BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I believe that the Cold War was largely the responsibility of the Soviet Union.

You did allot of damage to your own position in your response. You said "The West clearly CHOSE to white wash and favor protecting the unleashed animal that was the USSR." You say we covered for Stalin. And you say " US (& GB) GAVE AWAY half of Europe to suffer under Communism for the next half century" All you've proved here is that we proved that Stalin could walk all over us and we would take it lying down. These to points prove that Stalin had no right or reason to demonize us. We were a bunch of weaklings in how we dealt with him. He had no reason to think we were a threat. Everything we did showed him that he had the upper hand. We were no threat. The race was on for Nazi scientists in all of the allied countries including the Soviet Union so this argument fails too. And we didn't take Einstein. He left Austria of his own accord because of Hitler. He was a Jew. You ask a silly question. Why would a leader who has control keep killing his people? Probably because he was a fricking nut! The older he got the worse his paranoia got. When he died the NKVD was very powerful. A tradition of paranoia was now embedded in the Soviet government. Perhaps the Soviets were engaged in a bit of projection. They were very aggressive in trying to take other peoples land. The eastern block countries were swallowed up etc. They also attacked China. I wonder what the Soviet's intentions were there? I'm not sure. In Vietnam and North Korea we didn't show up and try to liberalize those countries. Communists showed up and tired to violently take over those countries. We got worried and tried to stop them. The Soviets and the Chinese backed both of those movements. We weren't the aggressors the Communists were. Remember that. England and other western European countries on the other hand were in a long and ongoing process of liberating their colonies. They were doing the opposite of the Communists. Again, the Soviets had no reason to fear the western Europeans. I would say that the first real "Shot" fired in the Cold War was the founding of the Berlin Wall. That wasn't our doing.
I believe that the Cold War was largely the responsibility of the Soviet Union.

I think the Cold war was composed fundamentally of three initial ingredients: Stalin's paranoia which grew more and more powerful and dangerous over the years (1), the growing strength and presence of the NKVD later the KGB which manifested that paranoia(2) and Soviet expansion through military means. The US tried to show good faith in helping the Soviet Union during the Ukraine Famine(3). The US supplied the Soviet Union during the War(4). The US stuck to it's agreements about land given to the Soviet Union at Potsdam(4). The Soviet Union had no reason to be suspicious of the US. In response to my counterparts arguments: We didn't go after anyone because we didn't start the war. GB was pulled into it with France after Hitler invaded Poland(5). He had been warned after violently subjugating other lands. The US only got involved through the Lend Lease act(6) and then after Pearl Harbor(7). The Western Allies never wanted that war. When Churchill was with the Admiralty he sent soldiers in to Russia to assist the White Russians to fight against the Bolsheviks(8). The ended up dead or in Gulags. So he did try to stop it. During this same time the Soviet Union helped it self to other peoples land through military threat(9). Showing the whole world that unlike Stalin's imagined enemies, he was a very real enemy. 1.http://www.pbs.org... 2.http://books.google.com... 3.http://www.enrs.eu... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org... 5.http://en.wikipedia.org... 6.http://www.ourdocuments.gov... (how'd you like that crap huh!! a real doc! orig. source material) 7.http://www.pearlharboroahu.com... 8.http://en.wikipedia.org... 9.http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Illuminati Doesn't Exist

Accept Bear in mind my opponent has taken on the BOP and must show that in fact the Illuminati does not exist. I must offer rebuttals to his argument. I will state I do not believe they exist, but I also believe it is impossible to show they do not. Much like arguing the concept of God. So i will argue from the perspective that there is a possibility they do exist. I await my adversaries opening argument.
The Illuminati Doesn't Exist

"First off, with the exposure that is now on this so called "Illuminati", those celebrities definitely wouldn't be allowed to use those symbols. Secondly, and this is just a personal theory, but celebrities most likely only use those signs to generate publicity from people unwise enough to do their research on the Illuminati and come to a conclusion that it is a false theory. Yes it's negative publicity, but it's still publicity, and publicity means more money in the pocket." This was one of my arguments. I didn't state that this was a fact at any point during any of my rounds, even though you indicate that I did. Now on to my response. You're right when you say that I haven't given any proof as to why the all seeing eye represents America's freedom. Well, here you go. Here's your proof. This was taken from an article on "LDS Freedom Forum" and refers to the "New American Era" which represents our freedom after winning the Revolutionary War, and also talks about how God looks down on humanity (which is why light shines from the eye). "Its the All seeing eye of Providence (GOD), the "New order of the ages" represents the New American Era - This view; sees it as a good and holy symbol and the GOD is inferred here is the God of the bible and Christens. Joseph Smith had the eye painted (without Triangle) at a small party and stated that something along the lines that the true use and meaning of the symbol of the eye is of GOD, looking down on humanity.(there are a couple scriptures that use such terminology) Usually light is being shined down from the eye. Mason's use a similar eye and sometimes replace the eye with a "G". To them it is seen as good symbol that signifies, the true GOD the GREAT ARTICTECT of the Universe." This is why it is on the dollar bill, to represent our freedom and our trust in God (former trust, that is). Once again, my point here isn't to provide concrete evidence to prove my point, but to provide statements as to why Zionism and Free-masonry isn't tied to the possible Illuminati, to provide statements as to why the Illuminati name isn't even the correct term, to prove why the over seeing eye might not and likely does not refer to the Satanist Illuminati, and to give logic (yes, I do like that word) pointing toward the conclusion that the Illuminati most likely doesn't exist. Yes, you can be as technical as you want and say that technically because I titled this debate "The Illuminati Does Not Exist" and I only showed that it MOST LIKELY doesn't exist, and therefore, I didn't fulfill my objective. However, my objective was to show why the basic Illuminati theory is mostly nothing but a hoax, and a little research could show that it doesn't make sense. The bottom line is; It's all about using your brain. Think about this; Does the Illuminati theory make that much sense? No. Does what I have provided in these past 4 rounds make more sense than the Illuminati theory? Yes. Case closed.
Blue is blue

This seems like a very obvious and true thing to say "blue is blue" and when used in common speech it seems that it would be perfectly acceptable. Yet, must we look deeper into the actual claim that is being made? Are there further ambiguities encoded in the statement that must be uncovered? To truly understand the phrase "Blue is Blue" we must unpack the meaning of this statement. First, the word "is" refers to the existence of something. If I say, "my pet IS a dog", what I am pointing to is the actual existence of my pet dog. If my dog does not exist, that is, if he is not a tangible thing but some concept that I have of some fictional dog that I have in my mind which does not truly exist, I could not properly say that "my dog IS." Now in the case of color, there is an issue of existence. In terms of science, the question of the actual existence of color is closed; there is no such thing as color in the external world. The human brain "creates" an experience of color through the differences perceived in certain wavelengths of light. Yet, this does not really exist. Blue does not actually exist because no color actually exists. Furthermore, the subjective nature of perceiving color and the non-existence of real color prove that even the ideas that we have of color are not objective and universal ideas. When we refer to specific colors, we are not ever referring to an objective color, but simply our own subjective perceptions, uniquely created by our brains, through some sense experience. The only objective experience that we perceive is a wavelength of light. We all perceive particular wavelengths according to the subjective creations of our own mind, which is how we are deceived by the false experience of color. Thus, since color does not actually exist in the external world we cannot really say that it "is" when properly speaking. And being that all experiences of color are subjective creations of our own unique minds, we cannot communicate coherently about a specific color such as "Blue" with each other, since we do not share authentic common ground.
9/11 was an inside job

My opponent has changed the entire resolution. I have shown a way in which the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. HOWEVER, now my opponent wants me to prove that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned by US government insiders. Insider is not the word used in the resolution. The adjective version of "Inside" on Merriam-Webster does not include anything that means it is done or planned by insiders. I gave the most relevant of the definitions. http://www.merriam-webster.com... You'll have to click down to the adjective version. You'll see that the definition I gave was the relevant one. My opponent has not given another definition of inside, just a definition of insider. However, the definition of inside did not mention anything about "insiders." I have given my case, hopefully people will see it for what it is.
9/11 was an inside job

<<"Well, it seems the only point of conflict here is whether Al Quaeda could do an inside job on the US.">> I gave the defintion of inside: "2 a: relating or known to a select group (What does this have to do with Al Qaeda attacking the U.S. a sworn enemy of the U.S. government) -This definition is not even combatible with your argument. You have to prove that Al Qaeda is an insider of the government, a member of the government, to make your argument make any sense. inï¿½sidï¿½er An accepted member of a group. Al Qaeda is not an accepted member of the US. government. You would be right if you said that Al Qaeda committed a terrorist act inside American soil. But that still wouldn't prove that the government committed the act making it an "Inside Job" as described in my argument. inside: a select or inner circle of power, prestige, etc.: a man on the inside. inside: acting, employed, done, or originating within a building or place(AL QAEDA WORKS FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT????) Maybe you don't understand the point of this debate. 9/11 (September 11, 2001) was not an inside job(meaning the U.S. government is not responsible nor did they commit, take part in, have knowledge of). Rather the terrorists who are not members of our government committed these attacks (flew planes in to the world trade center, pentagon, and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania). The argument is: "This attack was perpetrated by outside foes" You agree with this. you said: <<...Whatever group formulated the plan, which was probably Al-Quaeda...>> -You haven't shown anything, but only agreed that terrorists committed the attacks on 9/11. Your narrow definition of "inside" sounds like a Clintesque "well it depends on what the definition of is, is?" Let's debate the point of contention if there is any, since you agree with my position, not debate the dictionary. Besides,I could not find the definition you gave any where in several different dictionaries, and online resources.
9/11 was an inside job

Well, it seems the only point of conflict here is whether Al Quaeda could do an inside job on the US. I gave the defintion of inside: "2 a: relating or known to a select group " And my opponent simply decided that the select group HAS TO BE the US Government. However, he gave no reason for this. To perform an inside job, by this definition, they just have to poerform a job that is known to a select group. Since I am the one affirming the resolution, I choose to affirm it by selecting Al Quaeda as the select group. It was an inside job, just not in the sense that most conspiracy theorists mean it. Also, if we want to define the US gov as the "select group" in the definition, let's take another look. "RELATING or known to a select group" Even if the US government didn't KNOW about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it's clear that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were very much RELATED to the US gov. So I've affirmed the resolution in two ways. We can use Al Quaeda as the select group - 9/11 was related AND known to them [I guess that's already two ways, so it's 3]. Or we can use the US gov as the select group - since 9/11 and the US gov are very much related.
9/11 was an inside job

First, I will respond to all the statements made by CON that are simply untrue or presumptuous. >>>>>"This attack was perpetrated by outside foes opposed to our very way of life. We were attacked because we're rich and we're free and the Islamic Fascists, namely Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts want to see our beloved nation detroyed by fire and an improvised nuclear device."<<<<< First of all, if we were attacked by terrorists, it is not because we are free and rich. The terrorists indeed told us why they attacked us. They attacked us because of specific foreign policies, which they found disagreeable. They're not just freedom-hating barbarians, they were upset because of problems we were causing in their region. >>>>>"Anyone who thinks that someone other than the terrorists committed these hateful acts of aggression should be labeled a conspiracy theorist and sent to Guantanamo."<<<<< I know many people who think this. Perhaps they should be labeled conspiracy theorists, or at least be called gullible, but they should not be sent to Guantanamo. Where's that part you said abuot the US being such a free nation now? We allow people to think whatever they want, and that includes thinking badly of the government. >>>>>"Many times over the decades [...] your society"<<<<< Irrelevant to the point at hand. >>>>>"The US is probably one of the most [...] threatening us"<<<<< Also irrelevant. >>>>>"China [...] opponent respond"<<<<< Once again, has nothing at all to do with 9/11. See how my opponent has not substantiated his position at all? Now, on to my case. 9/11 was indeed an inside job. By 9/11, it is clear that my opponent means the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I'll go ahead and define "Job." There are many definitions for the word Job. Here's the most valid one: "2 a: something done for private advantage b: a criminal enterprise; specifically : robbery c: a damaging or destructive bit of work " Source: Merriam-Webster Definition 2b does not really fit, since it is referring specifically to robbery. However, the other two definitions here work. Next, inside. It's the adjective version, based on the usage. "2 a: relating or known to a select group " Source: Merriam-Webster 9/11 was definitely a damaging or destructive bit of work known to a select group. The select group? Whatever group formulated the plan, which was probably Al-Quaeda, not that that matters in this debate. Heck, they might have even gotten word out early, and notified another select group, which would An inside job does not mean it is a job done by the US government. I've shown the definitions and shown how the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were definitely an inside job. I challenge my opponent to now show me otherwise.
9/11 was an inside job

This attack was perpetrated by outside foes opposed to our very way of life. We were attacked because we're rich and we're free and the Islamic Fascists, namely Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts want to see our beloved nation detroyed by fire and an improvised nuclear device. Anyone who thinks that someone other than the terrorists committed these hateful acts of aggression should be labeled a conspiracy theorist and sent to Guantanamo. Many times over the decades, the U. S. Government has been accused of perpetrating attacks on itself, letting other nations knowlingly attack it and did nothing. In addition the U. S. government has been accused of perpetrating coups in Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and other places. While some of these arguments have some weight to them, they in no way reflect the truth about what might have occurred but only theories thrown out by conspiracy buffs who earn a living by fearmongering the fringes of your society. The United States is probably one of the most benevolent nations that has ever existed. All we get for our knodness to other nations is a slap in the face. Examples would be all the moneyand aid we have given Russia to secure thier Nuclear Weapons, and help thier economy when it collapsed at the fall of the cold war. We could have marched into thier country and taken whatever we wanted but instead we chose to do the right thing, amd help that nation in a very weak point in their history. did we get a thank you? No Where are they when we need help, they are threatening us. China, we opened up trade to that country and gave them a future, how did we get repayed, by threatening us and Taiwan. Mexico, they hate us, used us up and now left us for dead, I can keep going, how about Germany, hate us, for rebuilding thier country. If anything we should look at these countries as adversaries who had better means based on their ungratefulness to attack us with the terrorists. I'll stop there and let my opponent respond.
Pink Floyd is the Greatest Band ever.

It is such a great disappointment that Pro even defended his case of "Plagiarism" instead of asking for an apology. He tries to emphasize a quote from Picasso, which is, irrelevant unto his case of defending the act he committed. No where in the debate did I divert the topic until Pro committed "Plagiarism". It was a big slap in my face, as I devoted minutes of research to counter his argument and found one article that is completely the same with Pro's. Regardless, to continue this debate about the "greatest band ever" isn't the priority anymore. It is about the debater's stance in question here. Did he show honesty? By committing "Plagiarism, nope, it is not. Did he show respect? I was hoping for an apology but I received a bogus reply. Also, by committing this act, he showed no respect to his opponent. For the sake of this debate, I will close my arguments in R5 and 'maybe' still refute his 'stolen idea'.
Pink Floyd is the Greatest Band ever.

This debate is not a matter of winning or losing. Source maybe whatever , its the matter which i believe in. I am not sure if you are aware of this quote by Pablo Picasso "Good artists copy, great artists steal". Which is besides the point. The debate was about which band being the greatest, and here i see that you have managed successfully to drift the topic . And now it seems to me that you chose to go after the legality of my matter as you have run short of points. so if you are done with defining words and telling the voters why you should win by default, i suggest we may move on with the debate.
Pink Floyd is the Greatest Band ever.

I have noticed that everything Pro wrote was a copy-paste from Opeth's Wine on Yahoo! Answers. Here is the exact article: http://answers.yahoo.com... He didn't gave any recognition to such source, thus Pro has committed the act of plagiarism. Plagiarism being defined by Wikipedia as, "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work". Such act will not be tolerated. I should win by default.
Pink Floyd is the Greatest Band ever.

The Beatles were the first old school band I checked out. I liked them very much and still do. Pink Floyd was an old school band I had not given a chance for a long time. I decided to give them a listen and man they were so ahead of their time. I know people are going to say that without The Beatles there would be no Pink Floyd (btw not true). But without Bob Dylan there would be no Beatles. If you compare The Beatles albums to Dark Side Of The Moon (consider the time frame is about the same) Pink Floyd is much more ahead of their time. I respect The Beatles and their album The Revolver is a classic in my mind but Pink Floyd was just much more ahead of their time. The Beatles never actually invented styles. They simple made the underground styles famous. Pink Floyd along with King Crimson changed the whole game. If you have a quality pair of headphones and have listened to Dark Side Of The Moon you would know exactly what I'm talking about. Dark Side Of The Moon could literally be released today and it would be considered a classic. Can't say the same thing about Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (John said this was their worst album. Very overrated album in that it wasn't even the first concept album. Pet Sounds was the first concept album). In reality I can't really say any of The Beatles albums if released today would be considered great. They were great for their time. Dark Side Of The Moon could be released today and be considered a classic. Now that is just amazing. Now you may give your opinion.
Ping Pong (Table Tennis) is the Best Sport of All

Hello, J.C., and welcome to the site!! To award you I give you a medal: Note to the viewers: legopro and I are real life friends, J.C. are her real name initials, but I wish for some of her privacy to remain.The contention: Ping Pong is the Best Sport of All Sports. You have to prove that some sports are better than Ping Pong. You (J.C.) must state the sport(s) which you think are better than Ping Pong in the first round, then in further rounds support your thinking, as well as rebutting my contentions/rebuttals. If you decide to start your arguments in round one, then you must state "thank you for the debate" in the last round, in order to have equal number of rounds. If you decide to not start your argument in the very first round, then I will start in round two and you have the last round for the last word and conclusion.Good luck to you, J.C.!