BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Germans should not be offended when they get called "Nazi" (I think it's a compliment)

Not much left to put in here... Pro has not used a single source to support his arguments in any place in the debate and has ignored all of my premises to my argument. Pro has even conceded the debate by admitting multiple times that it's insulting to be called a Nazi."I'm establishing a pattern here. There are many good things about Nazi Germany that should make one not ashamed of the history. Raised Germany up from the ashes of World War I. Turned it in a great superpower, much like Mussolini did with Italy"It doesn't matter how many good things Germany did. The terrible things outweigh the good parts. The insult of "nazi" is poking at the holocaust, not Germany's history as a whole. The Nazi's were still bad people. It'd be like saying a guy who had murdered and raped several people was good because he gave his father a birthday present. I'll remind everyone, the Nazi's killed 6 million Jews. [1] That doesn't even account for the millions of others who died from the war the Nazi's started."Wrong on so many levels. Only the KKK believed in that stuff. The term Aryan to describe the Nordic race originated with the KKK and segregationists. Hitler's best friends were his southern allies"Pro gives no source for this. And like I said before, I can concede this but still have the point that they tourchered jews. His points have been refuted, and my arguments still stand. None of the premises have been attacked by him, and I've proven that it's insulting for a German to be called a Nazi. He also does not give a sinlge source for any of his arguments. This is an obvious win for Con, thank you. [1]http://www.ushmm.org...
Germans should not be offended when they get called "Nazi" (I think it's a compliment)

Again, it doesn't matter if someone has done something worse than them. The insult of being a bad person is still valid, and the argument I brought up still stands.I'm establishing a pattern here. There are many good things about Nazi Germany that should make one not ashamed of the history. Raised Germany up from the ashes of World War I. Turned it in a great superpower, much like Mussolini did with Italy.The fact of the matter is, I can agree that other groups are worse and still find the insult of being called a Nazi offensive. What he's saying doesn't have anything to do with the debate at hand. Saying that there are worse groups doesn't take away the insult.See what I put above.Again, it doesn't matter if something is MORE insulting. Furthermore, my opponent slips up and pretty much raps up the debate with the phrase: "It should be more insulting". This directly tells us that he admits that being called a Nazi is insulting, which fits right in with our definition of offensive that I showed in the previous round: "causing someone to feel hurt, angry, or upset : rude or *insulting* [1]Not so much more insulting as there shouldn't really be a stigma with Nazism. The Nazis did plenty of good things."Hitler wanted a pure Aryan race, people with blue eyes, blonde hair, muscular (in the case of men) and beautiful (the case of women)" [2]Wrong on so many levels. Only the KKK believed in that stuff. The term Aryan to describe the Nordic race originated with the KKK and segregationists. Hitler's best friends were his southern allies.Even if we to assume that he didn't want a blond haired blue eyed race, That is correct
Germans should not be offended when they get called "Nazi" (I think it's a compliment)

The stereotypes of Germans, Italians and Japanese, our enemies in World War II, is paramount to the stereotypes that black folks and Native Americans had for most of the time. There were more good things about the Nazis than there were any supposed bads. For instance, the Nazis were not orthodox in religion. Neither were the Fascists. The Allies in World War II (except for one) were Protestants. The Fascists in Southern and Central Europe were Catholics.Germany's history is a lot cleaner than say Denmark or Britain's. For one, Germany was not some imperialist power bent on looting and making other's lives miserable. Neither was Italy. Compare that to the long-term and vicious damage Britain and Denmark have done to Africa, India, China, and Greenland, respectively.The KKK came from the Anglo-Saxons (not Germans), and several other Northern Euro groups too, and they're still seen with some relative positivity in America.The Nazis banned the KKK. There was no real Jim Crow-like laws against black folks in Germany. Neither was there in Italy. Contrast that to Britain and Denmark, where black folks were being lynched and rioted against for most of the time.I'd rather be thought of as a Nazi than a Klansman or imperialist for that reason. If I was German, I'd wear the Nazi remark as a badge of honor.
Germans should not be offended when they get called "Nazi" (I think it's a compliment)

For one, at least that country didn't go around conquering the world the way the Brits and Scandinavian countries did. (And don't even get me started on the way Denmark mistreats Greenland. )As I always say Hitler was much better than these two guys I put who are equal to each other in terms of being a total douche = Yes I do like the views of the Nazis. As types like ClairetheDane (from Denmark) prove, it's that Northern Europe unfortunately has a racism problem.
Abortion is murder

The reason I was talking about babies after birth is because if a baby has not formed completely but is born and alive, then if it is in the womb and not completely formed then it is still alive. You are taking the chance away of it living it's live after birth therefore you are taking away it's life. The reason the new testament was created was to put in more laws of god. The reason Jesus came was so that if we sin, then we could be forgiven if we have accepted Christ and had admitted it. So in the old testament, people would die from breaking certain laws. Although still breaking the ten commandments is still a very bad thing. So yes at any time an abortion is murder.
Abortion is murder

Abortion is murder. No matter what sources or comments or whatever argument you have, abortion is murder. Murder is the killing of someone purposely. A baby is a person. Some babies are born not completely formed, but they are still alive. So if you chose to have an abortion, then you are a murderer. The only reason people want it legal is because sad stupid women want to have sex, but don't want a baby. They go around sleeping with different men. God sent Jesus to heal the sick, not the clean or well. I am not claiming to be God or Christ or anything, I am just saying help the sick. If you disagree with me and think it should be legal, go right ahead and send yourself to hell. I tried to tell yo
Abortion is murder

You don't appear to be actually reading anything I say. A fetus in an ectopic pregnancy does not have the potential to live, the mother would die and the fetus wouldn't make it either way in this scenario. As I also said, an ectopic pregnancy occurs outside of the womb, another point you seem to have missed. So to recap...either both die or you terminate and the woman lives. This is an excruciatingly sad and emotional experience for any woman, literally the worst news a pregnant woman can get, and your comments reduce it to some kind of frivolous selfish decision. Your comment that "the couple were selfish and rather save themselves than the baby" is factually inaccurate and reveals a significant level of ignorance on this topic, as well as an unwillingness to learn new information. If we debate again, do me the courtesy of actually reading my arguments and addressing them. For now, I'll leave it to the voters.
Abortion is murder

Yes it is a murder and a person that murdered the fetus at anytime in the pregnancy. And when a man and a women mate, then they are committing themselves to the life that comes from it. Even if it meant that the mother would die. If the mother wanted an abortion to not die then that would mean that she doesn't want the baby, so she shouldn't have had sex. Taking away something that has the potential of living in the mother's womb A.K.A the baby that has not been formed yet is still murder because it has the potential of living and would have lived. The couple were selfish and rather save themselves than the baby.
Abortion is murder

First, you're generalizing from a specific and not addressing the question of pregnancies where the fetus has no ability to exist outside the womb and no shape, or even appendages, or the question of non-viable fetuses. To make your argument you need to address that as well. Second, you've made a few nice noises about Jesus and ignored the substance, actually ignored the content, of everything I said entirely as regards the scripture. You acknowledge that the 10 commandments are still relevant - why not these other injunctions I've referenced? Third, you've come to a conclusion that has very little to do with your premises. I'll narrow it down for you I guess, and ask that you address ectopic pregnancies, as outlined in my first argument. Do you think it is immoral or unethical to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus will not come to term and the mother will die without intervention? Do you believe in that specific scenario that abortion is murder? Last, if you believe a fetus early into the pregnancy is a person that can be murdered, do you believe also that it's a person that commit murder? In rare cases, a twin in the womb can absorb the other twin and the result is one fetus. Is that fetus a murderer for essentially terminating the pregnancy of its twin?
Video games cause violence

I would like to commend you for a very good argument for round 2!As for your statements"First of all, video games are addictive. A study and discussion by the American Medical Association discussed the fact that video game addiction (VGA) was a real and prominent issue in the health of many Americans."Soon after the meeting that the AMA had in 2007, they retracted their statement on the matter, and many addiction experts were strongly against the notion that video game addiction should be considered a real addiction. (Sources: http://uk.reuters.com..., http://www.theguardian.com...)"Video games > Video game addiction > stress, depression, and mental health issues > domestic violence."I must point out an issue in this reasoning. This statement you have made make the impression that you think that video game addiction leads to stress, depression, and mental health issues. In fact, many experts believe that stress is a major factor leading to video game addiction (and a big one too). (Source: http://www.healthxchange.com.sg...)"I will argue that violence in games normalizes violence in real life and teaches children, teenagers, and adults the basics of shooting"Many studies have also shown that violent video games do not desensitize kids and those most liable to have their minds altered. The studies would show kids who play non-violent and violent games different pictures, some showing graphic scenes (like a man holding a gun to a woman's head). The subjects would have their reactions to the photos monitored and recorded. They found that there was no difference between the violent game players' and non-violent game players' reactions. Many kids recognize and respect the boundaries between the virtual and real world, and would not cross them when it comes to violence. (Sources: http://health.usnews.com..., http://gamepolitics.com...)As to the specific cases, there is no proof that Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and other mass murderers like them were influenced by video games.Studies have shown that many video games can be calming, and that huge amounts of people use video games to calm down and relax. They see it as a way to escape the harsh realizations of reality and to enjoy themselves. The cases of violence related to video games are minuscule in number, and usually are more because the perpetrator has a mental illness than because of the video games themselves.May I wish you good luck, and Merry Christmas!
Video games cause violence

In the past two decades, crime rate has been going down, including violent crimes. Meanwhile, video game sales have been going up dramatically. The violent crime rate has gone down from 1,932,274 crimes in 1992, to 1,203,564 crimes in 2011, showing a drop by about 36500 violent crimes per year. (Source: . http://www.fbi.gov...) While that was happening, video game sales has increased rapidly, from close to 2.6 billion dollars in sales in 1996, to about 11.7 billion dollars in 2008. (Source: . http://www.forbes.com...) There is yet to be a study that conclusively proves that video games influence people to be violent, and many studies that try to prove it are biased in favor of video games causing violence.
" If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck"

We have all heard the phrase: " If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck" If i see what I believe to be a "duck" based on the above phrase, I reserve the right and I am entitled to the right to believe it is a "duck" at first glance. If what I see at first glance appears to be a "duck", the duck must prove to me and everyone else that it is not a "duck", otherwise I and everyone else can treat it like a duck. "Duck" defined for purposes of this debate: Any example that I give that fits what someone would believe to be at first glance. Example: A bum or a gangster. My contention is that law enforcement, The business world and people in general, without recrimination, should be allowed to call people and treat people like "ducks" if they are going to exhibit all of the characteristics of "ducks" I was at the store the other day and a man walked up to me in filthy unwashed cloths and nasty hair all in knots like it to had not been washed in days. He asked me for a dollar and I refused, he then asked me for a cigarette because he saw the new pack of cigarettes I had just bought. I then told him to go get a job and quite being a bum. He got mad and said he was not a bum. I said"Oh Ya"then prove it, and with that he walked away. He looked like a bum, he begged like a bum, and dressed like a bum, He is a bum. The same goes for people who dress talk and act like gangsters. And all other types of stereo typical personality traits that the general public should fear or be weary of. The premise of this debate is for con to provide a reason or reasons why the alleged "ducks" of this world must not have to prove they are not "ducks". And why we, the duck observers, should let our guard down, risk injury or even death and pretend we don't see a duck when we clearly see something that looks like a "duck", quacks like a "duck", and walks like a "duck".
laissez-faire should exist but does not

Hello mv, sorry about the long wait. Been a bit too busy to really put my heart into the debate for the past week but now I've got time to put into it. For starters, I'm going to disagree that laissez faire SHOULD exist. It clearly does not in my opinion either, but I only need to refute one part of your argument in order to be proven correct. Laissez faire should not exist. The negative effects of laissez faire far outweigh the positives. For one, welfare would be completely gone. I think you and I can both agree that simple charity and the market economy are not going to support the 36 million people in poverty and would actually make more people in that category. Welfare, though not a perfect system, is necessary in some form to keep the poor from complete desolation. The Great Depression was saved by government action. Social programs and welfare were set and up and saved this nation from utter destruction and a possible Germany-like fate. If laissez faire were employed during this time, the nation would have been plunged into further despair. Let us say laissez faire were implemented right now. Of course things such as wiretapping and The Patriot Act would be gone. More importantly though, tariffs that help American workers, anti-trust regulations, social programs that aid the poor, and even minimum wage. Soon America would be dominated by massive foreign conglomerates and huge US businesses because of the lack of anti-trust regulation and no mass minimum wages. That would make the poor poorer and no government program could even help the poor, charity certainly would not be able to make up for the massive amount of poor.
laissez-faire should exist but does not

well to start off, it's french for "leave alone". obviously pertaining to the government and its interference of the people. typically it's the separation of economy and state. but our government has forgotten that our nation was to be established on a laissez-faire capitalistic system that would allow people to actually have rights without the government overlooking each individual thoroughly. do you think we have a state of laissez-faire in our nation? on paper, capitalism seems like the only moral system and principle that can possibly be used. we are considered to be living in a "capitalistic" society. we are considered to have rights, the very rights promised to us through the declaration of independence and the constitution. but do we really have those rights? in order to have laissez-faire capitalism, you must have individual along with property rights and if you do, this system is established to protect you. capitalism should be defended on a moral basis, not on a political or a utilitarian one. it's obviously not in the best interest of the government to "protect" us if we have the patriot act breathing down our necks. it's a fact that after only a mere 45 days following the attacks on 9/11, congress passed the patriot act with virtually no debate. the patriot act itself contains vital flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely. is this protection or intervention? this act threatens the standards of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments which include FREEDOM of speech, FREEDOM of unreasonable searches, NO person deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and RIGHT to fair and speedy trial. in the first year of the patriot act's existence, at least 8,000 arab and south asian LEGAL immigrants were interrogated solely on the basis of religion and ehtnic background... i didn't know capitalism meant profiling. i think it's time to stop lying to ourselves and realize that our government isn't going to leave us alone anytime soon. it's time we stop calling ourselves a capitalistic society. it's interesting to have people consider us a successful nation when in reality, we can easily fall like that of fascist italy or communist russia. if our government wants to keep laissez-faire as the basis of all its decisions, then don't you think it's about time they do so?
i can describe rainbows in the dark

Before I start, I would like to point out some flaws in side Proposition's arguments. First of all, there are many grammatical errors, such as "memory is not of something that has happend?" and "knowledge=certain=truth=past=memory=dark=negative=turn my back=morality=death=destruction". I'm sure you would agree that the latter example is definitely not a full sentence. Therefore, I am not quite sure what side Proposition means by this 'equation'. Second of all, side Proposition has not presented any points, therefore almost all of their arguments are invalid. Lastly, side Proposition has given an example about seeing pigs and cows. "At best 1 has a belief and 1 has knowledge". They also have stated that belief is false and knowledge is the truth. If memories are ALWAYS the truth, as I have defined in my first argument, then this example actually supports my side of this debate. The one with the belief is false, yet he/she remembers seeing the false creature. Seeing the false creature is not the truth, so memory does not equal truth. Yes, only one of the two girls can be right. That was my point all along, and I have explained that above. At the start, side Proposition argued that memory equals truth (without any backup points). I, as side Opposition, argued that memory does NOT equal truth, because people forget, memories can be changed, and that people can remember things differently. This house believes that (THBT) memories do NOT equal truth. Thank you side proposition, judges, and audience for this debate.
i can describe rainbows in the dark

belief=false knowledge=truth memory is not of something that has happend? i said the breakfast you ate dosnt change.. truth is unchanging "If a Polaroid picture showed something, and one remembers otherwise, does that make the picture a lie?" this is a truthless proposition.. how would i know what no one dosnt remember about something on a picture never taken knowledge=certain=truth=past=memory=dark=negative=turn my back=morality=death=destruction if you remember we saw cows in an enclosure, and i remember we saw pigs, only 1 of us can be right.. so at best 1 has a belief and 1 has knowledge only amy or sally can be right, therfore at least 1 of them is wrong
i can describe rainbows in the dark

Thank you for your somewhat grammatical rebuttal and constructive speech. I would like to start off by rebutting to side Proposition's points. I am not quite sure what side Proposition means by "truth is unchanging", and since they didn't explain it, I can say that that rebuttal is unwarranted. Yes, you can believe that something is the truth, but is belief the same thing as truth? In my first speech, I have defined truth as something that actually happened. The picture is there to prove that it actually happened. Let me rephrase that question. If a Polaroid picture showed something, and one remembers otherwise, does that make the picture a lie? I'm also not sure what side Proposition means by "knowledge = certain". Weren't we talking about memories and truths? I think side Proposition has not explained this clearly enough. "What you ate for breakfast never changes." I actually agree with that. Yes, what one ate for breakfast never changes, but if one remember otherwise, then does one's "breakfast" become a lie? I would have rebutted to side Proposition's arguments, but since they haven't presented any, I will continue onto my last point, which is that two or more people can remember different things about the same situation. Let's say there are two people, Sally and Amy. They had some drinks at the party last night. Sally remembers both of them drinking ginger ale, while Amy remembers both of them drinking beer. Only one of them is right, because they were only allowed one drink for the entire night (this may seem unrealistic, but this is just an example.) If memory equaled truth, then they should both be right, but they can't. As I have stated above, only one of them can be right. If memory equaled truth, then this situation is impossible. It is possible, though, and that is why memory does NOT equal the truth.
i can describe rainbows in the dark

truth is unchanging is joe certain that he didnt sleep when he was 6 years old without memory of it? only is he honestly certain of it if he remembers reality has no flaws.. you have no knowledge of talking unicorns you can manupulate a believer.. you can believe your memories are false, and that stone talked to you last night "If a picture was showing one a childhood performance, for example, but they remember it differently, does that make the picture a lie?" truthless proposition, without memory you can not verify past.. except a scar or something.. or you are not hungry so you must have eaten something earlier.. knowledge=certain if you are not certain of it its not knowledge.. to be able to forget something has no bearing on the truth... how do you forget it if its was false.. knowledge dosnt change, what you ate for breakfast this morning never changes