BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Performance enhancing supplements are both un-necessary and potentially harmful for teens

To be specific, I am arguing that I am not against the use of supplements geared towards athletic performance. I do believe that the recreational use of supplements for teens/young adults between the ages of 16 and 22 are both un-necessary and more harmful than beneficial to the individual. To keep the debate interesting, I am open to all supplements both legal/illegal which are considered "performance enhancers" or "dietary" with the exception of multivitamins. To avoid confusion I will provide definitions of the focal point of the argument. I look forward to an engaging debate as this is growing more controversial as the supplement industry continues to rapidly grow. rec•re•a•tion•al (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition. sup•ple•ment Something added to complete a thing, supply a deficiency, or reinforce or extend a whole.
Rumkowski did everything he could to help the suffering Jews in Lodz Ghetto

yet again with a lack of knowledge to this i can only but make assumptions on what he could have done. when i say escape somehow , this seems impossible right ? i was thinking of not as such an escapebut more off a trickery of the nazis. This may seem impossible but surley there must have been a way out in large numbers while the nazis actually watched them leave, there must have been one nazi commander simpathetic to there cause. i accept he made the ghettos valuable but even he must have known that they could only last for so long .
Rumkowski did everything he could to help the suffering Jews in Lodz Ghetto

My opponent poses the question of "could Rumkowski have helped the Jewish families escape occupied Europe entirely? " (I think this is more or less what he is asking) This was impossible. Lodz Ghetto was guarded much more closely by Nazi guards than any other Ghetto in World War Two. Unlike the other ghettos, no underground black market of smuggled goods graced Lodz. During its whole use, not one soul escaped the Ghetto until the very last week of its existence. Even if Rumkowski managed to get some Jews outside the barbed wire fencing, there was nowhere to go. The land was literally teeming with Nazis. Any group larger than a handful was bound to be discovered. Singular Jews traveling alone would have a minute chance of escape, and as groups get larger the chance of escape quickly evaporates. Then my opponents suggests getting only a couple of trains full of people out of occupied Europe. This, again, was impossible. Not only did Rumkowski lack access to trains, they are also very noticeable. One thing about telling people dangerous information is that it will inevitably spread. If Rumkowski told "small groups" as you say, the information would rapidly spread throughout the ghetto, debasing any reason to tell small groups and not just the entire ghetto. To recap… Reasons Rumkowski helped the Jews in the ghetto… 1. )He made the people of the ghetto valuable to the Nazis, thus preserving their lives. 2. )He worked with the Germans to reduce Jewish deportations 3. )He managed to procure and distribute food, if a small amount, to every citizen of the ghetto. 4. )Avoided deporting healthy Jews, preserving the ghetto as a whole. 5. )Had Gypsies deported first (this debate was only as to if he help JEWS not gypsies)
Rumkowski did everything he could to help the suffering Jews in Lodz Ghetto

like i said i have to admit there is not much of an arguement i can put up as the man undoubtly saved lifes , but the question reamins could he have done more ? now not knowing much about this subject i have to pressume what i have read about it on several other sites have to be correct otherwise i have no arguement. now i would like to help my oppent understand what i meant by several off my points incase he didnt understand it to well because i was not being clear enough. i belive that y when i said helping them to escape i mean really escaping not hiding in germany , im not sure how but he could have attempted large scale escapes out of the country . im not sure how but surley there must have been a way of getting jews out the country on a large scale disgusing it as something else. but like you said how he needed the camp to remian productive i think this is why he never helped the jewish people escape he might have fought that the more people he has to deport the longer it will be till his death and hopefully before then the war will be over. I am in no ways discrediting this man , undoubtly he saved lifes but really could he have done more ? i read that it is estimated he was responsible for the saving off between 800-3000 lifes now he could have alreted other forms of leaders in the community to what the nazis were doing and could have made sure nobody panicked somehow by only telling small groups at a time and getting familys and others to escape before the killing really started or even if he managed to fill only several trains full off people which could have totaled maybe upto 10,000 people he would have saved more lifes and he could continue doing this untill caught or attempt to have a scape goat one who of course would have already been killed in these concentration camps or maybe even try hint it was a corrupt german army officer . im not sure if this would work but there was a chance it could . in cocnlusion as i said i am in no postion to be making these alligations but i think he could have sacrifcied himself a lot earlier and helped people escape.
Rumkowski did everything he could to help the suffering Jews in Lodz Ghetto

However I thought someone would probably do some frantic research and I was right. Thanks for the compliment; I just have an acute interest in everything WWII, especially the Holocaust. Now to the actual debate… My opponent's first claim… "he {Rumkowski} told lies to the Jewish people about where they were going and often choose children to be killed rather than adults or elderly which I think was the wrong choice" First I will address the issue of sending children to the Death Camp rather than adults or the elderly. This is simply not true. Rumkowski was ordered by Nazi officials to deport 20,000 people from the ghetto. He managed to talk them down to 10,000. Then, he made a list of those to be deported. The people on the list were either gypsies, (there were approximately 5,000 gypsies, or Roma, relocated to the ghetto in October 1941), people who were deemed criminals, and the family members of said criminals. The only children on the list were children of these "criminals. " Therefore we can see that children were not specifically targeted. . http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... Rumkowski had to maintain adult workers in the ghetto because the productivity of the ghetto was the only thing that kept the ghetto alive. Nazi shipments of food only came because of the goods produced for the Reich in Lodz ghetto. If Rumkowski deported relatively healthy men first, the others would die very rapidly from starvation. Therefore, Rumkowski was forced to export non-workers, such as criminals, beggars, the elderly, and eventually, children (but only because he was forced to by the Nazis. ) My opponent's second claim… "i think he could have helped the jewwish familys " disappear" before the nazis came looking for them" This was impossible. The Nazis broke and entered a random block every night. Besides, where would they go? The ghetto was less than 4 square miles. Even if the Rumkowski knew which block of apartments was going to be targeted next, and miraculously found hiding places for them, the Nazis would simply target a different block. My opponent's third claim… "he couldhave gave the community a heads up if you will about what the nazis are really doing" If Rumkowski told the Jews what was really happening, there would have been mass panic. This would have ended the ghetto's value to the Germans and the ghetto would have been quickly liquidated, killing nearly everyone in a very short period of time. My opponent's fourth claim… "he used the jewish community as bargain chips for his own life i belive. " He used the Jewish community as a bargaining chip for all their lives. Like I have said, the only thing keeping them alive was their productivity. And in the end Rumkowski was deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau just like any other Jew.
Rumkowski did everything he could to help the suffering Jews in Lodz Ghetto

i will be honest i took up this challnage for the hope that i may learn something more and that i thought it would be a real challange for me considering i knew very little about Rumkowski and have been studying him intensly for almost an hour prior to me posting this debate , i would also like to congradulate my oppent on his knowledge and interest in learning about the jewish people in germany . i belive Rumkowski was somewhat of a brave man taking on the role of being the " eldar of the jews " but i belive he could have done more , he told lies to the jewish people about where they were going and often choose children to be killed rather than adults or elderly which i think was the wrong choice , theres no questions he saved possibly thousands of lives but i think that that he could have done more , i think he could have helped the jewwish familys " disappear" before the nazis came looking for them he couldhave gave the community a heads up if you will about what the nazis are really doing . Though there was not much he could have done and he did what he could i think he was rather selfish , this may sound stupid but i think he was more interested in his own life rather than the lifes of the jewish people themselves he used the jewish community as bargain chips for his own life i belive. i woould like to apologise for my poor spelling and grammer but i had to write this in a hurray so please excuse me !
Rumkowski did everything he could to help the suffering Jews in Lodz Ghetto

I stand in affirmation. First I will start with definitions Lodz Ghetto- The Jew "Ghetto" Which existed from 1939 until 1944 during WWII Jew- a person whose religion is Judaism. (dictionary.com) Rumkowski- Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, the Alteste (Elder of the Jews) of the inhabitants of the Lodz Ghetto. With that out of the way, i'm going to state a couple of reasons why I believe he did help the poor Jews in the ghetto. 1. He allegedly cut down the first deportations of Jews and Gypsies to the concentration camp (Chelmna) in half. 2. He made the ghetto valuable to the Nazis by making factories which supplied the Germans with everything from munitions to textiles. Therefore, the Nazis were more reluctant to kill all the Jews in the ghetto. 3. He preserved the ghetto and it was the longest lasting ghetto of the war. 4. Around 800 people eventually survived the ordeal, the largest of any ghetto. I hope someone decided to debate this with me.
Morals are objective.

Now I will go through my opponent's argument and present the problems with it, and explain why they actually show objective morality wrong. morals: concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character [. http://www.google.com...] The main problem with my opponent's argument, is that it shows morality is not objective. This is, of course, only a problem for him, as it helps me completely. My opponent's argument is basically this: When deciding whether an action is moral (right or wrong) one must look at the possible outcomes of the situation, decide which would have the best result, and the one with the better outcome is 'moral'. This is exactly my argument, because this doesn't explain objective morality, but situational morality. An objective moral would be a moral that is wrong in any situation, no matter what. As stated twice earlier, an example would be killing a human being. To an objective moralist, killing a human being is always wrong, no matter what the context of the situation. It doesn't deal in the situation, just the behavior (see definition) of the person. The situation itself only comes in to play when you remove the objective morals and replace them with situational ones. Then, you judge the situation depending on how the possible outcome may be. An objective moralist might say that eating pork is wrong, no matter what the situation. A situational moralist would analyze the situation and decide if eating pork is the right thing to do. Take this scenario: "Gorge was told it is sinful to eat pork. He is faced one day by a man with a large chained up group of women following him. The man offers him some pork, and says that either he can eat this pork, and he'll let the women go, or otherwise he'll kill all of the women. " It's obvious in this situation that the moral thing to do would be to eat the pork showing at least the attempt to save the lives of the women. Let's take another situation: "Gorge was told it is sinful to eat pork. He is one day faced with a man who says that if Gorge ever eats pork his son of 4 will be burned at the stake. " Once again, the moral choice, the right choice is completely obvious. He should choose not to eat pork because it would result in his son remaining safe, for a time. I hope I have made my point, as I have repeated it probably way to many times. I don't have much more to say in this round, as I feel that my opponent's next argument is where we will really start to see some clash. Before I go though, I have to say something about my opponent saying that: "a very hard to earn victory is [his] highest desire. " I have to ask my opponent if this is really his highest desire. Would he rather die, or earn his victory? Probably earn the victory, right? Now would he rather live an extremely long, healthy, happy life, or win this victory? Probably the the former. I guess it just depends on the situation. .. right?
Radical Muslims are behaving similar to Catholic behavior during the Inquisition.

The main way that I will show that Radical Islam and Catholicism during the Inquisitions are not similar is based on the word Radical. Radical is characterized by my opponent;s definition as the departure from the usual or traditional. These radical Muslims are practicing their religion in a way that is not usual or, as some might say, correct. The Inquisition Catholics on the other hand are supposedly following canon law with their actions. These Islamic radicals are, based on your examples, being killed because a radical leader told his followers to kill them. There were no other instructions, just killing. This is different than what the Catholics did. The Catholics allowed the heretics to repent before their punishment, which was not always death. My opponent claims that because both organizations killed those that blasphemed that they are similar. He is technically right, but if we go by loose of a definition then the resolution is impossible to negate. If you were to give me any two events or items I could point out to you ways that they are similar. It is my contention that to affirm the resolution more than just, "They both killed," is needed by my opponent. I await my opponent's response.
Exotic Animals should not be pets

Of course exotic animals should be legal pets! If you do want a snake as a pet, own it when it's a young age so it doesn't think you're en enemy. Most exotic animals are beautiful (well, beautiful is subjective, but they are objectively colorful), so definitely see about getting one.If you're worried about a disease, go to a vet so they can take care of Ebola or Monkey Pox or whatever.
Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

Several complications and issues would arise if even just one Human being was created through cloning. While the idea at first, often sounds attractive, it is something that we must avoid. I do not debate this from any type of religious ideas, merely logical, political, and moral ones. First, this person would have a brain that has to follow instincts and frames of mind, such as having parents, and having your own identity. They would not have parents of any sort. They would also not have their own identity. This "person" would be ultimately confused through life, as the instincts and standards of their instinctual brain could not be fulfilled. They would be the exact DNA copy of another. This leads us to a legal issue. Because this hypothetical person is manufactured and is an exact copy of another, they would never be "born" which leads to whether they are a citizen or not. The manufacturers would then "own" the person. They would be utilized for research and organs. A person would get a clone of themselves in order to use their organs, which are exact DNA copies, for later use. These "people" who do not have their own identity, would no doubt be used for purposes such as research and labor, as they would not have rights. When Humans begin manufacturing other Humans, then we have truly, truly gone too far in what nature has the capacity for. We may not play god and still have nature work with us. And I can assure you, cloning humans for the purpose of creating Humans is wholly unnatural. When we break our natural limitations to this extent, we are truly crossing the line, and it will not fit with all of the laws and concepts, and even nature about what a "human" is. -Harlan
Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

Gonovice, You continuously misunderstand what I am saying. I am LAMENTING that they would not have any LEGAL rights. I am saying that is a bad thing. People would not give them any rights, and that would be sad. "I am not in favor of slavery" I'm glad to hear it. So…The clones would be free to do whatever they want? They could get up and leave? You've made it clear to the contrary. I am not sure whether you favor slavery or not. You seem to contradict yourself. "They were never born all clones are of exact copies of someone already living. This person is like a robot basically, The person who they were created from is the one that has rights and belongs to themselvesm not the clone." The proposal you have set forth is both shocking and disgusting in every aspect. You said it yourself: "exact copies". Lets look to the dictionary. Exact: "Admitting of no deviation, as laws or discipline; strict or rigorous" So…an "exact" copy would have no deviation from the original; the same exact thing, there fore if the original is a "real" person, the clone is accordingly a "real" person also. They would think the same way that you do; they breathe the same way that you do; their hearts would beat the same way that yours does; they would have emotions like you; they could cry just like you; they could laugh just like you. Yet you think we should treat them the same way prisoners of the holocaust were treated. That makes me want to vomit. "The person who they were created from is the one that has rights and belongs to themselvesm not the clone" That is slavery. You cannot deny that EVERYTHING you have described has been the likes of both slavery and the holocaust. Did you know that they tested chemicals on Holocaust prisoners? All the arguments you have made make me further assured that it is a horrible thing to try to clone people. "There really isnt anything wrong with it" Well…You may be all right with imprisoning people, holding them as your slaves and testing lethal chemicals on them, as they live their whole lives imprisoned in a cloning facility, but I would never want to do that to another Human being. I treat all that I come across as my equals. I would never be so delusional to think that it is OK to treat them as you suggest. -Harlan
Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

Harlan- You know I am calm. This argument makes no sense to me. i get what youre saying about it being immoral but I dont get how? "They would have no rights as they were never born" see, you did say it and that was all that you said in your last argument. I get that they would have no rights and that makes sense to me but why are you contradicting yourself? They were never born all clones are of exact copies of someone already living. This person is like a robot basically, The person who they were created from is the one that has rights and belongs to themselvesm not the clone. I said that we havent reached the scientific intelligence yet to be able to create a clone of someone. But the thing is how is it immoral to create something to use for research Maybe organ transplants are to much of a touchy subject for you to deal with. Clones are not going to get ANY rights because they are copies of already living people. So they will never go out in the real world they wont work or pay taxes. I think that IF scientists can figure out how to clone that they should use them for reserach and organ transplant. It's not immoral because the REAL version of the person isnt the one being tested. Just the clone. The whole cloning thing is sort of a easy subject to figure out. There really isnt anything wrong with it. They are using it to save real live peoples lives. Also for research. Whats so wrong with receating an already living human to research things we cant on living humans?
Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

HELLO, GONOVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's calm down, gonovice. We have both had misunderstandings about what the other is saying. You just said that I said that they weren't real people. What? I never said that. I also never said that they would take over the world. WE have both had our misunderstandings. Calm down. You just ignored everything else I said, though. I hope you will properly respond to it next round. "i dont think that you understand that clones are recreations of REAL PEOPLE!!!! which they arent!!!!!!!! you said yourself that they wouldnt have any rights. so why is it such a big deal to you!!" If they are exact copies, then they are the same thing, and thus "real" humans. Though you think of them as inferior, and believe it is OK to harvest their organs. Do they not have emotions? Do their brains not work the same way? You misunderstood what I said to mean that they SHOULD not have any rights. In fact, I was actually lamenting on the fact that they would not have any LEGAL rights, and providing it as a reason why you should not clone them. Who is putting whom words in their mouths now, gonovice? It sounds as if the realities I put forth made you doubt, or confused you. Whatever the case, you reacted unnecessarily defensively (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). At the end, you reverted to the "they don't have the technology yet, so it doesn't matter, anyways". A little evasive, aren't we? -Harlan
Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

Arent you the one who said they arent real people harlan? I am not in favor of slavery. its not slavery they arent real people are they? When did I say cheap labor? oh yea never. i wouldnt make them work they arent real!!!!!! i dont think that you understand that clones are recreations of REAL PEOPLE!!!! which they arent!!!!!!!! you said yourself that they wouldnt have any rights. so why is it such a big deal to you!! personally i dont think that well you and I are alive they will figure out to clone humans. we havent reached that scientfic intelligence. well i got to go so i guess i'll finish my argument later. but harlan stop putting words in my mouth!! just deal with your own argument and stop making up mine. read my argument then judge!!! *-nikki-*