BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hitler would have won if Sino-German cooperation was not distrupted.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO VOTERS, IF YOU ARE TO VOTE ON THIS DEBATE, YOU MUST SUBMIT A COMMENT OF AT LEAST 50 WORDS STATING WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT ONE SIDE ARGUED BETTER THAN THE OTHER SIDE, PERSONAL BIASES ARE NOT ALLOWED, IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS MESSAGE I WILL REPORT YOUToday, I'm going to debate that if Hitler would have won if he had kept the pre war alliance with the Republic of China, instead of siding with Japan.If you are not going to completely follow these rules, than do not accept this debate, if you do violate these rules, I will report you.1: No personal insults, this rule is very strict. For example: "My opponent's ideas are dumb" or "I have therefore proved that my opponent's ideas are incorrect" are considered insults. A better way to express your ideas is: "The ideas presented in the last round is dumb". I am putting in this rule not because of political correctness, but because saying these things might distract the voter's attention.2: No using any special fonts except bold (Don't want to distract the voters).3: Cite all evidence, no need for fancy citations, if it is a webpage just tell state the URL, if it is a book just state the name and page number.4: No usage of bad sources, only major websites (including wikipedia) and books with credible authors are allowed, if one side believes that the other side is using a bad source, than that side can challenge their opponent's source. Their opponent must respond to that challenge.5: Rebuttals to all your opponent's arguments are mandatory, if you are unable to create an rebuttal against one of your opponent's argument. Than you must state that at the end of your argument.6: No fancy organizing, please, don't write this debate like you're writing a research paper or a scientific document, don't pretend you're smarter than you are. Write this debate the way you'll normally talk. I absolutely hate it when people win debate because of their fancy organization of ideas and not the ideas themselves.7: This is how each round will goRound 1: Agree to these rulesRound 2: State argument (no rebuttals)Round 3-4: Rebuttals and more argumentRound 5: Conclusion8: And most importantly of all, stay polite ^_^If you want to debate against me and you agree to these terms, please type I Agree in the next round. If you want to add any more rules, write that down as well.
No One Has Ever Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to Do Look More Like

For the longest, people have decided to for believe that someone has been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. But I has find this statement are irrelevant. Let's take for a closer at then this and am decide for yourself: 1. I Can't Even ScienceYou've gotta be kidding me. I try to went as far even once, as had my friends all go. Logically, can't I go even decide to go want do look more like, how anyone would? Science proves no one has gone can for are to rock decide jump thus to from a jetpack. [. http://www.dafk.net...]If scientists can't decide whether destroy for look even, did he? No. I'm common sense.2. Economic For To BehaveIf the economy depends are for lift quickly, then where are we expect one going far even as to decide not to eat bankruptcy? A massive deficit for to even go could accidentally the entire economy. When one goes do for the can't fathom, good for it that no one watch for invest in one going so far even. Thus, one could not decide to look even as to go want do look more like because the barrier are odd inherently increase. Furthermore, according to [. http://tinyurl.com...], mandates law are hook leads ask not law leads debt. Conclusion: You am false to statements.3. Partially Not Even For Then OtherwiseIf it partially is possible for someone to go from are statue to be for carrying mountainous loaded are to be, then philosophical argument 69 fro states not even are for possibility:P1. People have ambitions. P2. Ambitions create passion. P3. People have passion. P4. People can not pursue all passions appropriately. P5. Nobody could go are for when there is something that she doesn't life for going in events of going far even to even decide wanting to go want do more like. .. C. No one has ever been far even as decided to use even go want do look more like. Infallible theory insisting upon not to go even for twelve times don't effect the assumption for one do reach capability use to throw off discussion for even then practice when went for the kite when logically impossible. Review:- Science can't even. - Economy can't even. - Partially not even for then otherwise. Conclusion:We must rise illusion from out for now if we want right accomplish American progress. It's just common sense.
Higher Tax Rate on Millionaires

This debate is about higher tax rates on all the types of Income for Millionaires.This includes:Capital Gains, Interest, Regular, Business, etc... all types of incomeI am against this proposal, Pro is for....Here is debate structure:RD1: I lay out structure. Pro makes case for Millionaires TaxRD2: I make first arguments/rebuttals. Pro makes Rebuttals/Possible Further ArgumentsRD3: I make mor rebuttals/possible new arguments. Pro makes final rebuttalsRD4: I make final rebuttals. Pro cannot make any new rebuttals/arguments in this round... to keep rounds even...Dont forget, Pro can make no new arguments or rebuttals in RD4.... to keep things even...READ AND OBEY TERMS!!!! EDIT: This debate is about higher Tax RATES on Millionaires, not higher taxes per say... Right now, the top tax rate is 35%.... Pro is arguing for a tax rate higher than 35% on income above $1 Million... the top tax rate is 20% for Capital Gains, Interest, and Dividends... Pro is arguing for a higher rate than this on income above $1 MillionClear?
Ryan Howard deserved Major League Baseball's 2006 NL MVP award.

This is an argument I often see, and in my opinion, it is, ultimately, completely nonsensical. You're right; the award is quite subjective. Some people value certain stats more than others. However, there are two reasons why I believe your argument is wrong. One if more direct than the other, so I'll save that one for later. First of all, I think that using common sense and reason, any intelligent person can understand that some baseball stats are quite simply better than others at showing how well a certain player performs. Some stats, like RBI, and R, are simply team-dependent. It is not difficult to understand that these stats do not accurately show how good a player was. Other stats, like OBP and SLG (and, slightly, AVG), are not only immediately understandably important in showing how good a player is (they measure the ability to get on base and therefore not make outs, and the ability to hit for power), but they have been shown to directly correlate with a team's offense (meaning, a team with a higher OBP will score more runs.) In this sense, deciding on an MVP is not some random, arbitrary event–logical people should be able to understand that some stats are better than others, and that if a player is better in these stats, he is better. Now, look at Ryan Howard in 2006, and look at Albert Pujols in 2006. Ryan Howard: .313/.425/.659 AVG/OBP/SLG, 167 OPS+, 29 Win Shares. [1] Albert Pujols: .331/.431/.671, 178 OPS+, 37 Win Shares. [2] These statistics are based on the individual. Pujols played in a more pitcher friendly park, and had more hits, got on base more, and hit for more power. At this point, it isn't subjective. Pujols was simply a better player, because his statistics that, using reason, obviously demonstrate individual talent, were far better than Howard's. Now, I'll go onto the second part of my opponent's argument. Just because something is ultimately subjective, that doesn't mean someone can't deserve it more than someone else. Using reason, we can argue that one person deserved something more. This is where a debate comes in. You cannot dismiss a debate just because it is subjective–that contradicts the whole notion of debate. If an answer could be objectively reached, then there would be no debate. Every issue that is seriously debated has two sides, and is therefore subjective. I don't know if I'm making my point clear enough. Ryan Howard got the award, but I'm arguing that he didn't deserve it, because he wasn't the best player in my opinion, and the MVP is supposed to go to the best player. "Since we are not questioning who the M.V.P. is because the definition of M.V.P. is subjective" That is nonsensical. My opponent's argument, then, has been refuted. It seems that he would be better served to argue for Howard's baseball superiority in the next round, but if he doesn't know who Howard even is, that might be difficult. I have also shown why Albert Pujols deserved the award more than Ryan Howard. The resolution is negated. [1]http://www.baseball-reference.com... [2]http://www.baseball-reference.com...
Ryan Howard deserved Major League Baseball's 2006 NL MVP award.

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate challenge. I don't know who Ryan Howard is. But I think I know what NL MVP 2006 award is. The award is given to the most valuable player in 2006. First off, this award sounds very ridiculous. How can one find the most valuable player? You can't. (If you think you can, I would like to see proof) The selection to the award is even determined by an election. I simply think that the definition of M.V.P. is too subjective to find the right person. Hmm... If Ryan Howard is not the M.V.P. then is he deserved in getting the award? Yes. (No one or anyone) is M.V.P. because such a definition is to subjective. So it must be up to chance to determine the (actions, qualities, or situation) that Ryan Howard deserved the award. Well, the presentation of the award happened in the past, and so we see that a certain situation existed for Ryan Howard's selection. Does that "situation" warrant Ryan Howard the award? Well, he got it right? Since we are not questioning who the M.V.P. is because the definition of M.V.P. is subjective, if Ryan Howard got the award, he deserved it. Your thoughts?
Ryan Howard deserved Major League Baseball's 2006 NL MVP award.

I believe that Ryan Howard did not deserve the NL MVP award in 2006. Ryan Howard: http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com... NL (National League): http://en.wikipedia.org... MVP (Most Valuable Player) award: http://en.wikipedia.org... deserve: to be worthy of, qualified for. [1] 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org... not: http://en.wikipedia.org... I will not open with an argument in R1. I hate all this "Burden of Proof" garbage, so even though it might actually be on my opponent to show that Howard deserved the award, I will be presenting my own arguments in R2. My opponent is free to build a case for Howard in R1, and I would enjoy it if he or she did so, but he or she is not obliged to. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Please define your definition of Assault Weapon

Raul, It has been a pleasurable exchange of ideologies that I greatly appreciated. You have astounded me with your deep understanding of firearms. Thank you. This said, I still believe that there is no need for any kind of assault weapon, I also maintain that you can stop a crime with no deadly force. There are few criminals who could do serious damage after being shot any amount of times. True, Utah is no exception to the violence and evil in the world. My saying this was a blunder. I have always prided myself on being a Republican. My opinion on this issue is entirely centered around one thing. The tragedies America has experienced over the past year. Statistically speaking, you are right. However, if the men who committed unspeakable evil had not had access to weapons like the one you are referring to, the people killed by lackluster control could have lived. It ,to me, is not a question of statistics. It is the question of maintaining human life by whatever means possible. I leave you with this to ponder. Sincerely, Joe Draper, 14, Saratoga Springs, UT
Please define your definition of Assault Weapon

Thanks for the clarification. I too have spent FAR to much time this week shoveling snow.... Anyway, again you amaze me.... So, you gave me 10 examples. Good. Are they likely? Kind of.... most of them are either unlikely or bogus, take number 3. This unfortunate Mother might not have had to shoot the man in question if the local law enforcement had prevented it. (By the way, how on earth did he live if he was shot 5 times in the head area? That should kill anyone). Let me ask you this, do you need as many shots as your talking about to defend yourself? If she had shot the man once he would have ran off. Are you suggesting that she should have killed him? I'm sure the police found him and eventually put him behind bars. Quite frankly, there are few excuses for killing, I personally would rather have our foolish friend in prison rather than the morgue. In reasons 1 and 6 you used hurricane Katrina and looting, again, you can get rid of obnoxious looters with 1 shot. The bans allow this. Other than that I live in Utah, not the Middle East... maybe they need guns, but not us. As for your other reasons, maybe you have a point, but I can't see it.
Please define your definition of Assault Weapon

I'm still very impressed that you can debate further than what I have already seen. You pose several good points however I am VERY confused. You attacked me on several points totally unrelated to the subject. "Why do you "NEED" anything: First you have to get off this "need" theory all together. We are talking about the Bill of Rights not the bill of needs. If you keep dancing on that "need" slope I can easily counter your need argument with: Why do you "need" a car that goes over 65 MPH when that is average federal limit? By FBI statistics and CDC Deaths car accidents and car related deaths are ALWAYS higher than firearm deaths every year. Why do you "need" a house that big? When all you need is something that is within a certain square footage to be more economical with the environment and less of a carbon footprint." You pose an excellent point however, the speed of you car and the carbon footprint of your home have nothing to do with GUN control. Even after the violence this year in schools, the likelihood of an attack is still dramatically low. The likelihood of you being attacked is still VERY low. Give me 10 SPECIFIC situations in which a high capacity gun would be vital, and I will see when a assault weapon is NEEDED. I will go on about the "need" argument until you prove me wrong. In another DRAMATICLY desperate attempt to save face you stated (I copy and pasted this from your argument) "My question to you is what makes the life of a police officer more so than a civilian? In America all are created EQUAL." Let me ask you this, did I EVER suggest that some Americans are inferior to others? NO.
Please define your definition of Assault Weapon

I am very impressed by your deep knowledge on the subject, however, the question I posed dealt with the need of assault weapons. I do believe that 99% of gun owners are responsible and safe with firearms, however the 1% that remains can do more harm than should be humanly possible. The 1% can be the shooter in Aurora, Portland or Sandy Hook. You don't need any guns for anything other than defense purposes. Recreational gunmen are being asked to sacrifice a part of their sport to ensure safety in schools and elsewhere. That is not to much to ask. It is in fact a constitutional right to own firearms. It is a right I would die to protect, however, the Constitution was written 200+ years ago, when a mass shooting would NEVER have happened the way it happens today. They are not trying to take away your firearms, they are trying to take away needless killing machines. Why do you need them anyway?
Hillary Clinton is not fit for President

Resolution: “Hillary Clinton Is Not Fit For President” I believe the resolution is intended to state that she is not fit for the presidency. Fit- “(of a thing) of a suitable quality, standard, or type to meet the required purpose.” There are two entailments of this term: P-One who is fit for something has the necessary qualities to assume a position. Q- One would be effective in this position. Regarding the resolution, is it the case that Hillary Clinton does not have the necessary qualities to be president, and is it further the case she would be ineffective as presidentBoP: Pro is making a claim that it is indeed the case that Hillary Clinton is not fit for the presidency. Pro is taking the affirmative position, and as such the BoP is on him to demonstrate the truth of this claim. I can negate the resolution by showing that Hillary Clinton has the necessary qualities to assume the presidency, and, or that she would be an effective president. I am not required to argue P and Q. Since the resolution requires Not-P, and Not-Q, , I can argue P, and, or Q, it is the inclusive disjunctive case. Since pro has not offered any substantive argumentation, I shall deduce that the first round is relegated to acceptance, and as such I will pass it back over to pro. I await pro’s arguments, and look forward to a rousing debate.
Yo mama jokes contest

yo maoma soi gfat thet she wash so fat and sh efell and dropped atom bomb on japan hirshoma and snagaski yo mamoma so fat thet she GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyo maomoma so gay that she ate thda donit intellectual fool!yo maoma so ugli that she wa sborn in ugli townvote form me suckers
Yo mama jokes contest

We will take turns insulting each other, but with a twist: we will use yo mamma jokes. Racism, sexism, etc. are welcome in this debate. You may use online sources. I will start: Yo mamma is so fat when she got on the scale it said, "I need your weight not your phone number." Yo mamma is so ugly when she tried to join an ugly contest they said, "Sorry, no professionals." Yo momma is so fat that Dora can't even explore her!
Yo mama jokes contest

Yo momma is so stupid when an intruder broke into her house, she ran downstairs, dialed 9-1-1 on the microwave, and couldn't find the "CALL" button. Yo Momma's teeth are so yellow, that when she smiles, traffic slows down! Yo mama so stupid, she returned a donut because it had a hole in it. Yo mamma is so fat she walked past the TV and I missed 3 episodes.
Yo mama jokes contest

AYYYYYYYYYYYY LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOYo mama so ugli that when she went to pick you up at school, the janitor came and said "Oh my, so much garbage to clean!"Yo mama so fat the US army used her as the atom bomb in Japan in WW2Yo mama so dumb that when she ate a watermelon seed, she was afraid she would have a watermelon baby!
Yo mama jokes contest

Yo momma's so stupid, she put lipstick on her forehead to make up her mind. Yo momma's so dumb, when she went to the movies and saw the "Under 17 not permitted" sign, she left to get 16 of her friends. Yo momma's so dumb, she went to the dentist to get a Bluetooth. Yo momma's so fat, when God said "Let there be light," he asked her to move out of the way. Yo mama"s so stupid" When thieves broke into her house and stole the TV, she chased after them shouting "Wait, you forgot the remote!"
I can win this debate while forfeiting every round.

Now as we can see my opponent has not been able to refute my contentions whatsoever rendering me above par in the debate. I would like to note that I will never take an absurd debate like this again, and advise those that consider to even do so, not to. This wasn't debate - for there was no debating at all leaving it to be pointless. For the sake of not promoting mindless and pointless debates like this please do not vote 'PRO' and vote accordingly 'CON'. If you have fallowed along or have read this thank you for your patience. ~Mastajake
I can win this debate while forfeiting every round.

I actually dislike debates like this for they are not really debates at all. This undermines what the site is all about, ergo he should automatically lose the conduct vote. Also another thing he should automatically lose when you the readers consider my debate when voting is the 'who had more convincing arguments' part, given he has none. The resolution brought forth by my opponent is already contradicted by his first round of debate ( yes debate ), let me substantiate. What is entered by 'funnybrad333' is debate, if we consider all the technical possibilities. Funnybrad writes "funnybrad333 forfeited this round. " which was entered and summited as a first round of debate not technically being a forfeited round by ALL means. Ergo his resolution is false because I have hopefully convinced you otherwise. Note I have also provided an example of why it is not a forfeited round. And I suspect my opponent is going to attempt to rebuttal in the comments saying something along the lines that "this is not technically the debate so I will rebuttal within the comments", hopefully this will not suffice for if he is going to try to go by technicalities I have already proved him wrong. Also note if he replies again at all in the debate rounds he automatically loses for he goes against his resolution. I feel that this is a sufficient amount of debate that is substantial enough to prove my opponent wrong. Thank you ~Mastajake
Agnostic (pro) vs atheist (con)

"First off, how can you possibly create yourself? Did you just decide to be born with no parents? It's not really possible, is it?" God isn't an organism, I think. He doesn't require someone else to create him. He is THE creator. "Finally, if God was to just leave the universe, why would he? Does he have anything else to do? Probably not. If you got something as cool as a second, mini Earth at your control, I highly doubt you'd just leave it all of a sudden." The control may be exerting too much of his power, and he may want to provide us with free will and see where it goes. Who knows, he may have multiple dimensions and alternative universes to oversee. And he may not want to reveal himself should it influence the world to develop in the wrong direction. Or maybe, creating the universes sapped his energies and made him fall into a coma/stasis. Or he is in some other galaxy, making way towards us at a terribly slow speed. There are multiple possibilities like this, and an agnostic is open to them, in case they ever prove to be true. Did you read the Transformers comics, in which they believed God was Primus, who became the core of Cybertron? What if the inner core of the Earth is a form of God? After all, the temperature differences between the crust and core is appalling. Although distance plays a factor, it is still an extraordinary phenomenon. Atheism marks a big cross on the possibility of God. It is the belief that God doesn't exist. I think that there isn't enough evidence or knowledge about God to reach to a conclusion that ties up, therefore I support agnosticism.
Agnostic (pro) vs atheist (con)

So, your points... 1. God could've created himself. 2. God was referred to as "The Creator" 3. God could've stopped influencing the universe. First off, how can you possibly create yourself? Did you just decide to be born with no parents? It's not really possible, is it? Secondly, just because God is referred to as some nickname doesn't mean he's real or did anything, really. If I was to start calling you "Sock-face" I doubt your face would start turning in to a sock. Finally, if God was to just leave the universe, why would he? Does he have anything else to do? Probably not. If you got something as cool as a second, mini Earth at your control, I highly doubt you'd just leave it all of a sudden.