BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nazis were bad people. Hitler was a bad man

Exactly how were the Jews evil? The nazis raided the homes of millions of innocent people and forced them into concentration camps and death camps where they were worked and killed. 6 millions Jews were MURDERED under the command of hitler.[1] How can you say so what to the murder of 6 million innocent people? Why would a Jew ever need to die just for being a Jew. How can you say you are not racist and then say that black people and Jews need to die. If you believe someone should die just because of their race you are undoubtedly racist. Hitler ordered the murder of 6 million Jews. He tried to take over Europe and he and his nazis destroyed Europe and dropped bombs onto civilian areas especially in London killing more innocent people. In London alone more than 40,000 civilians were killed by bombs [2]. Bad as defined by dictionary.com [3] : not good in any manner or degree. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible [1] http://www.history.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Nazis were bad people. Hitler was a bad man

Furer only punished those who were evil. 6 million weren't killed, there's no evidence of that. "Based on the total population before the holocaust and the total population 5 years later, it's impossible that 6 million of anyone were killed."[1] Even if 6 million were killed so what? Sometimes that many people need to die. I'm not racist but some jews need to die. Even the most liberal person must admit that most black people need to die. You're whole argument is based on the assumption Hitler killed 6 million jews. [1] Hartmen, Bob How many were killed? What the evidence shows (1997)
Nazis were bad people. Hitler was a bad man

you have no proof that any of those quotes are real. You cannot possibly believe that 6 million Jews had to die to punish their race. They Jews did nothing wrong. Hitler was an evil man that wanted to take over the world and eradicate an entire race of people. Anyone that would order the murder of 6 million Jews is not a good man. The murdering of 6 millions Jews can never be considered good to any sane person. Hitler may have been a very influential person but he did nothing that was good. Your argument has no factual structure. Good: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Bible is not inerrant

Well my opponent says what makes sense to him. But you have a written record of two counting of the fighting men if Israel. Sorry God not logical. I simply explained the written word. I clearly said many women were called Mary. I still am looking to see your error. You say Satan did not move David to number Israel. The bible clearly says: 1Ch_21:1, And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. These two events were years apart, explains the different numbering, 2Sa_24:1, And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. This a waste of time because God not logical according to your standard. The bible is clear. Isa_55:8, For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Isa_55:9, For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isa_55:10, For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: Isa_55:11, So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
The Bible is not inerrant

The bible is a Hebrew document using English only, and ignore the Hebrew meanings, causes your errors. Example; the bible refers to unicorns but referring to the Strongs or Lexicon #7214, a unicorn is a wild bull. So yes there were unicorns on Noah's ark. It is a waste of time discussing the bible while ignoring the Hebrew meanings, and culture, simply because words change over time to mean different things to different people. My opponent says: Joab did not number the men of Israel twice. First numbering found in 2 Samuel 24:9. Notice the correct context, of who gave the order: 2Sa_24:1, And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. Second Numbering found in Chronicles 24:9 Notice the context, and who gave the order: 1Ch_21:1, And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 1Ch_21:2, And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. Next issue of Josiah recorded in three places by three witnesses who saw it and recorded what they say. They all agree Josiah was dead by and arrow. All three agree that actual cause of the last breath of Josiah was the arrow. They most likely rushed him to a doctor to be saved, so that witness would say that he died in Jerusalem. I say no error about Josiah. Smiths Bible Dictionary say's Josiah was mortally wounded (Good as Dead) and died on the way to Jerusalem. Jeremiah cried over Josiah no error. The charge here is false, petty, and of no substance. Next my opponent will say there is just one Mary in the New Testament. He uses one verse from a different witness oraccounts and assumes that all four accounts or groups of men and the women arrived at the exact same time. The stories using common sense clearly is telling you they got there at different times, to answer the simple riddle. The angelic appearance before the women "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it." -Matthew 28:2 (That is who rolled the stone away.) "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed." -Mark 16:5 (So these people had no need to roll a stone they simply walked in.) "While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them." - Luke 28:4 (Again these guys saw two men.) I fail to see your point. "...and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot." -John 20:12 So, did the angel descend from heaven in front of the women and then roll the stone away in their presence and sit down upon it? Or did they find the stone rolled away and enter to find an angel sitting inside? Or did they enter and have two angels suddenly appear standing beside them? Or did they enter to find two angels sitting inside?
The Bible is not inerrant

Nice try! The same war and the same people but not the same time, David like Christ was rejected and even ran away from his own son Absalom. Wars were not won in one battle. Yes my opponent is speaking of two different battles of the same war in the same era but not the same exact time. Again my opponent speaks of grandchildren given the same name as the the grandfather. Josiah was the grandson of Josiah Sr. Not the same guy do your homework. Again he takes a verse from one account and mixes it in to create a lie. Example; 4 people see the same thing but give different accounts? Yet lie not. Why? They saw it from different angles. Who says all the disciples came to the tomb at he exact time as my opponent says? Again same event different times or angles.
The Bible is not inerrant

Thank you for accepting, Con.I shall now present some contradictions to be found within the pages of Holy Writ.The number of fighting men in Israel"Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand." -2 Samuel 24:9"Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah." -1 Chronicles 21:5Here we have two records of the same event that clearly contradict each other on the point of how many warriors there were in Israel.The place of Josiah's death"In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, and Pharaoh Neco killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him. And his servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father's place." -2 Kings 23:29-30"And the archers shot King Josiah. And the king said to his servants, "Take me away, for I am badly wounded." So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. And he died and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah." -2 Chronicles 35:23-24Did King Josiah die instantly at the battle of Megiddo and then have his dead body transported to Jerusalem, or was he wounded at Megiddo and then carried alive to Jerusalem where he died?The angelic appearance before the women"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it." -Matthew 28:2"As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed." -Mark 16:5"While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them." - Luke 28:4"...and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot." -John 20:12So, did the angel descend from heaven in front of the women and then roll the stone away in their presence and sit down upon it? Or did they find the stone rolled away and enter to find an angel sitting inside? Or did they enter and have two angels suddenly appear standing beside them? Or did they enter to find two angels sitting inside?ConclusionI look forward to Con's response. I may present more examples of error later in the debate.
The Bible is not inerrant

You show me an error in the bible and I will show you, ignorance babbling something out of context, ignoring the Hebrew culture or roots of the scripture. There is History, Laws, Proverbs, that all point to Christ. The bible is the story/facts about one man Adam/Christ/Alpha/Omega/Adam/Christ. Who is the bride of Christ? Eve/Israel=Children of God! God's family rejected Him. So now is the time of the Gentiles. Rev_22:17, And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Joh_1:11, He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
The Classic Camaro is better then the New Camaro

The Classic Camaro is better then the new Camaro in many ways. The original Camaro embodied the American spirit in every way. Horsepower, Speed, a winning nature, and was all its own. The body lines were clean, straight, and made to catch the eye of anyone on the street or strip that was looking for a good race. Nothing says fast like the hideaway headlight behind the all black in layed grill and sleek two door coupe design. The raw power of the unrestricted 327, 350, or 426 were the way the original Camaro was able to become such a menace to other muscle cars on the road. This is why the Original Camaro is better then the New Camaro.
The Classic Camaro is better then the New Camaro

Beauty is of opinion, better in cars is ,more effective, safer, faster, etc. A car being safer or faster is not an opinion its a matter of face beauty is not. What others say is beautiful others will say is ugly its a subjective thing. My opponent has failed to refute the facts that the new car is faster and safer with the breaks. 1. On a race track the New vs the Old the new would win, why? I gave you evidence, its not my opinion when the New one goes 110.8 miles per hour in 12.9 seconds and the Old goes only 98.7 miles per hour in 14.8 seconds. The new one would win, its just simple deduction. 2. He goes on and says :"Though the classic camaro has its disadvantages up directly up against the camaro it can clearly hold its own in power and control for how old it really is. " This is pointless just cause it is decent doesn't make it better, it can hold it own yes can it win no. Plus when you add new parts to the car you are changing your argument is the old version better than then new version not is my custom version of the old version better than just the new version. .. .. . no if that were the case I am sure I can find parts to make the New better than your custom version of the old. 3. When in this argument stock parts is needed because the "classic camero" means classic parts classic seat classic everything you cant argue classic car with new parts verses new car that is not the resolution. Also I think he said they are dead even if you were to agree with him you cannot vote for his side or mine because he advocates a tie.
The Classic Camaro is better then the New Camaro

Opponent states that better is just how fast it is and how it brakes. Nothing else about the vehicle plays a roll in making it better or worse then any other vehicle on the road. If how beautiful or ugly a car is does not play a roll in it being better or worse then the other car then nothing would have changed on the car since the 1960s till today in 2012 except the motor and the brakes. Basing that argument merely on opinion that beauty and lines do not play a roll is preposterous. The opponent has no evidence that the new camaro would or would not win on a track compared to the old, merely his opinion on the matter. In this video you can see that the new and classic are near even with each other on all runs. Proving that the classic and new camaro, in the real world instead of just numbers, are pretty much dead even. http://www.youtube.com...
The Classic Camaro is better then the New Camaro

My opponents argument pretty much is the new car is better but its speed would never be allowed and its breaks may be better but modern day traction control wouldn't allow to reach its limits... And the old is better looking.... Ok I object to the arguments after the source, this is because the arguments are based clearly on opinion. The debate is which is better, not which is more beautiful. Better does not mean more beautiful, if i gave a ugly pinto a V8 engine and gave a Ford 2011 Mustang a 4 cylinder the pinto would be faster. For the actual point of the limits of the cars, on a race track the new one would win. And the breaks are better still this wasn't attack.
The Classic Camaro is better then the New Camaro

Though you are correct in your argument, both cars are subject to time period. The technological advances for the new camaro put it at a disadvantage. With modern day traction control and body control management it does not allow you to fully drive the vehicle to its limits. Yes the new camaro is faster, but it is only as fast (from factory) that the government will allow. The classic camaro was as fast as it could be with the technology that was developed at the time. If tthe 5 or 6 speed would have helped the older v8 reacher higher top speeds to that of the current camaro. The modern day air bags have been know to go off when pushing the camaro to its full potention on the track and street. *see link* http://m.youtube.com... Though the classic camaro has its disadvantages up directly up against the camaro it can clearly hold its own in power and control for how old it really is. Then there is the looks, the new camaro does not even come close to the beauty and lines of the classic camaro. The sleek lines and touches that made it a true american classic. The black inlay grill with hide away headlights and red rs or ss badging really set it apart from the crowd. Unlike its current day brother that just blends into the crowd. The interior, plain but functional was elegant in its own way. With the "leather" trimmed front bucket seats was a classic look that still looks gorgeous to this day. It was nothing crazy with huge bulsters and colors, it was simple, clean, and functional. The wood grand dash and center console with the 4-speed manual or the 3-speed automatic with a billet pistol grip or simple knob pulled the center together.
The Classic Camaro is better then the New Camaro

Chevrolet Camaro 1969 SS396(old camero) 2011 SS(New camero) Base price (2011 $) $3091 ($18,400) $31,795 Price as tested (2011 $) $4175 ($24,850) $37,740 Vehicle layout Front-engine, RWD, 4-pass, 2-door coupe Engine 6.5/375-hp/415-lb-ft OHV 16-valve V-8 6.2L/426-hp/420-lb-ft OHV 16-valve V-8 Transmission 4-speed manual 6-speed manual Curb weight (f/r dist) 3550 lb (55/45% est) 3891 lb (52/48%) Wheelbase 108.0 in 112.3 in Length x width x height 186.0 x 74.0 x 51.1 in 190.4 x 75.5 x 54.2 in 0-60 mph 6.8 sec* 4.6 sec Quarter mile 14.8 sec @ 98.7 mph* 12.9 sec @ 110.8 mph Braking, 60-0 mph 143 ft* 112 ft *1969 test results and weight from Car Life, May 1969, exc braking, from MT, May 1968 test of 1969. Vintage hp/torgue specs SAE gross, new car SAE net Read more: http://www.motortrend.com... Argument proven by chart that the new Camero is faster going to 110.08 mph in 12.9 seconds while the old Camero goes 98.7 mph in 14.8 seconds as well as break time. Both at 60 to 0 mph the new stops at 112ft while the old stops at 143ft. The new one may be more expensive but it is way surpasses the old.
Migrated workers and their rights

Pro has no evidence, thus his argument is worthless. I would also like to point out his grammar is not correct. However, let's get back to this topic. Pro is saying that people, no matter their beliefs, should have rights. However, I would like to ask him how this relates to the topic? He is not showing that worker's don't have rights, which should be his main objective. Workers do have rights today. Yes, in every occupation we are working toward the better, but worker's are not suffering. The Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, announced in February that workers would be paid while on their sick leave. The order requires employers that contract with the federal government to provide their employees with up to seven days of paid sick leave annually, including family care and absences resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Since there isn't much to say, this is all I have for this round. Pro, mind you that you cannot bring up any new points in the next round. Thank you.
Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama

In this debate, I will argue that President Ronald Reagan was better than President Barack Obama in terms of policy. No trolling or semantics.Structure:Round 1: Acceptance onlyRound 2: Opening argumentsRound 3: Rebuttals/refutationsRound 4: Defend argumentsRound 5: Final rebuttals/defenses + conclusionFailure to follow structure will result in automatic DQ. First user to forfeit gets a DQ. If one user cannot debate the other, then this must be discussed between the two for an agreement and both must confirm in debate rounds to end in a tie.
Flat tax is the best from of taxation

Greetings, First of all, I must say that Con's insistence on quoting the lyrics of a song is certainly unusual. But it's now become worse than that. Con's claim that I should be penalized for conduct is vey annoying and equally burdensome. Conduct is how one acts in a debate, especially in regards to one's language. I would argue that conduct does not extend to satisfying the eccentric proclivities of one's opponent. Since I am not required by Debate.org to obey my opponent, I see no reasons why I should be punished for my polite refusal to comply. With that settled, I move on to defining my proposal of a flat tax. The flat tax is can be defined in a myriad of ways, but there is a common theme holding all definitions. However the amount is calculated, the centric idea of a flat tax is that everyone pays the same figure. Instead of a gradual (i.e. proportional or progressive) tax, the flat tax imposes an equal figure on the entire citizenry, Rich or poor, everyone pays the same amount. [1] In general, the flat tax has its benefits, among which include: [2] - Simplified tax code (less administrative costs and legal headache). - Pro-growth economic stance: flat tax predictability encourages risk-taking and, by extension, growth. - Fairness: It is only right that each citizen should pay his government the same amount as his peers since all of them receive the same equal protection of their rights vis-"-vis security. Now, my proposal: Rather than being based on percentages (like the one Con is arguing against), I propose a monetary flat tax, meaning that the cost of government is equally divided among the taxpayers. For example, if the cost of government were $10, and there happened to be only 10 taxpayers, each taxpayer would only pay $1 regardless of their personal wealth. Thanks for reading! I look forward to Con's response. Sources: [1] Boudreau, Brita, and Thomas M. Dalton. "Simulating A Flat Tax Model." CPA Journal 83.10 (2013): 14. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2016. [2]http://www.heritage.org...