BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Russian Bolshevik revolution was a Jewish phenomenon #2

Wow you seem very passionate about the case you present. I don"t have the time to fact check all your assertions The Russian people were long oppressed before the revolution yes. Yes, The original revolution was co-opted by the next one. that you were right about. We saw the same thing later in Iran after the Shaw was deposed What happened in Russia was a ruthless opportunist took advantage of a crippled government and a feeble revolution and used to their own advantage. I would hardly say there was anything more than ruthless person exploiting the herd mentality that defines humans. Once submission is given by some, the rest follow. The horrors that follow are always just a repeat. To say it was orchestrated by Jews and Jews alone makes one think there is a predisposition on the topic. Jews fared no better than anyone else during the war and definitely not afterwards. I am not pro Jewish but when I see a rant proclaiming a certain race responsible for something it raises a flag. By the same token I could say that because certain Native Americans tried to make peace with the European invaders they were orchestrators of the decimation of the native people Over and over we have seen this happen. Get a charismatic leader selling a bill of materials to a gullible people, and then once they bought it they are stuck with horrific outcomes. The OP"s suggestion that a certain race would want to forment a cause leading to its own demise sounds suspect at best. Therefore I propose that it was not Jews or Muslims or protestants or Christians, but simply opportunistic self and dodged Tyrants involved.
Should fat men wear skinny jeans.

Before I proceed, I want to answer my opponents question "Before I proceed to extend my proclamation, i would like to ask if you are of those who are fat." I am not among theses who are large. Now to move on to some rebuttals... My opponents statement "have you ever looked at a fat man and or woman and thought "Wow that person is rather attractive?", neither have I." This statement is quite bluntly, a slap in the face to all people who are on the bigger size. It is also rude, and completely offensive to say that Fat Men and Women are not attractive, and therefor should be wearing skinny jeans. Again as said in my last argument-- "How can we as humans discriminate other humans for the their choices?! Even worse how can we discriminate humans, based ON WHAT THEY WEAR?" And now I would like to add to that by saying, How can we as humans judge pother humans based on their weight or body stature. My opponents case remains discriminatory, it doesn't make sense, and his conduct in this debate has been sub par.
Should fat men wear skinny jeans.

Before I proceed to extend my proclamation, i would like to ask if you are of those who are fat. Like you I agree all people are equal on the inside and that is what we should judge them for. That being said, have you ever looked at a fat man and or woman and thought "Wow that person is rather attractive?", neither have I. I am not judging fat people for being fat. I just simply believe that the sight a man trying to fit his leg into pants that are half the circumference of his disgustingly huge thighs is disturbing.
Should fat men wear skinny jeans.

My opponent has initiated a debate that literally violates every right we have as humans. Your Statement "Men in general should not wear skinny jeans" is completely discriminatory to all men and how men choose to pick what they wear in A FREE WORLD. Your Statement " let alone fat men who have disgusting thighs. ", is 100% discriminatory, rude, and offensive, to anyone of that body nature. How can we as humans discriminate other humans for the their choices? ! Even worse how can we discriminate humans, based ON WHAT THEY WEAR? This is a form a Bullying.
Should fat men wear skinny jeans.

To finish up, I will make my concluding case, and respond to the question my opponent has asked in his last argument. Response to My Opponents Statement: According to Google: The definition of Discrimination is: "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex. " Lots of my opponents statements including: "Men in general should not wear skinny jeans let alone fat men who have disgusting thighs. " "have you ever looked at a fat man and or woman and thought "Wow that person is rather attractive? ", neither have I. " "I just simply believe that the sight a man trying to fit his leg into pants that are half the circumference of his disgustingly huge thighs is disturbing. " is prejudicial treatment to Men and Specifically Fat Men as my opponent has pointed out. Which is Discrimination, according to the definition of the Word/Meaning of Discrimination. Voters, please vote for Pro, as I have shown how Con's arguments are offensive, rude, and I have proven against his rebuttal that his argument is discriminatory against any Men, and again my opponent has made the statement "Specifically Fat Men". I have shown that Humans should be judging other humans. Even worse we shouldn't be saying that specific people of specific body natures shouldn't be wearing certain clothes. We live in a free world. Every Human being wants to be treated the same. Weather they be 500 Lbs or a famous actor.
Spinkos tourney, 2nd round: The historical existence of Jesus

Resolution: Jesus most likely existed as a historical person Jesus: the one who was called "the Christ"; supposedly of Nazareth ========Burden of proof======== This debate is about the historical existence of a person. The BoP is therefore on me to affirm the resolution. ========Rules/set-up======== No semantics allowed. One forfeit results in loss of the conduct point. Two forfeits results in the loss of the debate.
The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound

So I see you may not believe in God? That's very sad. In my opinion we need no proof for we should already know that God is real. But you obviously see life in a scientific eye and seek proof of his existence. 1.The bible. God told Moses to right the bible. AND I know you want proof of Moses but lets take this too Jerusalem a REAL place! NOW who founded Jerusalem?? WOW Lets see GOD! Obviously if you went to Jerusalem history you will find God written all over it. 2.BIG BANG THEORY. We have all heard of the scientific way of believing how earth was created. But if you go deep into the topic it says of a COLLISION but this was all made in space. Who made Space? Now science cant prove a possible way for anybody but God to do such things with all of this power of all these unlimited unknown planets who we still cannot see. 3.RELIGION. Yes you may still not believe me that God is real. It is your decision. If you do I am very happy because if nobody has then you should try to be that one person who should and will. May GOD bless you or if not have a wonderful day!
The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound

I will be arguing that the ontological argument for God's existence is not sound and therefore does not prove the existence of God. You can choose one of the 3 different ontological arguments that I have provided. Sound = A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all its premises are true. Valid = A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. [1] Rules:1. External links may not be used as arguments, only as sources.2. Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies.3. The first round is for the rules/agreeing to the debate and choosing the argument you want to debate about, the second for the opening arguments/rebuttals, and the third round for closing statements. The third round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments.4. Do not forfeit.Please do not accept the debate, if you do not intend to abide by the rules.Good luck and have fun in the debate!Anselm's Proslogion 2 ontological argument:P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of.P2: It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than just in the mind.C1: God must exist.Anselm’s Proslogion 3 ontological argument:P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of.P2: It is greater to exist necessarily than to exist contingently.C1: God must exist necessarily.Descartes' ontological argument:P1: God is perfect.P2: Existence is a predicate of perfection.C1: God must exists. [1]: http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Abortion is morally permissible, even if the pregnancy would pose no threat to the mother's life.

Right, thanks for the info. It's a bit late for me to delegate BOP now, but I hope you'll fight tooth and nail all the same. 1. Let's suppose the fetus is not a person. Why would that give us the right to kill it? I see no logical connection here. 2. Sometimes you do have to choose between one person's life or another. If you choose not to save the mother, you may as well be killing her. In this case, you kill somebody regardless, either directly (abortion) or indirectly (inaction). 3. Your cited article ( http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... ) blatantly states, "Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue." It then goes on to use logical fallacies to justify the pro-choice stance. We give the benefit of the doubt to women... why? Fetuses and newborns are both dependent on a woman to survive. Fetuses need a womb, while newborns need milk, care and protection. Technology is changing this in both cases. The section dealing with fetuses and legal rights uses a slippery slope fallacy. Giving them the right to life doesn't mean we have to assign them a social security number, name or certificate of any sort before they are born. It just means you're not allowed to kill them. It also uses the old "pro-lifers are misogynists" argument, which doesn't hold because it's demonstrably false, and also because we limit the freedoms of everybody in some way or another regardless of gender, race or creed. Women get pregnant and men don't, that is just biology. It doesn't mean that forbidding abortion is a crime against women. "Life is a crap shoot" is completely irrelevant to the abortion debate. 4. There is physically no way that anybody can prove the morality/immorality of abortion in every possible scenario, because we don't have access to every possible scenario. We must make do on what we have available.
Abortion is morally permissible, even if the pregnancy would pose no threat to the mother's life.

You are Pro, I am Con. I was under the impression that shifted BOP to you, but maybe that other guy was just messing with me. Does DDO actually have a rule about this? I can't find anything in the FAQ. I refuted the reasons I've heard on the forums, in case you were going to use them. 1. In that case we're both screwed. You can't prove that abortion is right, and I can't prove it's wrong. The best I could do is go by the moral/legal framework we generally use in society (i.e. humans have rights, including the right to life, and rights cannot be violated without just cause), but that would be an argument from popularity/authority. If we use "People have a right to life" as a given, then you need to justify why fetuses are not people, or why their right to life shouldn't be protected. 2. If the Law gives rapists visitation rights, then it needs to be changed. It doesn't follow that abortion is justified. In other words, see my counter-arguments for 1, 6 and 7 (7 could just as easily apply to mental damage instead of physical). Using "she was raped" as justification for abortion is like saying "she was raped, therefore she gets to kill something". If that "something" is her rapist then I would be all for that. But it is generally understood that mental anguish doesn't give somebody the right to take an innocent life, which the fetus definitely qualifies as. Personhood doesn't make a life innocent or not, nor does it automatically give you the right to kill it (otherwise we could butcher our pets with no consequences). 3. A fetus is most definitely alive. Sperm and egg are alive. Bacteria are alive. Ants and wasps are alive. In the biological sense, fetuses are alive. The question is whether they qualify as people, which is a moral/legal issue and not a scientific one. Science can only provide evidence by which we can base our moral decision. The picture's point doesn't work, because sperm and fetuses are different. Sperm are single cells with no brain or heart, while fetuses are multicellular and have organs.
Abortion is morally permissible, even if the pregnancy would pose no threat to the mother's life.

Opinion on abortion varies, but most agree that it's acceptable when continuing the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother's life. So this aspect of abortion is not the subject of the debate. What I dispute, because I'm yet to hear a convincing argument for it, is the idea that abortion should be allowed for non-life-threatening reasons. I've heard several arguments that I'm going to address in advance, before letting Pro make their case for why abortion is morally justified. 1. "Having the baby of an abusive partner traps her in the relationship." There are things called "women's shelters" for a reason. If her partner is abusing her, she should seek legal action against him. It doesn't justify killing the child. 2. "The foster care system is lousy." So fix it. It needs to be done anyway, and is a far better alternative than terminating pregnancies. 3. "She was raped." Will having an abortion un-rape her? Will it punish the person responsible? Is it in any way the fault of the child? The answer is no. 4. "A woman can do whatever she likes with her body." That's true, but it doesn't follow that she can do what she likes with the fetus's body. 5. "It will solve crime/overpopulation." This has never proven, and the theory criticized as fallacious ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Hard evidence would needed to back up this claim, and even so it doesn't mean that abortion is therefore right. 6. "She can't afford to look after the baby." If she's that poor, she can leave the baby at a convent or fire station. Or find other ways to support the child. 7. "It will wreck her body." Abortion wrecks the fetus's body. Somebody suffers either way, but only abortion is guaranteed to kill somebody (remember that this debate is about non-life-threatening pregnancies, which are obviously a separate issue). 8. "He can disappear without paying child support." A deadbeat dad doesn't justify an abortion. Many women raise children without input from the father. 9. "Fetuses are not people." This is begging the question, as whether or not fetuses should be considered people is tied to the outcome of the abortion debate. It's also irrelevant, as something not being a person is not in itself a justification for killing it. 10. "Pro-Lifers are misogynists." That's an ad hominem and completely untrue. While there are misogynist pro-lifers, there are also many pro-lifers who love and respect women or are women themselves. I have refuted 10 possible arguments for abortion. I now await Pro to make their case for why abortion is morally acceptable. Don't type "accept" this time, please go straight to your argument.
Internet Anonymity should be banned

Your argument is that people are meaner when they are anonymously posting? Well I am not sure how it is in South Korea but in America, teenagers are constantly cyber-bullying others and many times the victim knows who they are and eventually do commit suicide over it if malicious enough. I have not heard of any movie stars killing themselves over such comments since hate mail is a common thing for celebrities well here, what celebrities there have done that exactly? I looked that up and it seems like they other problems besides that in their personal lives. Second, there is something that I do not understand. How exactly would people not be anonymous anymore? It does not make sense how that could be controlled at all. The best they can do now is give computers ip addresses so they can be traced which what I bet they do when they are reported because even if they have a fake account they can still be traced through that, unless they are a hacker in which case they won't be caught either way. Truth be told I have not ever been on Chat roulette because I have no camera it does not allow me (but why would I want to anyways). Onto eBay. Again people can be traced with ip address not that it is even required since you are practically forced to have Paypal which makes the person give credit card ID. Not to mention their refund service which allows you to get your money back through Paypal so I don't really see the problem besides some aggravation. And I really hope that no country economically depends on eBay. Now that is true about Wikipedia but I really do not see how this applies. The person having to show their name is not going to stop this at all or at least very slightly. Now for my argument. I would never want Internet Anonymity gone because as a Communist (just saying North Korea isn't, they are Juche plus I am Anarchist anyways) I am constantly getting into arguments with Nazis and White Supremacists and I would really not like for them to have my name and address so that they can come over to my house when they want as they aren't really known for for being Pacifists.
Internet Anonymity should be banned

Anonymity basically means that you don't show your name on the Internet. I would like to give some basic information why Internet Anonymity should be banned. First, People are a lot meaner when they know there are no consequences for their actions. Those who post anonymously are free to form malicious opinions, which can offend the writer of an article or another fellow commenter. In my country Movie stars have committed suicide due to these rude comments. Second, The concept of being anonymous makes people more daring, and on websites such as Chat roulette, there is a familiar sight of men waving their genitalia at the camera, which most likely offends, but for some could be a positive aspect of anonymity if you are into that kind of thing – we're not judging. That is disgusting isn't it? the Government should be able to catch these bastards. Being anonymous when posting reviews can sometimes be a negative thing as people who may have a connection to what is being reviewed can leave several positive reviews, misleading consumers. This occasionally happens on eBay when people may create several accounts or use their friends¢¢&coastal;&macro; accounts to leave positive feedback for each other. For some, it can leave them feeling confused and even angry that there is no way to trace the culprit. That would definitely decrease the enthusiasm in the nation's economy. And lastly, People often believe what they see in print and will even believe that anonymous comments are true. Sometimes this can occur when people edit Wikipedia, and even though the pages are rectified quickly, users of the site often believe that everything on there is gospel.
Saddam Hussein Was Good

Your statement about ISIS running rampant without him implied that if he was still in control it would subside. Which is absolutely wrong, and perhaps one man did say those things on BBC. There has been refugees coming over to America because of Saddam, how was he a good leader ,If his own citizens want to escape his reign. I am not saying that Iraq was better currently than it was in his rule, I am saying that he is not a GOOD leader. Most of his citizens lived in poor built houses, healthcare was not taken cared of that much. All he did was make the poor poorer and the Rich Richer.Just because Isis made Iraq worst does not mean Saddam was a good leader. Just because horrible people make something that was already horrible more terrible does not mean its original leader was good if so then Iraq would have no have been in that state before.
Saddam Hussein Was Good

Do not be such a d***. It is an exchange of ideas, do not insult me again. Yes Saddam Hussein killed people and was cruel. But he kept his people controlled and he provided stability to his country. Lets look at modern day Iraq. Bombings occur almost daily. There is a no protest and mob storming the government every month. Terrorists run rampant and kill left and right. Women are being sold as sex slaves. ISIS has taken control of a large majority of it. During Hussein's rule it was not nearly as bad. He was the better of two evils. I never claimed ISIS did not exist during his time. Read what I actually said. A recent man who participated in the demolish of Hussein's statue went on BCC and said that he was wrong. He said that he missed how things used to be. If you are claiming that Iraq is better now than it was when Hussein was in power, than you are crazy. . http://www.mediaite.com...
Saddam Hussein Was Good

Saddam Hussein was not a great leader, he killed hundreds of his own citizens so statistically if you are killing thousands of your own people you would eventually kill some terrorist. You fail to realize that ISIS was created way before Saddam's rule, inspiration was what caused ISIS. There were terrorist groups already like Al-Qaeda , Boko no Haram and many others, you claiming that Saddam Hussein was a great leader is completely idiotic, dictatorship does not make ones self a better leader. Leadership is as strong as its followers, and he had none willing to follow him, you are completely stupid
Is Feminism unnecessary in the USA these days (pro=yes) (con=no)

Feminism has been a great thing through out history. It has seen the liberation of the previously suppressed sex, led to equality, and even made improvements to all of our lives. This movement may have lost sight of its goal, it may have turned to hate on the internet, but this only shows that we need to help and nurture this movement for civil liberties. I look forward to talking about this subject.
The voting age should be lowered to 14

"The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care." There are also many 14 year olds who do understand the issues. I did when I was 14. Those who don't care probably won't vote anyway. But we should allow those 14 year olds who care to vote. Cognitive development peaks at 14 so they can understand the issues. "Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does." Most 18 year olds don't run households, but are still allowed to vote. Just because you don't have a household doesn't mean issues don't affect you. 14 year olds are affected by things related to medicaid, education/ schools, etc. and should have say in these matters. Some 14 year olds have a job and pay taxes, so they should decide how their money will be spent.