BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Nazis were evil

look, what you don't understand is that The Hitler Youth was a logical extension of Hitler's belief that the future of Nazi Germany was its children. The Hitler Youth was seen as being as important to a child as school was. In the early years of the Nazi government, Hitler had made it clear as to what he expected German children to be like: "The weak must be chiselled away. I want young men and women who can suffer pain. A young German must be as swift as a greyhound, as tough as leather, and as hard as Krupp's steel." Nazi education schemes part fitted in with this but Hitler wanted to occupy the minds of the young in Nazi Germany even more. Movements for youngsters were part of German culture and the Hitler Youth had been created in the 1920's. By 1933 its membership stood at 100,000. After Hitler came to power, all other youth movements were abolished and as a result the Hitler Youth grew quickly. In 1936, the figure stood at 4 million members. In 1936, it became all but compulsory to join the Hitler Youth. Youths could avoid doing any active service if they paid their subscription but this became all but impossible after 1939. The Hitler Youth catered for 10 to 18 year olds. There were separate organisations for boys and girls. The task of the boys section was to prepare the boys for military service. For girls, the organisation prepared them for motherhood. Boys at 10, joined the Deutsches Jungvolk (German Young People) until the age of 13 when they transferred to the Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) until the age of 18. In 1936, the writer J R Tunus wrote about the activities of the Hitler Jugend. He stated that part of their "military athletics" (Wehrsport) included marching, bayonet drill, grenade throwing, trench digging, map reading, gas defence, use of dugouts, how to get under barbed wire and pistol shooting. Girls, at the age of 10, joined the Jungmadelbund (League of Young Girls) and at the age of 14 transferred to the Bund Deutscher Madel (League of German Girls). Girls had to be able to run 60 metres in 14 seconds, throw a ball 12 metres, complete a 2 hour march, swim 100 metres and know how to make a bed. "Every girl belongs to us" League of German Maidens poster The whole Hitler Youth movement was overseen by Balder von Shirach. Balder von Shirach To the outside world, the Hitler Youth seemed to personify German discipline. In fact, this image was far from accurate. School teachers complained that boys and girls were so tired from attending evening meetings of the Hitler Youth, that they could barely stay awake the next day at school. Also by 1938, attendance at Hitler Youth meetings was so poor - barely 25% - that the authorities decided to tighten up attendance with the 1939 law making attendance compulsory.
The Nazis were evil

The idea that Nazis were "evil" simply because of one particular set of actions they went about at one particular time in their history is absurd. We all make mistakes, and we all have the right to expect people not to judge us based solely off of our mistakes, without also taking into consideration our successes. Consider the following: -The Nazis brought political order and economic success to a nation that was suffering from a massive depression brought on by World War I. -The Nazis' central goal was to unite all of Europe, something that has recently come to fruition through the European Union, which not many people would call "evil". -The Nazis eloquently and succinctly rejected the outmoded philosophies of various pretentious medieval and enlightenment philosophers who sought naught but the total destruction of the worth of the individual, thus ushering on a Golden Age of sorts in terms of individual value in the eyes of society. -The Nazis were strongly opposed to such outdated rhetoric as, "Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are. Up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky. Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are." I must commend them for this brave stance. -The Nazis, according to encyclopediadramatica.com, "did it for the lulz." In my professional opinion as a triple doctorate in Lulzography, Lulzology, and Lulzmatics is that this can only bring about good results. Primarily, we need to remember that everyone makes mistakes, and that it is incredibly presumptuous and unjust for society to judge a person or group of people based on one single tiny mistake some 60 years ago.
The Nazis were evil

Nazi's suck. They killed all the Jews and made them dead and that's not alright with me. The Jews loved God and didn't afraid of anything so they didn't need to become an hero. Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal-of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm; of foundationalisms (in practice, fideistic foundationalisms) and irrationalisms (in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source) new and old alike; of the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard. OK, now that's out of the way, I want to explain myself. There was a debate earlier where someone did something similar to this as an experiment to see if anyone actually reads debates or votes strictly on topic. They failed however, because it wasn't clear who to vote for if you actually read the debate. So, this is my attempt at a redo. If you read this far, vote con (not for me) in this debate. We shall see what percentage of votes go for me and judge how accurate voting is. My opponent should defend that Nazi's are OK for at lest a paragraph in each debate and then spam a quote of some kind. (the preceding and following quotes are the winners of most pretentious writing awards) With the last gasp of Romanticism, the quelling of its florid uprising against the vapid formalism of one strain of the Enlightenment, the dimming of its yearning for the imagined grandeur of the archaic, and the dashing of its too sanguine hopes for a revitalized, fulfilled humanity, the horror of its more lasting, more Gothic legacy has settled in, distributed and diffused enough, to be sure, that lugubriousness is recognizable only as languor, or as a certain sardonic laconicism disguising itself in a new sanctification of the destructive instincts, a new genius for displacing cultural reifications in the interminable shell game of the analysis of the human psyche, where nothing remains sacred.
Non-Christian philosophy vs Christian philosophy

(I apologize for, at least in preview, what appears to be a dramatic change in taxt size. I am not sure how to correct this.) Take note that, upon request, my opponent refused to back up their stance, and differed to me to make an argument disproving them, in effect, avoiding their burden of proof. At least for a round. As the Pro, it is my opponents duty to make an argument, and as Con, it is my duty to negate it. With no argument to build off of, there is not much I can do in the way of negation. Therefore, I would request that this round be viewed as one of refusal to argue on the part of my opponent. My opponent has made requests of me that are irrelevant to the debate in it's current form. As it stands, the resolution is one of "Non-Christian philosophy is inferior". Proving or disproving the nature of reality and truth is, at this point in time, entirely irrelevant to confirming or denying the resolution. Rather than deal with irrelevancy, I will make my argument against the resolution. If my opponent feels their requests have relevancy, I invite them to explain in further detail the relevancy of their requests. Preferably in the form of an actual argument."Non-Christian philosophy is irrational. It reduces to skepticism and absurdity. It can't give a rational foundation for anything."Since irrationality is merely the lack of rationality, let us examine the definition of what it is to be rational. Rationality is defined as follows[1]: 1. The state or quality of being rational or logical. 2. The possession or utilization of reason or logic. 3. A reasonable or logical opinion.Given then that being rational[2] is a synonym for being logical[3], therefore any claim of "rationality" is an appeal to the system of logic. What is rational is what coincides with logical, or correct, reasoning.Now, my opponent has yet to give any reason as to why Christian philosophy is superior (I can assume, but not conform, it is because they view it as being rational). Therefore, I have no real criteria for which I may debate other forms of thought.In order to have a logical argument, one must be able to construct a both valid and sound argument. Validity being defined as when an argument's "...conclusion is entailed by its premises"[4], and sound being defined as when "All of its premises are true."[5] I would like to remind my opponent that these are the criteria by which he must judge differing belief systems.As I said in the beginning, my opponent seems to be avoiding his burden of proof. Demonstrate how Christian philosophy is superior to everything else, and how every other form of belief is inferior and illogical, or you have no argument. It is not my job to construct your argument. Take ownership of your burden of proof. Sources:[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]http://thesaurus.com...[3]http://thesaurus.com...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Non-Christian philosophy vs Christian philosophy

Quite simple. I'll let my opponent expose himself. I would like know to what my opponent thinks truth is. if he says truth is whatever reflects reality, then I would to know how he knows reality is real. My objection is that he won't be able to. We will see that best he will be able to come with is circular answers and maybe even circular non-answers. I'm challenge my opponent to give a rational foundation for knowledge. For example, one that's not based on speculation or his imagination.
The Texas Government is structured better than the Federal Government

I believe the Texas Government is structured better than the Federal Government in many ways. To start off, Texas believes in 3 main philosophies; limited government, elected accountability, and fiscal responsibility. The first two speak for themselves but as for the third, fiscal responsibility, Texas makes sure to reach budget that does not surpass their revenue. The Federal government actually raises the debt ceiling further putting the country into debt. Furthermore, Texas has a plural executive, which is solely created to make sure the Governor does not abuse his power. Also, the plural executive is voted in and not subject to cancellation. The Federal government has no such thing as a plural executive, but does have checks and balances, yet this varies greatly since there is no one group whose main focus is to keep the power in check of another branch or the President. Lastly, Texas has dual Supreme courts, one for criminal cases and one for civil cases. Not only are the judges voted in and not appointed, but now you can have more accurate cases since criminal and civil cases vary greatly and you have no chance of political influence or under the table payments since this Supreme court is voted in.
confederate flags are racist

"The immediate spark for secession came from the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 elections. American Civil War historian James M. McPherson suggested that, for Southerners, the most ominous feature of the Republican victories in the Congressional and Presidential elections of 1860 was the magnitude of those victories. Republicans captured over 60 percent of the Northern vote, while winning three-fourths of its Congressional delegations." https://en.wikipedia.org... The war began because states left the union since they were unhappy with the current election. When the election ended, the South knew that Lincoln would not have been for states' rights, so they left. When Lincoln declared war, he didn't draft the Emancipation Proclamation until a few years later. He only wrote it because he knew that he would have won the war and would have been able to subjugate the South if they resisted the ban of slavery. The flag represents soldiers. Just soldiers. It does not represent racism. We have the U.S. flag, and then we have a flag for the Marine Corps, Army Rangers, Navy, Air Force, etc. The flag represented the army of Virginia, nothing more, nothing less.
confederate flags are racist

perphaps Lee happened to not be racist. the war they were fighting, though, was about slavery ie racism. you mention that lincoln wasn't necessarily intent to get rid of slavery but he wanted to preserve the union. you didn't say what the war was started for, though. it was started because of slavery.... he just decided it was better to preserve the union. but we see that because he had the upperhand anyway, they just got rid of slavery. do you have any other reason for why they didn't want lincoln as president so much that they'd withdraw?
confederate flags are racist

The Confederate Flag that I assume you are referring to was the Virginia Army Battle Flag. It represented the men in the army of Virginia. Here is a quick history lesson. Robert E. Lee is undoubtedly one of the most famous Confederate leaders. However, he was never for slavery. He was deeply patriotic. He disliked the idea of slavery, but he loved Virginia, his home state, very much. That is why he stayed to defend it. This whole idea of removing the Confederate flag has just come out because of the South Carolina shootings. That flag has been hanging outside of the statehouse for decades, and no one batted an eye. We associate the flag with the shooter, and because he was racist, we associated racism to the flag as well. That is not the case. The South split from the Union over a state's right issue. They did not split over slavery. They split because Abraham Lincoln was elected, and they did not want Lincoln as President. When Lincoln declared war on the South, he never had the idea of banning slavery, he just wanted to preserve the Union. He wanted a unified America. I believe it should be removed, but for a different reason. That flag stands for a dis-unified America, which I could never bear the sight of. It does not stand for racism, or for slavery. It stands for states rights. The Confederate States of America had their own flag, and I shall post the link here. https://en.wikipedia.org...(1861-1863).svg This flag stands for the men that died in battle. It does not stand for racism or white privilege. The maker of the flag was racist, but that does not mean that it represents racism.
confederate flags are racist

there might be a states' rights issue as a bigger principle to some, but it still remains that the flag wouldn't exist if it wasn't for slavery, it represents a racist nation, and the designer of the flag said it was an emblem for the superior race. here we have the designer of the flag saying it was an emblem for the cause of the superior race. sounds pretty racist to me. here is what Thompson, the designer of the confederate flag thought: "As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of thee white man over the inferior or colored race... As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race... Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals" when talking about the civil war people often go back and forth between whether it was about slavery, or about states' rights. the reality, is that it was about about both, and some choose to emphasize one or the other aspect of it. that's how some can try to weasel out of saying it's racist. (and to be sure, it's grown to generally mean rebel, such as with dukes of hazard) but the war was only there, cause the north drew a line in the sand about what was acceptable despite states' rights, and they said slavery wasn't, and the south drew a line in the sand and said it was per states' rights. slavery was an impetus. that means the whole flag is tainted. there might be a good way to symbolize states' rights and freedom, but hte confederate flag isn't it. there might be a states' rights issue as a bigger principle to some, but it still remains that the flag wouldn't exist if it wasn't for slavery, it represents a racist nation, and the designer of the flag said it was an emblem for the superior race.
Scientology (Pro) makes more sense than Hindu (Con)

First, the BoP is entirely on Pro to prove scientology makes more sense than Hinduism. Pro *fails* to fulfill the BoP by *dropping* my rebuttals, as Pro's case was based entirely on a polytheistic religion, which is irrelevant to the resolution. "I'm done with this debate. I am sorry and I thank you for a good debate but it seems as though you were misinformed about the debate and you took a completely different swing than was intended. "I thank you for a good debate as well, and for the graceful concession. All points extended.
Scientology (Pro) makes more sense than Hindu (Con)

"I need only defend a *single* philosophy of Hinduism to uphold Hinduism" So, you are saying that you can defend Hinduism by only mentioning one part of it. Hinduism is a religion and you can't defend an entire religion by only basing it off one philosophy. You need to defend the entire thing because by only choosing one part, you are picking and choosing what makes sense and what does not. Also, I said to defend to defend Hinduism not Carvaka. Hinduism is polytheistic. You are simply choosing one branch of Hinduism. I'm done with this debate. I am sorry and I thank you for a good debate but it seems as though you were misinformed about the debate and you took a completely different swing than was intended. The point that I was trying to make is that a polytheistic God is one of the most illogical thoughts that exists.
Scientology (Pro) makes more sense than Hindu (Con)

Observation One: I need only defend a *single* philosophy of Hinduism to uphold Hinduism generally, and I shall be defending the *atheistic* Carvaka philosophy. Rebuttals"As you know, Hindus are polytheistic. And a polytheistic religion is impossible because that would imply that the god's limit eachother and that a god has a certain domain."This is a bare assertion and unjustified. There are various branches of Hinduism, and, as mentioned in R1, I shall defend the Carvaka philosophy and sect of Hinduism. Let me explain the *basic* Carvaka philosophy -- "Cārvāka is characterised as a materialistic, atheistic, non-orthodox school of thought. It rejects supernaturalism, emphasizes materialism and philosophical skepticism, holding empiricism, perception and conditional inference as the proper source of knowledge." [1]Thus, Carvaka philosophy is atheistic, ergo it is *not* polytheistic and rejects the idea of God. The Carvaka Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha states the position of the philosophy: "There is no other world other than this;There is no heaven and no hell;The realm of God and like regions,are invented by stupid imposters." [2]Thus, Pro's case is *irrelevant* to an atheistic philosophy. ArgumentsThe most fundamental belief of Scientology is that the soul prior to birth is omniscient. But let me bring a case against omniscience:For something to be omniscient, x has to know everything. But x cannot know things that don't exist -- for example, x doesn't know that I'm eating a pizza right now because I'm not eating a pizza right now. Omniscience also violates something y's being contingent. Carvaka philosophy, on the other hand, is entirely naturalistic and rejects such logically incoherent or supernatural entities, such as God, gods, omniscient souls, etc. ConclusionThe purely atheistic Carvaka philosophy is more rational than Scientology.Sources[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2]: Ray Billington (1997). Understanding Eastern Philosophy. p. 44.
Scientology (Pro) makes more sense than Hindu (Con)

As you know, Hindus are polytheistic. And a polytheistic religion is impossible because that would imply that the god's limit eachother and that a god has a certain domain. By definition, a god is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but if a god is only bound to one domain of life, (e.g. god of wind, god of fire) then that destroys the definition of god. That does not make sense. Also, how could there even be many god to exist logically. Is there just a state of being where there are thousands of deities that suddenly have the urge to limit eachother's infinite power and create an imperfect world. That to me makes no sense what so ever.
Scientology (Pro) makes more sense than Hindu (Con)

I accept, and shall defend the atheistic Carvaka philosophy of Hinduism against Scientology. By standard DDO norms, I shall define the terms:DefinitionsScientology -- a body of beliefs and religious practises based on the core idea of an omniscient "self" prior to birth [own definition, using http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Hinduism -- a set of various philosophies that form a religion from South Asia, esp. India [own definition, using http://en.wikipedia.org...].
Authors' unfinished work should not be published

Okay, so we are now assuming that there is nothing said in the will, one way or other, in regards to what an author wants done with his or her unfinished work. "First, you mentioned how you don't see a lower standard of work as justification to publish said work. Later, you stated "if I was working on something and got it only 90% complete… I'd be pissed if it was locked away from the general public that it was originally meant for." This may be how you feel, but I would not want my unfinished or low level work to be released to the public. Quite frankly, I would find it rather embarrassing to have this released because of the standard to which I am expected to meet." I think, based on this, we can agree that different authors would have different desires and views on their works. And because of this, it is not fair to broad brush them all that they should not (or should) be released. I still contend that it should be up to the family/beneficiaries to make the best decision as to what is the original author's desires. For the work that is unfinished that may be finished by someone else who is not as good as the original author. It would be expected that some honesty is implemented and the final work is not passed off as entirely the original author's but as a compilation from the original author and the finishing author. As is seen here [1]. JRR Tolkien died and his son finished the work for him and published it. We can also see in another case where it is clear by actions that author wants the work published [2]. Jane Austen worked mush faster in order to finish her final work (which still ended up being published after her death). Different writers (which can be stretched to artists in general) have different wants and desires for their works after they have passed away. If they have not explicitly stated what they want in their will, then the individuals who know them best (their family and beneficiaries) can make the next best decision, rather then society as a whole. Broad brushing, saying that none should be released is not fair to the families or to the original author, since we do not know their desires. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(novel)