Age does not affect one's intelligence in a significant way.

Hello everybody and Mr.Cons.Before I move on I would like to tell that I am not good in English but I will try.So as the topic states I would like to define some words. 1.Age : only the people less than 20 years old because nows a day many problems focus on these group i.e.Justin Bieber As the topic said age doesn't affect the intelligent is only ur theory sir.If you make it in fact -Do you think 18 years old will drive an airplane.It is true that age is a key to make people varie but it is depend on their ability too.So the motion should failed
Animal Rights

I'm a little sad to see my opponent just "gave up" so easily. My opponent is far from bad, and I would have enjoyed a continuation of this round. Nonetheless, because she forfeited. I will just sum up my arguments with three main points. 1. Animals can not enter into social contract, and that is the definition of a "right" 2. Animal rights would hault both Aids research and cancer research. 3. Animal rights would hurt our economy due to the loss of food production. (No more hamburgers lol) I believe that for these three reasons we all should consider the Con stance of this resolution, that Animals do not deserve rights. Thanks!