BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What Joseph McCarthy did was justified.

When people discuss McCarthy, they think about things like the Communist Control Act of 1954; however, to really understand the situation we have to look at the Smith Act from 1940. The Act was made to prevent subversion of certain political ideologies into the US government -- most notably communism and fascism -- in order to prevent authoritarian regimes from getting into power and changing the political system from the inside out. Now, the back story here is incredibly important because it will help us understand McCarthy's fears AND the reason he was so popular. He made his famous speech in Wheeling, West Virginia in February 1950. This was less than a year after the Soviets tested an atomic bomb, a year after China was lost to communism, and in the middle of MILLIONS of deaths by communist on a scale that outpaced even the Nazi party of the 1940's. As Americans at the time were living just after they had witnessed all the Nazi atrocities, they were in a sense of hyper-sensitivity to genocide. Add in the fact that most Americans at the time were devoutly Christian, and many of the killings by the Communist parties in Europe and Asia were being killed for religious reasons, their sensitivity is more than understandable. In January of the year of McCarthy's speech, Alger Hiss was tried for treason. The details of that trial are not overly important beyond the fact that the statute of limitations was up for treason; however, they did find that he did in fact commit treason and he was convicted of perjury. Add in the fact that there had been long standing rumors of Soviet infiltration in the government for years before and there were continual reports that the government was unwilling or unable to do anything about it and you form the basis for the beginnings of McCarthyism. Now, considering the political landscape, it is hard to call it a historical injustice. Those who went on trial due to the wave of McCarthyism were given their full rights including the go to "I plead the fifth" right that most of them ended up using. The question is why did they have to plead the fifth? It was not because of any law passed by Republicans or anyone to do with a law McCarthy put in place... in fact, it was due to previous laws put in place by Democrats. This is important because of the Democrat surge against McCarthy. His speech was about upholding laws previously put in place. The laws were put in place to prevent fascist and communist card-carrying members from holding government positions because of recent examples in history showing the overthrow of governments by them.
What Joseph McCarthy did was justified.

The argument is that Joseph McCarthy was justified in his actions. I will be arguing for the PRO. Opening statement: Joseph McCarthy was vilified and eventually censured by the American political system for his staunch stance against communism and, to a lesser extent, homosexuals. I will cover his exact stance and the reasons behind it in my rebuttal as I do not want to be long winded in my opening statement. To this day, he has not been fully exonerated by the court of public opinion and if you go through any regular high school, it is likely that you will only hear bad things about him. He was called paranoid and his critics believe the accusations he made were lies and ridiculous even if true. However, he was not paranoid and his accusations were true and just. As I said, I do not want to get in depth in my opening statement, so I will cede the forum to my opponent with this saying: McCarthy was right.
Jesus Was a Liar

The uh-uh effect is syrong with this one, Dear readers. As discussed before, during and now after, Pro never even understood the debate itself. 1.What does Pro an unbeliever know of Gods answer to prayer in the 1st place? a. Pro doesn't even believe there IS a God. b.If Pro did believe he would certainly be respectful towards a being capable of sending him to Hell ... wouldn't he! c. Why is Pro looking only for scriptures to complain about, not scriptures to Save himself? d. Why would Pro be on a Religious section of a God he doesn't believe in at all? The reasoning is all to clear. His only goal is to antagonize. Look at the evidence! Pro has no education on Religious matters, provides NO empirical evience that God doesn't answer Christians prayers. Pro couldn't know that! Pro has no knowledge of the purpose of the Bible? Pro has no ability to research the Bible with any purpose but to denigrate what he does not understand! Pro has dem in full view of the readers of this debate, that as a mature Adult he is the poorest of hman intellects, in that, He is obviously AWARE that there is great potential of existence of God. Fully aware, that he if he died today would certainly go to Hell, and yet ... ladies and gentleman, hasn't shown the slightest interest in researching scripture for the purpose of salvation, but instead reads it to antagonize people on Religion sections of debate boards. Pro is a bully nothing more! And at the end of his life he will pay dearly, and eternally for his foolishness. For the life of me I simply cannot comprehend what would cause an alleged adult, to self destruct in this manner. To profess intelligence in word, but to demonstrate by ACTION the very definition of stupidity! Well, there you have it. The words of a nonbeliever with regard to the Bible, and the word of a Christian who Lives it! As the choice to proceed into the bowels of Hell ... the CHOICE is yours. Scripture says it best: Matthew 12:36 “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”
Jesus Was a Liar

1) Jesus lied when he said, "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive" (Matthew 21:21-22). In Round 3, CON claims that Christians always receive whatever they ask for in prayer, as per Jesus' promise: - "God doesn't even HEAR prayers of unbelievers!" - "...the promises of God refer and are FOR Christians ALONE" Sadly, this claim is patently false. Christians do not receive everything they ask for in prayer. See the link I posted in Round #1: "Parents Found Guilty in Faith Healing Death of Diabetic Son." What happened? "The Christian parents refused to treat their son's diabetes, choosing prayer over medical treatment, leading to a cruel and lingering death by starvation." Evidently, Jesus lied when he said "whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." 2) Jesus lied about the Kingdom of GodIn Round 3, CON says: - "The Kingdom of God IS all around you." But Jesus never predicted a Kingdom of God in the year 2017. If Jesus was telling the truth, the Kingdom of God would have come into existence before the year 100 A.C.E. "...there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 24). Where was the Kingdom of God in the 1st century? Where were the false messiahs, wars, earthquakes? Where was the appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds? What nations were mourning? Where were the trumpets & the angels? There were none. Jesus lied. ConclusionMy opponent has failed to refute claim #1. First, CON tried to argue that God answered all prayers and sometimes God's answer was no. I countered that Jesus promises we will receive whatever we ask of God, which is what the Scripture actually says. In Round 3, CON asserted that Christians actually do receive everything they ask for in prayer. This assertion is obviously false (see above).My opponent has failed in refute claim #2. In Round 2, CON tried to argue that I would not know the Kingdom of God if I tripped over it. "The Kingdom could be right in squonks [sic] face and he woiuld have no clue it was there", said CON. In Round 2, I counter-argued that, if we believe what Jesus says about the Kingdom of God, it is not the sort of thing that anyone could fail to notice.Much of what my opponent has written in his arguments is irrelevant preaching / ad hominems. Voters, take this into consideration when voting.
The Fault In Our Stars should be banned from all public schools

Color me intrigued. I do accept the debate, but I would like to ask for clarification before proceeding. If you wish, you may clarify in the comments. 1) By "all public schools," are you similarly referring to public college campuses? 2) I'm presuming on this, but you are confining this discussion just to U.S. schools? I look forward to your clarifying this and the start of this debate.
Pokemon Is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

Thank you to Larztheloser for accepting! I assure you I will keep you true to your name! As for your clarification, I am not just talking about the TV show, I am talking about all forms of merchandise and games. You will see what I mean in my contentions.Contention 1: SO MANY OPTIONS: For Yu-Gi-Oh, the main thing is the card game, a manga series, and I guess the show. But Pokemon has a huge gaming franchise, a very long running TV show (since 1997), a card game (while not as popular as the yugioh card game, it's still popular), a manga series and large amounts of merchandise sold throughout the world. A lot of people don't have many video game systems or can't afford some of them. Pokemon is on practically every video game system and allows hours of entertainment! SO MANY OPTIONS!Contention 2: IT HAS MANY HOURS OF ENTERTAINMENT:For Yu-Gi-Oh, the main thing is the card game. You can spend alot of time on making decks and stuff, but how long before making decks and dueling people does it get old? Your just dueling, and there's not much else. The Pokemon games allow hours and hours of entertainment. It has a storyline, bosses, minigames, and lots of goals to try and acheive. Yu-Gi-Oh is a card game! There is no storyline, no minigames, and I guess you could count bosses if you battle tough dulers, but that's about it. Contention 3: IT'S CHEAPER:Average Pokemon game: $20-$40 depending on the game and store you go to. Cost to get a storebought Yu-Gi-Oh deck: $10-$20. While it seems like Yu-Gi-Oh would win this one, the Yu-Gi-Oh decks are labeled "starter deck", as in just to start you off. It's like weed, kind of. A "gateway deck", if you will. If you want really good cards and form a perfect deck that is personilzed with the cards you want, we're talking about hundreds of dollars! These things are expensive! Blue Eyes White Dragon, arguably the most popular card for Yu-Gi-Oh, costs $5-$15 average on ebay [1]. A Yu-Gi-Oh deck has to have a minimum of 40 cards. So, if you get the minimum amount of 40 cards, and then every card you buy is as cheap as $5 (which it probably isn't), we're talking about a $200 dollar deck. That is all! I just outlined the basics and I will try to go into more detail later. Good luck, Larz![1] http://www.ebay.com......
Pokemon Is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

I accept. Being a bit of a nerd, this is right up my alley. Some extra clarifications: 1. We're talking primarily about the television series adaption of "Yu Gi Oh! " by Nihon Ad Systems, and the English language dub thereof (what's commonly known as the first five seasons), since it can be considered the "final version" of the original story-line. 2. We're not talking about GX, 5Ds, Zexal, or any of the other Yugioh spin-offs.
Pokemon Is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

Hello, and welcome to a very nerd-friendly debate. In this debate, I will be saying how pokemon is far superior to that of Yu-Gi-Oh. When I was younger, I was absolutely obsessed with Pokemon, and still to this day, I can tell you a lot about any pokemon from versions 1 through 3. I still know a bit about gen 4 and a little bit about gen 5. So challenge me! Bring it on!Rules:1. You may not focus primarily on generation 5.2. You may not say that "gen 1 and 2 were the only good ones".3. You can't argue against generation six as not much is known about it yet.I think that's it, and please only accept if your an experienced debater. No debaters with only 1 debate under their belt.Pokemon for the win! And good luck to whoever accepts!
knowledge is truth, and belief is disagreement

Belief, as defined in the Free Dictionary: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief. 3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. Belief cannot be the opposite of knowledge, because knowledge is a type of beliefs (more specifically, knowledge is a proven belief). Scientists believed that the Higgs boson existed, but that was not knowledge until they could actually prove whether it existed or not. They have knowledge now, because they have verified that the Higgs boson is indeed real and they know what it is. If instead they could prove that the Higgs boson didn't exist, their former belief would have been rendered invalid but they would still know that the Higgs boson didn't exist. I know that 1 + 1 = 2. This is a proven fact, and a machine could tell me about it. You are contradicting yourself by saying that a machine can only tell beliefs, but that beliefs is somehow the opposite of knowledge. Obviously, if the machines are right some of the time, then there are times where machines do not contradict knowledge. You can have knowledge about fiction. Even experiences do not have to be real. I could master a skill by practising it in a dream: dreams are not true or real in the conventional sense, but they can give me experiences. Therefore, knowledge does not have to be based on truth alone. A fact is not a personal memory, a fact is an evidence that something is true or not. 1 + 1 = 2 is not based on personal memory, it is based on evidences from nature. Evidences can be constructed by experiments, but not all experiments are sufficient to become personal memories. Belief is not always a point of disagreement because when two people share exactly the same beliefs, they have nothing to disagree on. NOTHING. All disagreements are beget from a difference of beliefs. A belief can contradict knowledge; in this case, the belief is false. Other beliefs have yet to be verified by evidence. These beliefs include the Higgs boson until the time of its discovery. The third type of belief is belief in things that have been verified and validated by evidence. This type of belief is called knowledge.
knowledge is truth, and belief is disagreement

knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past, and now is true, now is matter, i know my experience of now knowledge is measurements and observation, facts and math is knowledge. well a novel is fiction.. its not experience based, what if you wrote a self biografy, would it all be false or fiction? machines cant tell me what is real, only what to believe.. any belief is disagreement knowledge is the opposite of belief fact=personal memory i just took a hard drug, i am just lying about taking a hard drug you dont need beliefs to disagree, but some one else does in that case "I could hold a belief in something that isn't proven by facts, but until it is contradicted by someone or something it is not a point of disagreement." false, what something is that you could believe then? dragons live on the moon? belief=be lie
knowledge is truth, and belief is disagreement

I accept the challenge. First, we ought to define the meaning of the debate's title. "Knowledge is truth, and belief is disagreement". The statement "Knowledge is truth" is obviously constructed poorly. Truth is a philosophical concept, whereas knowledge is physical. Knowledge has an agreed-upon definition and can be measured accurately by science. On the other hand, truth is a matter of constant debate. Truth cannot be simply defined as "existence independent from the observer", because the content of a novel has an independent existence in spite of being a serie of mostly false narratives. A person can memorize the content of a novel and have full knowledge pertaining to it. Yet this knowledge relates to a thing that happens to be false. I know who Elminster is, and as a character his existence is independent from my own. And yet, Elminster is false. The statement "belief is disagreement" is mumbo-jumbo. To disagree is to admit a difference of belief; disagreement cannot exist when a belief is not compared to a different one. A knowledge is a belief that is based on facts, but obviously knowledge cannot disagree with itself (because facts do not contradict each other). I know Elminster is a fictional wizard, and by telling it to you I'm expressing a belief that is grounded in facts. I have no disagreement over Elminster since you did not express any belief that contradicts my knowledge. I could hold a belief in something that isn't proven by facts, but until it is contradicted by someone or something it is not a point of disagreement. The statement "therfore con is a lier", in addition to being bad grammar, is clearly mistaken. I did not lie by arguing that knowledge is not always true (knowledge can be true, but it doesn't have to be) and that you need at least two beliefs to have a disagreement over something. Actually, I spoke my own mind; a statement made by someone who believes what he/she said is never a lie, by definition. So you are wrong on about every statement you made in the debate, and I should win.
Brittney Spears needs to have serious counseling.

Brittney Spears, one of the best pop singers in the 90's is spiraling downward to fast and dangerous and will soon crash. She's not going to shave her head again or go to her child possession hearings but she is in a unstable emotional state where she could do some serious damage. Maybe not to us but to her self. Everyone looks at her like a mentally challgened person and the way she acts to get attention it's justifiable. So I'm in firm affirmation for sending Brittney to get some counseling.
Brittney Spears needs to have serious counseling.

Haha, my opponent begins his second round attempting to prove that Britney spears is not a lost cause because she happens to have a song on the top 100. Is this truly a paradigm which we can judge someone as a lost cause or not by? Lets take Adolf Hitler for a fine example, he was a fine artist http://www.newyorker.com... yet he was still a lost cause. Secondly even if Britney takes her own life by jumping from a bridge her entertainment will still remain, her songs, to entertain the general public. Third! My opponent completely drops my point stating: "No amount of counseling could ever console Britney Spears." Thus he concedes to this point and cannot possibly win as the resolution states, "Britney Spears needs to have serious counseling." Finally my opponent queries where else we would find an idiot to entertain America, the answer is simple: http://www.youtube.com... That video says it all.
Brittney Spears needs to have serious counseling.

To negate what you just said, you need to be looking at her latest record sales. Even though I hate new song(Gimmie More) it has been in the top 100 of itunes and records for 4 months. So she's not a lost cause and neither is Baghdad. Also in Steven Colbert's book(I Am America and So Can You)he says entertainment like her is important. Where else would you find a person to be an idiot and entertain America. Unfortunately as we are laughing her behavior is becoming more eraqtic by the day. Missing court cases for the possession of her children is not okay if she wants them back and now Dr. Phil is making fun of her. Shouldn't he be helping her. We are taking this girl for granite and soon I fear she'll go for South Park's "No top of the head look".
Brittney Spears needs to have serious counseling.

I'm sorry but I must negate. My contention is as follows. No amount of counseling could ever console Britney Spears. She is, as Stephen Colbert called Baghdad, a lost cause. The best thing we can do at this point is simply throw her of a bridge. A really high bridge, this would not only get her the most attention but settle any problems she might have far more than counseling could ever. http://www.youtube.com...
Mr. Z is a B and not a D.

Mr. Z is a B because: 1)B! B is fo B!! 2)B is funny to say 3)Z rhymes with B 4)a fourth point for no reason 5)a fifth point to make the list look longer 6)B rhymes with Z 7)Z was a B to me 8)i know Z 9)i know what a B is 10)Z and B are similar 11)in definition 12)unnecessary bullet point 13)i need to make my list look longer 14)i have a lot of reasons 15) o yea look at my list of reasons that Z is a B 16)if you're reading all this, you proved that Z is a B by simply reading the list of facts why Z is a B IN SUMMARY, Z IS A B. God Bless America. We Americans Live in America. I Am an Atheist. I Believe in Science. Your Welcome Z. 17)Also M can suck it. 18)and suck this list
Mr. Z is a B and not a D.

Making someone laugh by simply calling Z a B is totally irrelevant, especially stating that person's ethnic background because it has no eccentricity in this argument and goes away from the topic of this debate. He eats and walks a lot, so what? The majority of us do that on a daily basis. In addition, some of the biggest D's in history have done the same such as Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Barack Obama. All of these people including Z have the same basic characteristics that make them a D such as: Watching those that they have authority against do their evil bidding for them, make an entire group hate them for abuse and injustice, and manipulating subjects and peasants into thinking what they are told is the only true and righteous way of living.
Gypsies are all worthless scum

Gypsies are professional thieves who do not work, their profession is stealing. Also known as Romani people, these low life's leave Romania to steal and rob people around the world, predominately in western Europe, then take their stolen goods back to Romania to hand over to the senior members of the families who in turn build large mansions from proceeds of crime. Gypsies are the vermin of society who do not work and take advantage of others. Hitler should have exterminated all of them during WWII. All Gypsies should be turned into pig feed http://www.dailymail.co.uk......
Gypsies are all worthless scum

My opponent has not filed any debatable responses to the contrary of Gypsies being scum. looks like I win the debate as I provided source material and many valid points to which he had no replies, just tears and death threats. My opponent is a sore loser who can't debate and should not be on this site as the whole point of this site is to have debates on different topics where my opponent is just trolling on here and not providing any concrete evidence to the fact that Gypsies are scum Case is closed, I win the debate, UNLESS my opponent would like to provide some evidence to the contrary in round 3 of why Gypsies should have any value in society buy providing some type of evidence. Unfortunately my opponent will probably surrender by trolling and not providing any debatable material.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

My opponent states morality is right from wrong; a correct statement. Seeing as an individual Nazi believed what they were doing was right and that there are different moral standards throughout the world, this point stands strong. Also, stating these morals are incorrect proves that moral skepticism is correct, seeing as a Nazi and my opponent have different ideas of morality. Again, my opponent says this was a result of the bystander effect because of a lack of moral obligation, meaning there were individuals who were not morally obligated. Thus, seeing as if a portion of the statement is false then a whole statement is false, individuals do not have a moral obligation to assist people in need. Seeing I have disproved my opponent's statement that the Nazis' morality was wrong and the round is over, I end my argument here. Please vote for the negative.