BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Hitler vs Justin Bieber

Arguments for why Hitler is a better person then Justin Bieber"Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust, in which he orchestrated the killing of over nine million Jews -one of which was Anne Frank"Ok first argument: The Holocaust....... Was a good thing. The Jew's are God's chosen people, as evidenced by how they built the Pyramids, and the stock market, and currently control the worlds media. I mean come on, its obvious! When the Jews left Egypt they wandered in the desert for 40 years to find the one place in the Middle East THAT DIDNT HAVEE ANY OIL.... Why would God send his chosen people to a place that didnt have oil? So that the US wouldnt invade them for the oil two thousand years later, Duh!http://www.bible-study.cocareers.com...http://rense.com...http://theunjustmedia.com...The Jews are Gods chosen people, Hitler was just doing God's work by sending 9 million of them to Heaven. How many people has Justin Bieber sent to heaven? ZERO. Lets look at the scoreboard:Hitler: 9,000,000Bieber: 0"Justin Bieber hoped that Anne Frank (who is probably the "Dobby" of the Holocaust) would have been a "Belieber." Based on what we know of Anne (that she was a young girl at some point) she probably would have."Oh come on. Why would Anne Frank ever be a Belieber? Millions of idiots blindly following one psycopath was why she was hiding in her attic in the first place!!!!!On another note if Anne Frank was a Belieber, then Hitler did society a favor by killing her...."Hitler is historically condemned for being one of the most evil men in all of recorded human history."Just because a majority of people believe something it doesnt mean they are right....http://www.debate.org..."Justin Bieber is barely a man... he"s 19. How could a teenager be that bad?"My second argument: A list of terrible things that Justin Bieber has done in his life1) Made the Song 'Baby'.... Hitler has not done that2) Inflated his twitter followers just because he wanted to be number 1 (http://www.pcmag.com...) Hitler has never done anything rash to try to be number 13) Caused a generation of 13 year old girls to have sh*tty taste in music, which cause other people like Nicki Minaj and One Direction to come to power. Hitler has never caused sh*tty singers to become popular4) Bieber has done nothing to help a countries economy recover or reduce unemployment. Hitler has: (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...)5) Bieber inadvertently killed a paparazzi guy, Hitler never did: (http://www.cnn.com...)6) Justin Bieber can be rearranged to spell 'Neuter Jbibs', Jbibs being the shortened version of Justin Bieber, meaning that Bieber's own name implies he should not be allowed to reproduce. Hitler's name doesnt do that7) SCIENCE HAS ACTUALLY PROVEN THAT BIEBER SUCKS. (http://www.webpronews.com...) Science hasnt done the same to Hitler8) Bieber insulted Mariah Carrey, Hitler never did (http://www.magforwomen.com...)9) Bieber annoyed all of England, Hitler didnt do that (http://www.guardian.co.uk...)I rest my case for now and am open to hearing what possible arguments exist that Bieber is somehow less evil then Hitler....
Resolved: Hitler vs Justin Bieber

I accept.In this first round, I’ll analyze the resolution, outline who Justin Bieber is, who Hitler was.Analyzing the Resolution:PRO will be arguing that Bieber is indeed worse then Hitler. I will be arguing that Bieber is not worse than Hitler, which could mean that either Hitler was as bad as Bieber or that Hitler was worse.Some Useless Information:There are many commonalities among Justin Bieber and Hitler. Both arose from humble means, in obscure places. Biebz was born in Stratford, Ontario to working class parents. Hitler was born in an equally obscure inn in Austria-Hungary. Hitler’s father was a bastard child and his mother was equally worthless. Fun fact: the surname “Hitler” means “one who lives in a hut” in German. Even though the Bieber surname is actually of German origin, at least the Biebz wasn’t descended from hut-dwelling peasants. Both the Biebz and Hitler were artistically inclined; for Bieber it was music, for Hitler it was painting. Unlike Bieber, Hitler’s creative proffering were as worthless as his whore grandmother. Yes... Hitler’s grandmother was a whore. You just learned that. Mention it at your next history class. If it wasn’t for Hitler’s grandmother’s licentiousness, the Holocaust might have been avoided. Think about that the next time you want to have sex before you are married. Some moderately useful information:Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust, in which he orchestrated the killing of over nine million Jews -one of which was Anne Frank. The debate on whether or not her diary is pornographic is still out. Justin Bieber hoped that Anne Frank (who is probably the “Dobby” of the Holocaust) would have been a “Belieber.” Based on what we know of Anne (that she was a young girl at some point) she probably would have.Hitler is historically condemned for being one of the most evil men in all of recorded human history. Justin Bieber is barely a man... he’s 19. How could a teenager be that bad?I think we all get the picture...I’ll post my argument in the next round.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.cnn.com...
Human Cloning

I agree that laws cannot be fully made prior to more understanding of how cloning will work. But the discussions have to be had prior to it becoming reality. People must be educated before the issue is there and huge. The clones being possibly brain dead is also a very important thing to discuss. At that point the body autonomy aspect and whether they have full human rights is extremely important. Who gets to choose how long they live and how their lives are ended? There are just so many issues to be discussed before millions of dollars of government founding in funneled into it.
Human Cloning

First statement, blatant contradiction, cloning a human organ is human cloning, just not a 10 on what that hypothetical spectrum would be, and second giving an infertile couple a child through cloning is in fact cloning. As for what the world is ready for and what it isn't really isn't up to the world to decide. Looking at it as science, we don't get to decide what's right and wrong just what's possible. Let law makers debate and decide, let people vote, work that side out however you want, but the science side will come first. We can't debate what rights a fully functioning clone would have because we haven't made one. It would be like debating if we could make a sentient dog, yeah it might get more rights than a normal dog, but we aren't going to talk about it until it exists at least from a legal standpoint. Until then its just scientific theory, and won't have laws made around it because its just too out there at the moment. As for government testing with a theoretical science I can't say what they will or won't do, for all we know maybe they start with one guy and he signs away all his rights to himself and his genetic makeup and they go from there. Who's to say the first thousand won't be brain dead, non sentient organ sacs, until that testing actually shows results of something we can turn our eye to the legal side of things, until such I believe it is to early, and we should not intervene in the growth of this science.
Human Cloning

"We could reverse the process of aging, grow new organs, repair failing organs with genetically modified stem cells, gene therapy, elimination of genetic disease, possible elimination of caner, and once technology is there that ability to give genetic children to infertile couples." None of your examples require full human cloning. Those can all be done without running into the issues I mentioned previously. I believe the world is ready for advances like you mentioned, those are not what I am speaking against. What the world is not ready for is somatic cell nucleolus swapping where a full clone is "born" either through implanting into a womb or through other technological means. As for your point of it being expensive and therefore automatic age difference between clone and original you are wrong. Yes, it will be expensive, but it wont be a private sector maneuver, at least not completely. The government will be a large part so that means choosing people of whom to clone where variables can be seen. Experiments with clones will most likely be very similar to the twin experiments of yesteryear. Wanting to see how much the clone would resemble the original given change in circumstances. For proper experimental process the two should be near the same age. This means cloning either newborns or even prior to birth. Meaning, although you are correct that within the private sector there will be a drastic age difference, at least within the researching phase there will not be an immense difference.
Human Cloning

Of course the system would need a complete overhaul, we're talking about a completely new branch of science. Of course there will be hundreds of different things that various people from scientists to law makers would need to discuss and that will take time and be its own process. Just because laws aren't around today is no reason to stop looking into the technology and its benefits. As for talking about crime because we don't have technology yet, we are speaking in a completely hypothetical realm. That being the case I can hypothetically, and reasonably say cloning yourself or anyone for that matter is going to cost exorbitant amount of money especially in the early days. From that point we can deduce even if there isn't a registry, even though I think it's fair to say that there would be, it would still be easy to prove if there was a clone involved it whatever crime. From that point finding the original would be easy, and then can be brought down to traditional police work, comparing alibis , likely hood, motive ect ect. We also aren't considering the fact that because of the cost to make a clone it is likely that you couldn't afford to make one until you were older, lets say 35 just to have a number. That means that there is a 35 year age difference between you and the second you, even if genetically you're identical you aren't the same age which would eliminate most crime case where both beings could be responsible. You're next statement is most valid saying a clone may have to give up an organ, its also the biggest hole in the argument because we're debating a hypothetical clone that is a full clone, it functions just as any human would but there is no reason we have to clone a sentient being, eliminating most law arguments as far as its rights ect. There's no reason we can't just make a mass of cells that grows the heart we harvest, no brain or making of a being required. Sure eventually down the line when we can clone things for cheaper, or the technology advance where making whole sentient beings more things will need to be discussed but that's no reason to stop advancing because on the way to that fully functional clone there is what we learn. We could reverse the process of aging, grow new organs, repair failing organs with genetically modified stem cells, gene therapy, elimination of genetic disease, possible elimination of caner, and once technology is there that ability to give genetic children to infertile couples. That just scratches the surface of whats possible in what would be a new era in technology and medicine for mankind.
Human Cloning

It is not just the atmosphere being wrong that is the problem, cloning would require a complete overhaul of our system. The immediate problem would be documentation. Would clones get their own SSN? Birth certificate? Would the documents be tied to the person they were cloned from? The other major change would be with the judicial system. A major factor for solving crimes uses DNA identification. Having a large amount of clones around would make DNA no longer a unique form of identification. But that brings up the fact of identical twins share DNA and we have ways to get around that in the judicial system currently. Although that is true it is a very different with identical twins fingerprinting can be used to differentiate between twins. Even with the same DNA fingerprints will be drastically different based upon situations in-eutero. Depending on the types of cloning being used the embryonic situations may not have any effect causing clones to have the same fingerprint. This means if a clone commits a crime the original or any other clone could be placed in jail for those reasons. This doesn't seem so bad when its a couple days jail time but what happens when the person is facing the death sentence for a crime they did not commit. Where the ethical and political mix is the rights of clones. Would clones have all the same rights as the original? One of the major benefits, as supporters put it, is the medical benefit of having an extra heart walking around that your body would not reject. So if some accident were to happen to the original would the clones be required to give up their body autonomy for the sake of the originals livelihood. That would make the clones a lesser citizen. I am not saying that cloning itself is either a great or a horrible idea just that politically we are not anywhere near a place of readiness for cloning. Certain things must be discussed and decided for the sake of life running smoothly, before cloning begins. http://www.livescience.com...
Human Cloning

Sure politically we are not in the correct atmosphere to be talking about human cloning, but that's just how it works with science. We make leaps and bounds through scientific discovery and then laws have to catch up. We can't choose to limit ourselves just because of the potential problems in the political environment when we consider the upsides of what genetic research and technology could breed. The medical applications of such technology is infinite. As for ethics if you are arguing a religious standing, being non religiously affiliated is now the worlds 3rd largest category, and as for the playing "god" role. I would make the argument those in the scientific community, and many outside of said community are just as likely to see it as the next logical step in science. I could also make the argument that there is no god and to limit ourselves on whats possible because some people believe in a so called higher power goes against human nature, our curiosity. If we never wondered what was possible, we never would have done countless things throughout history to advance us through technology and as a race.
should this website be a requirement for end of year debate

It should be a requirement. Why? Because where else will you get to facedown Brontoraptor? In real life, people are not nice, easy to deal with, or going to give you a pass. Thus, you might as well face reality now. Do you know who agrees with me? Rocky agrees with me. That's right...Rocky Balboa. "Life" video- http://youtu.be... * And if you were not on this site, guess what? Bronto would have not said this to you:Man up.
Muhammad was a prophet of God

Religious background is irrelevant in this debate, but Muhammad is a prophet of God none the less. I will start the debate by considering what makes God God. We are three dimensional beings that pass through the world and always restricted in our understanding of what else is out there. I would classify that absence of knowledge as God, an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being, that we can only define in our human understanding. Such definition, therefore, is inherently flawed and the human condition has repeated this flaw, based purely on how we define ourselves as a culture and a society. The Vikings' society was based on war and death, so gods like Thor arose and heaven was a place of non-stop battle debauchery. Even within Christianity, we see how it has changed greatly over the past centuries; the rise of the Catholic Church, the many splits within that Church. Indeed, both Islam and Christianity are both Jesuit religious sects. The conclusion that we see from this is that religion has evolved, a long with society, and now there many interpretations of what God is. Noah, Buddha and the messiah Christ have all featured as instrumental players in defining our relation with God. So too is the case with Muhammad. Because of him, one of the greatest religions has arisen and because of him, the evolution of the concept of God has as well. He stressed that Islam follows the creator of the universe. A creator that transcends time and space. So to say that God did not intend for this to happen would be to relinquish you belief in God, for time is nothing to him and, thus, our actions are all predetermined. Therefore, I cannot state that Muhammad was not a prophet of God, simply because he was.
Muhammad was a prophet of God

I may be, but I am not Christian, so I am allowed to. However, I apologise if that is the case. Your implication that a religion is wrong, however, is a fallacy on an objective level as it utilizes a subjective argument and does not consider the religion itself, or the culture which follows it. In addition, you have not considered the points I have previously made or the debate itself. I await a rebuttal.
Muhammad was a prophet of God

I am afraid you are not considering a different ethnic culture and religion based on their terms. Much to the contrary, you are considering them on your ideology. An atheist would consider your concept of free will as given by God as an illogical statement, as they do not believe in God. They would then assume that repenting and trying to live a godly life would, therefore, not make sense. In rebuttal, I would hasten to argue that Muslim's also have free will, but they use it to the effect of fasting and praying a certain amount of times a day. One could argue that their God states that they must and, as such, they do not have free will. However, I could then argue that Jesus demands your free will in repenting and finding salvation in him and no other. You will also find that the Islamic doctrine incorporates the Torah, New Testament, and Koran in their religion. Of which the Bible states that a woman must cover their head. It also confers a patriarchal belief that women are subsidiary to men, which is a questionable doctrine to say the least. Finally, with concerns to you, you appear to be Christian, yet you ignore Christian doctrines, such as "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven." Thus, if you even wish to consider arguing from your own religious point of view, I would suggest that you follow it. However, we are deviating from the debate itself. I would ask you to outline why Muhammad was not a prophet of God, so that you may establish some grounds to your position on the subject.
Muhammad was a prophet of God

Well first of all why should a woman not be able to show anything except her eyes. I mean seriously what's wrong with that. And Muslims have to pray a certain amount of times and even fast(Ramadan I think). God gave us free will so we don't have to do that. I'm there's rules you have to follow. In Christianity all you have to do is repent and try to live a godly life which seems to make sense to people. Well at least to me it makes sense
i will get the fewest points in this debate

i will get the fewest points in this debate. when the poll shows that i got the fewest points.... my affirmation will be affirmed. that means that i really won this debate even if i got the fewest points. when most people are voting against me, that could only mean that the voter participating in voting against me, is contradicting himself. that is, i will have won the debate so how can you be voting agaisnt me? the only way to ensure that you are in the right as a voter, is to vote "pro". or would it be con? vote wisely.
school dresscode

All the things the dress codes enforce are things you see everyday. No one is truly distracted by what the dress code bans. What is wrong with trying to feel comfortable? What is wrong with showing legs or shoulders? Also what parent will let their kid buy or wear something that is truly distracting? What kid would go to school with their butt hanging out of their shorts. 1/2 of its no even enforced. Also I want to know how's it fair I end up in pants on a 90 degree day while others can wear shorts. Sorry I was born with long legs and have only 3 pairs of short and 3 dress/skirts . I can't wear 1/2 of my clothes that I would wear in public. Why can't wear clothes my mom or dad says is okay. Both of them will make me change if it would be to distracting. As a middle school student I understand why we need a dress code and why it is healthy, but the dress code can be a bit much at times. Middle School is a time of finding who you are and finding a way to express that. We had a class debate about this and why we cant wear pajamas and tank-tops to school. My teacher says "We as teachers are trying to prepare to be adults and how to handle the real world and in the real world you aren't going to be wearing pajamas unless you need to run out to Walmart at 3 in the morning." Then I go "Ya, but people are expecting us to act like adults, and we do to a certain extent, but not everybody treats us like adults. When you were in middle school did you really want to be told what you had to do 24/7 and have to act like an adult?" She answers"No" Then I respond "Assuming most of the other teachers feel the same way as you, then why are you putting all this pressure on us to perform like adults?" She replies "We have gotten off topic. Let's get back to the task at hand." Tell me if I am wrong but I believe I have a valid point.
Abolish the Death Penalty

My opponent is clearly basing all of his argument on the fact that the death penalty costs a lot of money. While it is true that the U.S. has trillions of dollars in debt, we must not cut budgets for giving justice to those who deserve it. Rather then that, we should cut the funding for things such as our military which right now the U.S. is giving $663.8 billion [2] and the United Nations. The U.S funds the UN more then anyother country of the world. We fund 22% of the UN's regular budget[3]. This comes to my questions. Do we really need a military with that much funding? Do we really need to fund the UN that much? in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag we say... ' I pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God with liberty and Justice (key word) for all.' [3] At the end it says 'justice for all', if we were to not give the proper punishment to those who deserve it then we are not giving justice are we? In Conclusion, Rather then cut funding for justice we should cut funding for other things like our military and the UN. We promise to give justice for all, and therefore we must keep that promise. The U.S. should not abolish the death penalty. Vote Con [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.betterworldcampaign.org... [3] http://www.usflag.org...