BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hitler was correct to hate the Jews

It is my firm belief that Hitler was incorrect to hate the Jews, he perhaps was correct to put them in concentration camps and do as he pleased with his little big-nosed minions but to hate them is not a correct thing to do.It is bad for his blood pressure and also makes it much easier for Jews to emotionally torment him simply by existing, a severe weakness is being able to be so easily tormented by one's nemesis and Hitler opened himself up to a major weakness by hating the Jews.
Hitler was correct to hate the Jews

Apparently my opponent doesn't understand the purpose of the acceptance round. The purpose of the acceptance round is to say that I accept the debate. If you can point out where I said that I accept that you are right (in terms of a concession) then I will concede but merely saying that I am playing devil's advocate is not a concession to the debate. I will begin with rebuttals. R1: It is not a correct thing to do Says who? You cannot point this out as if it is an innately believed fact, because it isn't. There are many people who believe that what Hitler believed was correct and therefore this cannot be assumed without evidence. Justice4Germans disagrees with you - to the extent that Hitler deserved a Nobel Peace Prize (. http://justice4germans.com...) R2: It is bad for blood presure Again, says who? Where is your source saying that hating Jews is bad for your blood presure. I cannot be expected to believe everything that you assert because that is not part of my burden. It is required by you to show me that it is bad for Hitler's blood pressure. Now, onto my argumentsC1: Freedom Of Speech And BeliefWe all have the right to freedom of speech. Whether we get it or not is another matter but we all deserve the freedom of speech. . https://en.wikipedia.org... We also have the freedom of belief and religion. You cannot force Hitler to like the Jews. That is depriving him of a basic human right. . http://www1.umn.edu...C2: Individuality We shouldn't force individuals to be like us. They have free will and therefore they make their choices that they believe is morally correct (most of the time). And even if you believe in determinism then that is better for my case. It means that you cannot force him to hate the Jews because everything in the world is determined and therefore Hitler couldn't stop himself from hating the Jews. Muslims believe that everyone but Muslims go to Hell. Do we force them to like us and not believe this? No. Christians believe that everyone but Christians go to Hell. Do we force them to like us and not believe this? No. . https://www.quora.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...
Burger King is better than McDonald's

Burger king is healthier, but if you choose a fast food option because it is healthier, you've made a mistake. Take for example, Taco Bell that manages to be better and cheaper than both with D grade meat. At least the taco meat isn't horse meat, which Burger King admits to serving its customers, clumped with the "100% beef" it promises to serve. {http://www.dailymail.co.uk...} McDonald's also has a wider variety of acceptable burgers than Burger "King". If you want a whopper, then Burger King is the best place to go. If you want a quarter-pound burger loaded with spicy toppings and bacon, then go to McDonald's. If you want a burger so greasy it makes the cardboard darker (personal experience) then go to Burger King. If you prefer a burger to be unhealthier because it is in fact 2 beef patties with 3 chicken patties as buns {Big McChicken http://hackthemenu.com...} then I suggest McDonald's. Finally, lets look at breakfast. Its almost as if every food McScientist gathered and said "lets find a way to put syrup in a bun without the bun getting to sticky." and then they birthed McGriddles. They are far better than any "croisandwich" The King can toss to Ronald. And if you're tired of sandwiches, they also serve pancakes and recommendable breakfast burritos .
Burger King is better than McDonald's

I never said anything about eating fast food to be "healthy", but I'm saying McDonald's is worst for your health than Burger King. McDonald's burger also taste like rubber meat, meanwhile Burger King's burgers taste like actual meat. "Burger King's burger is way higher than the garbage you get at McDonald's." Said 47iscool. I agree. The new 'Big King' sandwich, the new 'BBQ rib sandwich', BBQ pulled pork sandwich, triple whopper, and so much more! Meanwhile McDonald's is rubber meat with sauces, rubber meat with veggies, and most importantly, rubber meat.
Burger King is better than McDonald's

Let's be honest, if you eat fast food because its 'healthy' then you're doing something wrong. Also, for size, I recommend the double quarter pounder (with cheese), which you can get in four variants TWO of which have bacon and one is spicy. And let's not forget the option to order 4 "mini big-macs" for the price of one full one. (Order 4 mcdoubles but omit the pickles and ketchup. Instead, ask for special sauce, onion, and lettuce.) And with your 4 mini big macs you can order their amazing sweet tea, any size for $1.
Burger King is better than McDonald's

Burger King isn't only more delicious than McDonald's, it's also healthier. The McDonald's fries are incredibly more greasier than Burger. Burger King has a choice on the 'new' healthier fries thats lower in calories or the regular. When people think of McDonald's, they think of the movie "Supersize Me". And what's even the point of Big Macs? They aren't even that big, mostly the size of the double stacker at Burger King which is heavenly delicious (It also has BACON!! I mean come on, who doesn't like Bacon?). If Big Macs are called Big Macs then why aren't they big? The Double Whopper at Burger King. Now THAT'S big.
Pure Socialism is far Superior to Captitalism

Pro then forfeited four rounds in a row. It is bad conduct to post a challenge to a five-round debate then forfeit. It also leaves my refutation of Pro's arguments standing. Pro's system would put incompetent people in charge, incorrectly assumes that the only issues needing representation are economic ones, and virtually prevents capital formation. The system is naive and would be a disaster. The resolution is negated.
Pure Socialism is far Superior to Captitalism

My, my, what has happened to Pro's passionate belief in pure socialism? I will expand upon one point before again waiting for Pro. Pro's opening arguments did not even remotely address the role of capital in an economy. Failure to consider the role of capital is fatal to socialism. It is a law of nature that money available now is worth more than money some time in the future. Anyone who denies this fact is invited to send me all their money right now, and I'll have it returned out of my estate at some indefinite time in the future, without interest. That proposition is ridiculous because of the inherent time value of money. An investor puts up the money to build a factory in the hope of getting the investment back with interest (or a profit). The return is in the future, so there is inherently some risk in the potential return. Therefore the investor must be compensated both for time value and risk. Socialism hopes to escape the risk by having the government build the factory, but the escape is an illusion. The government gets money from the general tax base, which means that all those taxed are unwilling investors in the government-owned factory. However, the taxpayers have no control over where to put their valuable capital. It is all allocated by bureaucrats who know nothing about what the market wants and who will be paid whether or not they make good choices. That's why all versions of socialism fail. Other arguments are continued.
Resolved: God Exists

Rebuttals1. This argument does not argue for God as described in the definition, thus is irrelevant to the resolution. 2. Change is via. graduation, which in turn is via. time. Time, as described before, is the entropic graduation of the universe. With the second law of thermodynamics, one can conclusively say that time is the entropic graduation of the universe, viz. any thermodynamic system (eg. the universe) has its fourth dimension caused by the gradual emergence and re-emergence of disorder. [1] 3. Pro states that change can only be caused by will. Here, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP to verifiably prove that change cannot be caused by a non-sentient external force (eg. entropy). 4. Pro has not proven that nothing changes itself; nonetheless, I have accepted it and provided the argument for entropy.ArgumentsPro has not rebutted or refuted any of my arguments. Because of the lack of rebuttal, I presume Pro has accepted my argument against teleology. Hence, I extend all my arguments from Round 2.References[1] Tisza, L. (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA.
Resolved: God Exists

The Argument from Change The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything. As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state. Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change. Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will
Resolved: God Exists

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4 Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
Resolved: God Exists

DefinitionsGod - an intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient, and perfect being who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authorityOmniscience - the definitive, certain knowledge of everythingOmnipotence - the ability to perform any action whatsoever, natural and supernaturalSentient - able to feel or perceive subjectivelyRules1. All arguments must be according to the definitions. 2. Burden of Proof lies with Pro via. the Russell's teapot analogy. 3. Logic cannot be ignored; it must be rebutted. 4. Appropriate conduct must be maintained: no profanity, insults, trolling, or any other inappropriate behavior. The violating argument will be reported to DDO authorities.FormatRound 1 is for acceptance only. All other rounds can have rebuttals and arguments.
Sea lions are seals

My opponents assertion is absurd. Obviously, eared seals can reproduce with other eared seals so long as they are both of the same species, the opposite sex, fertile, and healthy. I can only cnclude that my opponent is trolling. He or she has a personal beef with me and apparently has no intention to seriously debate this topic. My opponent trolls me often lately. He or she even went so far as to create a debate directed at me specifically:"Death23 on the forums is a wanker and an example of American idiocy"http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...It was taken down by the DDO mods, but the google cache of it still exists.My opponent has stated "You're a machine man, with a machine heart, a machine mind."; "Go to the border and shoot some mexicans trying to have a better life or whatever it is you do in your spare time."; etc.http://www.debate.org...I will not debate this topic any further with my opponent. I have created another debate about this same topic. It is viewable here:http://www.debate.org...
Sea lions are seals

Argument:Encyclopedia Britannica says so -Entry for "seal" -seal, any of 32 species of web-footed aquatic mammals that live chiefly in cold seas and whose body shape, round at the middle and tapered at the ends, is adapted to swift and graceful swimming. There are two types of seals: the earless, or true, seals (family Phocidae); and the eared seals (family Otariidae), which comprise the sea lions and fur seals.http://www.britannica.com...Entry for "sea lion" -sea lion, any of five species of eared seals found primarily in Pacific waters. http://www.britannica.com...
There should be Cap-and-trade system or something similar for greenhouse gasses.

I'm just going to post the sources for the stuff that I posted earlier, and some others on the costs associated with negative effects of fossil fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... ^On average there are 3 oil spills similar to size and damage as the Gulf Oil one in 2010, also there are on average 6 minor oil spills every single year. Meaning On average oil spills very conservatively will cost the world economy at least 250 billion every 10 years. http://appvoices.org... ^ A Harvard study shows that Mountaintop coal mining increases health costs by 75 billion a year, or 9 times more than the benefits of the mining. Tropical storms have increased by 100% because of global warming http://www.newscientist.com... Droughts. Droughts have increased by 300% since 1970 because of global warming. http://www.ens-newswire.com... http://www.ucar.edu... Floods have increased by 500% http://maps.grida.no... http://www.agricommodityprices.com... http://www.soyatech.com... http://www.sciencenews.org... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.google.com... ^Hotter nights/Global warming, and air pollution are linked to a 15% decline in rice yields. ^Farms produced 3.8% less corn, and 5.5% less wheat then they could of during 1980-2008 due to slightly higher temperatures. This increased corn prices by 6.4% and wheat by 18.9%. ^Global warming cost 21 billion a year in 2009 due to decreased corn yields. ^Global warming cost 40 billion a year in 2009 due to decreased wheat yields. ^Global warming cost 20 billion in the year 2009 due to decreased rice yields http://www.spc.noaa.gov... ^Number of tornadoes has increased by 30% due to global warming. http://www.ncpa.org... ^Global warming's increase in wildfires costs 1.2 billion yearly. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... ^Global Warming has increased the odds of heat waves by 6 times. http://www.sciencenews.org... 1^CO2 emissions killing off fish/water life due to CO2 making bodies of water more acidic. This is because CO2 + H2O ====> H2CO3 http://www.bbc.co.uk... ^Global warming responsible for increase in mosquito habitat and populations which has increased malaria and other diseases killing people and increasing health care costs. This is because mosquitos thrive in warmer weather
There should be Cap-and-trade system or something similar for greenhouse gasses.

My opponent states, "The comparison of drunk driving of course doesn't equally compare to greenhouse gas emissions; however the same idea applies to both and that idea is that harmful activities should be reduced, and a burden should be placed on groups that do those activities." This does not show that CaT is the right method for dealing with it, only that something should be done. As explained in my last round, a "drunk driving CaT" would be illogical and would not save any lives. This is why we have solid ceiling, if you go over, you get arrested, you can't go buy "intoxication credits" from your neighbor and continue on your DUI way. That said, going over my opponent's sources, none of them address CaT. In fact, several of them support arguments that I've made. Since CaT is focused around Carbon, including carbon dioxide, there is no reason to spend resources to burn hydrocarbons into CO2 (this was made in my arguments, point 2). My opponent's sources show that hydrocarbons are far more dangerous to our bodies than CO2, and if companies have no reason to convert HC into CO2, then many companies will simply save the cost and let HC go into the air, and buy carbon credits to offset that. This will cause the air to become MORE dangerous. As I also mentioned before, the only reason that the 1990 clean air act (which established CaT for NOx and Sulfur) was effective, was because sulfur was an unintended byproduct (whereas Carbon is a required byproduct) and because N2 was emitted from the regulations, giving companies a safe chemical to fall back on. For carbon based gases, CO2 is the safest and so would have to be excluded for any results to be seen. I would argue that the effects of CO2 (and global warming) are exaggerated, however, regardless, if the effects truly are that bad, then the policy that yields better results is only more strongly supported. As my opponent has said, "Given that we have SO2 for a decent example of the effects of both methods we should be able to determine which system is better, and you have. Europe's method clearly works significantly better. So basically right here I am conceding the debate, and will point out two more things," I'll end this round shortly. In summary, CaT is better than no policy at all, however, if given a grade, it is more of a C-, while the European model would be given an A (probably an A-, but I'll be generous). Given this information, it is clear that there is no reason to adopt a CaT policy when a superior policy is available. Thank you,
There should be Cap-and-trade system or something similar for greenhouse gasses.

The greenhouse gasses I will be using will be Carbon, and Nitrous. 1)Moral argument: A government program such as cap-and-trade for greenhouse gasses can basically be descripted as a fee on pollution that damages people's health and our environment. This fee is a moral imperative because it makes it so that corporations and groups that are harming everyone's health and environment effectively pay for the damage they cause. A cap-and-trade system is therefor similar to traffic fines; people who drive while intoxicated or who drive recklessly are fined for this behavior because it endangers other people's lives; the same should be true for major polluters. 2)Economic argument: Since emissions of greenhouse gasses are harmful to human health(examples include increases in cancer and autism), and the environment it means that every pound of said emissions will end up increasing health care costs and other costs associated with climate change/global warming (examples include increases in flooding and tropical storms). This means that a cap-and-trade system will provide incentives for polluters to stop emitting harmful gasses which will save the economy money. 3)Success of cap-and-trade programs already implemented. A. Cap-and-trade isn't a new idea; America first implemented a cap-and-trade system for pollutants that cause acid rain (SO2) in the early 1990's. Analysis and the empirical evidence of the acid rain cap-and-trade shows that the compliance costs that industry groups original estimated were vastly overstated. Studies of the result of the cap and trade policy found that acid rain causing chemicals which are also hazardous to human health decreased because of the policy, and resulted in a net benefit to the economy B. Another cap-and-trade system has been set up by a few northeastern states; this one is more relevant to the discussion at hand considering that this cap-and-trade policy is for greenhouse gasses. Analysis of the effects of this system shows that it has had a positive benefit-cost ratio and has resulted in the creation of thousands of jobs.
There should be Cap-and-trade system or something similar for greenhouse gasses.

Sadly, we don't see too many of these (or science debates in general) on DDO. First, I'm going to place a bit more solid of a definition on CaT (Cap and Trade), since "or something similar" is very vague. CaT [1] – "Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. " This is done by allowing companies that have extra "cap room" (emissions that they are allowed to emit, but have no need to) trade or sell that "cap room" to companies that do need it. Carbon Tax [2] – "A carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas). " This is often used for when companies go above the CaT limits and do not buy cap room from other companies to offset. However, this can also be applied as a straight tax, as if the cap limit was zero. Something similar – For this debate, something similar should be limited to meeting the following conditions. 1) Punishing (through increased costs, such as fees, fines, increased taxes, etc) companies for excessive emissions of carbons into the environment. 2) Be based on the amount of carbon emitted, rather than off of net income, property value or some other measuring stick. 3) Applies to all companies, big or small, and not just targeted industries. If my opponent wishes, he may expand this from just companies to people as well, but this will be up to him. I do request that my opponent, in the beginning of his opening argument, mention which greenhouse gases he is wanting to debate. If it is just carbon dioxide, or if there are others. I believe the best debate can occur if we pick a handful and focus on them. Omitting any chemicals does not imply that they do not effect our environment, but simply that they are not the subject of this policy (example, if you choose to only focus on CO2, I can't say, "why not chemical X? Do you not care about bla bla bla. .. ."). With that, I will pass this on and allow my opponent to begin his arguments. Thank you, [1] . http://www.epa.gov... [2] . http://www.carbontax.org...
There should be Cap-and-trade system or something similar for greenhouse gasses.

A cap-and-trade system is where the government sets a cap on the amount of emissions (example Carbon) and then allocates permits to power plants, buildings etc. The only way for a power plant to increase its emissions is by purchasing permits from other power for a shorter version something similar to a cap and trade system would be putting a tax on each pound of Carbon that is emitted. I will allow my opponent to either present his/her arguments first or to accept the challenge and allow me to present my arguments first.