BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Formal letters are completely unnecessary

Formal letters aren't necessary because the writer or the sender will not be able to completely express him/herself due to fact that the entire letter is polite and simple. Nothing more, nothing less. And if someone writes a letter that isn't formal and sends to the person/people in authority, it could be discarded and considered as rubbish which just shows that our opinions and feelings and voices can't be heard until they're expressed in a particular, subtle, polite way.
Preemptive Strikes

ISSUE: How do we know these so called "professionals" even if there are professionals on war which I dont think any exist aren't just making false cases to back up pacifism? P1. Genocide on your hands? No the genocide wouldn't be on the defending nations hands. The foreign power which is threatening your sovereignty is the one who causes the genocide. The true aggressor is the one who fuels the other side into war. It simple, the North Koreans during the 1950s weren't the aggressors, the United States was. The US talked about the "Domino Effect" and eliminating communism in Asia and the North Koreans felt heavily threatened so they launched an attack on the only spot they could possible access point to the DPRK for the Americans, the South. P2. Increases terrorism? I dont understand how preemptive strikes can cause terrorism? I listed that some preemptive strikes that turned into short wars but the fact still remains that the wars were short and swift and very successful. And very little does a preemptive strike cause easier access to weaponry. It would be even more secure then due to a nations security being heightened. P3. Sure the killings came after the invasion of Poland, but the laws could have gave an alert that it was soon going to happen. Nations around the world could have easily predicted that the severity of the laws enacted by the NSDAP against the Jewish people. Its a basic puzzle, removing all rights in a society for one group is the last step toward genocide for that group. P4. The Vietnamese war with Cambodia was preemptive Pol Pot saw the Vietnamese as "revisionist" and that he didn't approve of them. It is seen in the vast difference in policies between the two nations. Those guerillas weren't making any grounds, so hence to allow them to gain grounds the Vietnamese had to take preemptive measures to protect their land from a possible Cambodian invasion of Vietnam. Voting Issues: 1. Please remember that my opponent in the first half of the debate rarely ever used his words where he instead used these "professionals" whom cannot be trusted .
Preemptive Strikes

"When external and internal forces hostile to the development of socialism try to turn the development of a given socialist country in the direction of the restoration of the capitalist system, when a threat arises to the cause of socialism in that country " this is no longer merely a problem for that country's people, but a common problem, the concern of all socialist countries." ~ Leonid Brezhnev A preemptive strike is necessary to protect the international proletariat from oppression. Sure war may be evil. But there are those small cases where war is needed to free a population or protect your own people from a foreign power which is threatening the very existence of your people and your nation. In this debate I will list necessary preemptive strikes in history which protected a nation and possibly reduced the death toll. Also I will list when I preemptive strike could have been done, but the leader chose not to which would result in costly war.
Preemptive Strikes

Acclaimed author Isaac Asimov once declared, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." This is the essential crux of this debate--is violence justifiable. Topic: That the preemptive initiation of war is, on balance, morally justified. Round One: acceptance, rules, and definitions. Rules: No new arguments or evidence in the final round. Stay on topic. No swearing/personal attacks. Burdens: "On balance" means "generally; in most cases." Therefore, the Pro should show that preemptive initiations of war are usually morally justified. Con should show that such actions are generally not morally justified. Provisos: (1) By accepting, you agree to rules, burdens, provisos, and definitions--if you want to change a definition, just post a comment before the end of round one, (2) "preemptive initiation" is not the same as joining in a war or military conflict that is already ongoing, (3) by "war" I'm not necessarily implying that a conflict must be declared, but it should be long-term, (5) this is a philosophical debate, and I urge you to rely on philosophy, not just statistics/empirics, and, finally, (5) let's rule out talking about initiating civil war. Definitions: Preemptive - to forestall or prevent another from doing something, in this case, to prevent the other side form initiating war first Initiate - to do the first act; begin War - "The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be both intentional and widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. The onset of war requires a conscious commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until the fighters intend to go to war and until they do so with a heavy quantum of force." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Morally Justified - defensible under the common precepts of moral conduct, right vs. wrong. Feel free to offer your own definition of "moral conduct." Thanks in advance for accepting. I look forward to the debate.
should we vote because of race gender or words

Race and gender are valid things to base your vote off of. I will attempt to convince the readers of this. Voting is a democratic process. When voting, a person is letting their voice be heard - their decisions and views are having some impact on the country as a whole. Consider, then, that some people are still racist or sexist. Some people think that a woman cannot run the government, or that only a white man should be in power. Others think that we need something revolutionary to happen, such as a woman or a black man to hold the highest office in this country. While these are perhaps not the most agreeable stances to you or I, they are people's beliefs nonetheless. A person should vote based on their beliefs, whether you agree with those beliefs or not. This isn't a country where you have less of a say if you hold certain beliefs, or at least it shouldn't be. Everyone should vote based on what they think is right, and if race or gender end up changing someone's vote, that's their decision and they should make it. So, in summation: People should vote based on what they believe is best. Some people believe that women and/or blacks need to either be kept from or be given office at all costs. Those people should still vote based on what they believe, regardless of the reasons behind their belief.
Stalin was an effective leader

After considering all the evidence posed in this debate, it has become clear that Joseph Stalin was an effective leader for the Soviet Union. Stalin's leadership wasn't without its flaws, but he had very positive impact on the the USSR. To be completely honest, the Soviets probably would have lost on the eastern front if it wasn't for Stalin radical changes. However, the voters should consider the cost of these reforms and if Stalin could have preserved the fledgling USSR without said cost. Was the Holodomor a justified price for the eventual success of collectivization? Could the Five Year Plans have been more successful? Did Stalin's military purges weaken the Red Army during the early stages of the war? You decide!
Stalin was an effective leader

1. Population and Prosperity My opponent disagrees with me and points out several examples of nations who do not follow the "prosperity=population" idea that I presented. I may have explained this poorly in the previous round and I apologize, but it's not the raw population, but rather the growth/decay of the population. My opponent brings up Japan as an example to counter this. By looking at the graphs in the two links below, it can be seen that drops in population often coincide with drops in GDP. It is well known that the two factors are closely related. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... http://www.tradingeconomics.com... http://www.nytimes.com... "Stalin did succeed in increasing agricultural output long term, but at a tremendous human cost." But what from what I understand, even such a human cost was not large enough to cause a decline in the population. While Stalin could've been more careful in the process of collectivization, it seems that there seem to be no negative, long term effects and in the end, the agricultural revolution pays off. 2. Five Year Plans "My comment about Stalin not meeting the production goal is meant to illustrate the early success of the Five Year Plan did not last nearly to the same degree in later plans." The effect was still, however, enormous and positive. "I could find any other sort of information relating to the USSR's industrial output other than GDP." In my previous argument, I provided information about the phenomenal growth of the USSR's GDP prior to World War II as a result of the Five Year Plans. It seems that the Five Year Plans were undeniably a huge success. 3. Military Purges Our positions are the same on this issue. 4. Standard of Living "I concede that quality of life did increase in the USSR under Stalin." And this is precisely my point. While the quality of life may not have matched other nations, Stalin made huge improvements, which show his effectiveness as a leader. "Also, the working conditions of the Gulags were shockingly inhumane. At the height of the Gulag system under Stalin, 5 million were sent to these forced labor camps. These people ought to be considered." My opponent notes "At the HEIGHT of the Gulag system...", which should be taken into account. My opponent hasn't really shown what harm the Gulag brought the nation as a whole, which is what he must show in order to really use this as a point against Stalin's effective leadership. Even if my opponent does show how this was harmful to the entire nation, I highly doubt that this harm would be significant enough to counter all of the improvements that occurred under Stalin. 5. Military industrialization "Even with strides in industrial development, Soviet industry still lagged behind significantly." Once again, my opponent makes comparisons to other nations. The key here is that massive improvement was made. Stalin did not worsen the situation, he significantly bettered it. As a result, I don't see how one could argue that he was a poor or ineffective leader. I await my opponent's response.
Beloved classic children's books being made into hollywood movies

Thanks, and good luck to you! I'll get the hang of things eventually, I'm sure :) I don't think children should have a hard time translating what they read into visual (in other words imagining). The imagination of child is an amazing and powerful thing, but it needs to be nurtured, and given exercise. Bored children who don't want to do anything but play video games and watch television are a product of the today's society. It's unhealthy for both their mind's and bodies and it's been a major concern with parents basically since television was invented. Watching a movie is like being spoon-fed. Almost no effort is required from the viewer. No offence but it's a poor excuse to say that movies are just easier to understand than books for children. Crawling is easier than walking for a babies but they have to learn and are better off for it. You made a good point bringing up Shakespeare though, I agree that the great classics have the ability to stand the test of time, even bad movies ;) I'm not really bothered by adult literature being adapted though, more the children's classics. Unfortunately, I think that many of the great children's authors would turn in their graves if they knew how film-industries like hollywood (...actually probably only hollywood) uses their books to create (in most cases) soulless money-making franchises. To augment my point, here is a quote from Christopher Tolkien, the son and custodian of the works of JRR Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit and many other amazing children books, regarding Peter Jackson's adaption of Lord of the Rings: "They gutted the book, making an action movie for 15-25 year olds. And it seems that The Hobbit will be of the same ilk." JRR Tolkien himself, while he was still alive, was apparently greatly disturbed about how his books and ideas were being treated by pop culture. If I'm not mistaken, he explicitly did not want any movie or any visual representation to made of his book for the very reason I have stated. He wanted children to use their own imaginations.
Beloved classic children's books being made into hollywood movies

Disclaimer response: Hey, I just got started on this website too. No worries! Good luck. :) I believe that books should be made into movies, if the author wants them to be. Children often enjoy movies because it's often hard to translate what they are reading into a visual, so at a young age, it's a lot easier to learn and understand by watching a movie. Also, not allowing children to watch television and movies will bore them, so it's better to let them pick and chose between movie and book. Yes, the books that you are frustrated about because they are being made into 'bad' movies can still be classics, and still be cherished, but take Shakespeare for example. (Not exactly a children's writer, but still a good example.) He created plays and poems over 400 years ago, and his work is still being altered and adapted, and many historians and professors are okay with that. When a book, poem, etc. is being referenced or altered into something new, it's a good thing. Their work has inspired. So, honestly, I think children's books SHOULD be made into movies. I have proven my point because it's a lot easier to understand, and the idea always sticks.
Beloved classic children's books being made into hollywood movies

Disclaimer: This is my first debate (on this website). I did a formal debate once at school, so I am aware that there are certain rules/etiquette, but otherwise I'm pretty clueless about how to go about this or how best to use this website. Anyway here goes... It saddens me when I hear that yet another famous classic children's book is being made into yet another hollywood blockbuster movie. It is a well-known and very evident fact that movies fall short (sometimes hard on their faces) when interpreting written work into visual form. There are exceptions of course, many great book-adapted films have been made, but the risk is always there, and even still, how often have you heard someone say "The book was better."? Besides the money-making aspect (which is only there because people are already fans of the book), I don't understand why so many film-makers take the risk. More and more, I am beginning to feel that it's actually fundamentally wrong to do this, especially when it comes to classic children's books! Here I will list the problems I see (some can be applied to book-adapted films in general): 1. Children's books are (usually) designed to A. encourage children to READ, and B. use their OWN IMAGINATION. 2. With the above in mind, if the movie is seen before reading the book, it will inevitably influence the readers imagining of what he/she is reading because everything was "pre-imagined" for them by the movie-makers. 3. As already stated, movies (being visual) cannot possibly include everything that's in a book so they are forced to leave out A LOT. 4. Due to the time factor (squashing everything into a few hours of viewing) they are forced to leave out a lot. 5. In order to be marketable, they will often alter the story/characters/theme of the book, often producing something that is very different from what the author originally intended. 6. Classic literature is supposed to be our heritage. Like a world heritage sight, it should be left untouched. 7. Books are just better. Film-makers (especially in this day and age) are fully capable of making something new and original.
Beloved classic children's books being made into hollywood movies

I do too enjoy a good book, but movies are just part of entertainment and it's culture. There's nothing that will ever stop directors from creating and adapting. I think when you are very young, and don't understand much, and aren't fluent in reading, a movie is the best route for a parent to take in stimulating their child's brain. In the long run, I think movies are a great way for everyone to have fun and often times, learn. Classic books are still something that can be loved and celebrated, but people also have to realize that movies will also be just as fun.
Beloved classic children's books being made into hollywood movies

I agree that movies do stimulate the brain and imagination to some extent but film-makers don't need to adapt classic children's books to achieve that. It's just easier for them, they don't have to think up something new and they are guaranteed a market and lots of profit (which isn't necessarily a good thing, when lots of money is involved people can become a bit silly and short-sighted). Literature (like painting, dancing, also film-making) is art and great works of art need to be treated with care and respect because they are far more valuable than any amount of money. To close my argument I would just like say this. When I was about six years old, my mother read the Hobbit to me (and after that, the Lord of the Rings), just a chapter or two every night before I went to bed. I was young and she had to explain a lot as she read, but I understood everything well enough and I will thank her for the rest of my days for it. It took a long time to read (far, far longer than the all of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings movies put together) and it was a purely magical, amazing experience that I will always cherish! It took a bit of practice (learning to use my imagination) but soon enough, every night, listening to my mother's voice, I was transported, through my imagination, right "into" the story. I wasn't just watching things unfold on a screen, I was right there besides the characters, actually experiencing the adventure in my mind! Everything seemed almost real to me. This is the power of the imagination and good literature. Later on in life I read those books myself and had just as much fun, and it helped me to do the same thing with others books. I was very very lucky that I had mom who had the time and energy to read to me when I was young. Not everyone is so fortunate, but I highly recommend that every parent does this with their children. It's so much more mentally engaging and memorable than watching a movie. I really can't say if the experience would have been better or worse if I'd seen the movies first, but I do believe that I would have been greatly influenced by them. All I know is that I am very glad that I didn't see them and I wish for children in this generation to have the same amazing experience that I did. That's it. Thanks, I enjoyed this discussion! :)
Beloved classic children's books being made into hollywood movies

I think children should watch the movies before the books, especially when they're at the stage in their life where they can't read fluently. Movies stimulate the brain and imagination. As a child, a movie will get their minds running and will help them grow. Books are almost always made into movies when they're popular. It's part of the entertainment industry, and movies are a great thing for the whole family to enjoy. Even if a child watches a few movies growing up, they won't necessarily become a couch potato or such as you mentioned above. Watching movies is a part of growing up, and it sticks throughout life. Also, making big-hit movies out of classic books makes the producers and the author lots of cash, so in the end, it's really doing them a favor to adapt to the story written.
Aid for Schistosomiasis

Schistosomiasis is a parasitic disease caused by several species of flatworm. The acute form of schistosomiasis is sometimes known as snail fever and cutaneous schistosomiasis is sometimes commonly called swimmer's itch. The disease affects many people in developing countries, and in certain African communities and east Asia, the process of overcoming schistosomiasis is an important rite of passage. We need to give aid to Schistosomiasis victims to improve Africa.
Aid for Schistosomiasis

My opponent asserts that we should give free aid to Africans suffering from Schistosomiasis. He does not give a valid line of reasoning to support this, other than the vague notion that "it's the right thing to do." If Africans should get free aid for their medical problems, I should get free aid for mine. And I don't. Also, my opponent failed to respond, so I have no more to say. Hopefully my opponent will make a showing for round 3.
Aid for Schistosomiasis

This is perhaps going to sound heartless, but it is simply an argument. People in Africa should not be given aid for schistosomiasis. Why? They have done nothing to deserve it. This is a world where we find ways to satisfy our own needs: if I'm hungry, I buy some food; if I'm in need of a place to live, I rent an apartment, buy a home, or help out a friend in exchange for being able to crash at his house for a while; if I'm bored, I buy a videogame or something else with which to entertain myself, and/or find friends who wish to have some mutual enjoyment together; if I'm sick, I buy medicine and medical attention. The point? No one need be 'given' aid for anything. If they want aid, they should trade for it. It's ridiculous to simply give it to them. If we're going to give away free medication and medical care to Africa, we should first have free medication and medical care here. Perhaps if medication was, as the saying goes, "growing on trees," it would be viable. However, that is not the case. Also, as my opponent said, "The process of overcoming schistosomiasis is an important rite of passage." Giving them aid would be like letting them cheat on this oh-so-important rite of passage. Truthfully, Con
Russel Westbrook is not a top three point guard

I'm going to leave this last round short and to the point, but first of all I'm not really sure what you're debating here. The title of your debate is "Westbrook is not a top three point guard," and yet you're now telling me that you never said Westbrook is a top three as if I am saying that's your argument. Your debate title was a blanket statement to start off, then you told me that you meant he isn't top three this season right after telling me you meant to debate his not being top three of current point guards. I gave you reasons why I believe he is top three point guard this season. I'm confused as to what exactly you're trying to debate here.Westbrook is the best point guard this season. He is definitely top three point guards of players still playing today. There isn't much to argue about that. When a player averages a triple double over half the season with 24 triple doubles half way through, it's hard to argue against him being top three point guards in the league this season. Averaging over 5 turnovers a game is definitely not good, but when you average over ten assists a game and over 30 points per game, it can almost be forgiven.Your final argument seems to be the fact you believe Westbrook isn't a top three point guard this season, so I'll definitely call you out on that. I think anyone who knows the NBA and basketball overall, would not argue him being top three this season.