BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Battle of Stalingrad was more important than any other battle that took place during WWII.

I do believe that the Soviet Union was the main contributor to the defeat of Germany, and that Stalingrad was definitely one of the most important as well as bloodiest battles of the war. However, I believe that one battle that is usually not spoken of to much that had more of an effect to the Russian war effort against the German Army was the Battle of Moscow. On October 13, 1941 the undefeated German war machine marched upon the city of Moscow, against the defending Russians. Both armies were a million men strong and after a clash of arms the Russians emerged victorious, successfully halting the German advance. This Battle was very decisive for the following reasons- 1. At this point in the Germans Army was practically undefeated, this battle marked their first major defeat 2.Moscow was the center of Russia's rail system and transportation hub 3.This victory gave the Russians the much needed moral boost they needed 4.This victory opened up Russia's ability to launch counter-attacks against the invading Germans Army (who by the formation of their offensive plans left the flanks of many German armies open) 5. Finally, Moscow was the capital and held a symbolic significance to the Russian people
Michael Gove is an idiot.

R1: challenge of the source and the IQ Making you pay =/= scam. Amazon makes you pay and it is not a scam. Also at least my info is sourced, all of what you say is un- sourced. So I deserve sources. R2: Education A private college means what? Also even a 20% scholarship means you have smarts. Schools do not give out scholarships whilly nilly, only to the best. R3: political career My opponent is calling people idiots with no proof and all of what he is saying is illogical. Let me prove politicians are smart: Lincoln- 128 Al Gore- 134 Benjamin Franklin- 160 (1) All of them have higher IQ's. You proved those presidents had high IQ's yet both had bad policies, so bad policies =/= dumb. This debunks your whole case. source=comments
Michael Gove is an idiot.

Here are my rebuttals, sorry about the limit. C1: The source you found that from is wrong. A) It's a scam website that gets ï¿½5 from your phone to receive 'your IQ' (the test on there doesn't even have enough questions to be a real iq test). B) It could be any Michael Gove. C2 Roberts Gordon's college is a private college. He only got a 20% scholarship. The school didn't care how old he was because so long as his parents paid the other 80% the college still made money. C3 I pretty much reckon every tory politician is stupid. I certainly think politicians can be dumb and in office. Look at David Cameron and Tony Blair. Both priministers; both idiots. Bush had an average IQ for his age and time (111). Clinton and nixon a bit higher. Thanks
Michael Gove is an idiot.

R1 policy My opponent fails to show why he is stupid, just uses his words and policies. Clinton had bad policies but was smart, bush the father = smart despite his failures. Also Nixon had a high iq despite his scandal and words. Words and policies =\= idiocy. My case: C1: iq Michael gives iq is 156 higher then the 100 average. He is smarted then 91% of brits. (1) C2: education He attended the Roberts GordOns college to which he had a schlardhip. (2) You need to be smart to get a college degree. C3: his job He is a politician and is the secretary of education in the conservative party. (2) You cannot be dumb and in this job. Politicians cannot be dumb and stay in office. Sources in comments due to limit.
Michael Gove is an idiot.

I would like to point out that bad policies can but not always mean lack of intelligence. Also stupidity doesn't necessarily mean lack of intelligence. The points I'm going to raise are a recent decision he made which was clearly stupid; rendering Mr gove, stupid. I will also be raising my concerns about a recent statement he made which the majority regarded as stupid. Mr Gove decided to send a bible to every school in Britain which would cost ï¿½375,000 of tax payers money. This clearly is a stupid thing to do and he was stupid for suggesting it. It's preaching religion belief to children and wasting tax payers money. He also made a recent statement that he wants to spend ï¿½60m of the taxpayers money on the yacht for the queen. Stupid.
Parents should have the right to have their male children circumsized

Like I said in my initial argument that there are some disadvantages but they are heavily outweighed by the advantages. Also how many things are there in a person's life where the parents make the decision for their child it's because the child is not able to give an answer. If you want to stop parents from having the right to circumcise their male children you might as well ban them from having surgery to remove a tumour. What I mean by my example is that someone who chooses to circumcise their child believes that there are so many advantages but the child does not have a say and it may also be recommended by a doctor, and with a tumour a doctor would recommend surgery to remove it, there are many health benefits and the child still doesn't have a say, the parents still have to decide and why should they lose that right.
Parents should have the right to have their male children circumsized

Studies have found that masturbation causes decreased sensitivity, increased ED rates, and more difficulty masturbating, among many other things (e.g., infection.) Furthermore, it is mutilation of healthy tissue without an urgent reason for removal... Why should parents be able to permanently mutilate their children's genitalia when they cannot give mature consent? For the sake of family members' beliefs, a child should be operated on (and yes, circumcision is an operational procedure)? The child will grow up to be his own individual with his own beliefs that may or may not match those of his parents. Unnecessary body modification should be up to the individual, not to the parents, as much as we like to think that everything parents do is out of love and caring. If circumcision is just a way of stubbornly maintaining cultural and religious traditions, then it is not justified. A child should not be unnecessary operated on and mutilated solely to conform to his parents' beliefs.
Parents should have the right to have their male children circumsized

While I agree with you that there may be some negatives associated with circumcision although the benefits largely out weigh them. When a male child is circumcised the risk of contracting a urinary tract infection in later life is much lower, just one of the many health benefits of the medical procedure. Also while the tissue is healthy and functional, in modern society religion and cultural beliefs play a major role, although I am a white Atheist, the practice is common among Jewish communities. Such a practice is traditional and in the Jewish religion, parents believe that circumcising their male child will bring him respect and admiration from God, what gives anyone the right, whether they are of the same religion or not, to tell a family that they cannot carry out a harmless traditional medical procedure on their child? I would agree with you if it caused serious issues for the child later on in life, but it is quite rare that there are complications involved and the procedure is done with care and by a trained professional. My opponent states that there is no concrete evidence to suggest that male circumcision has any medical benefits and while I agree with you on that, has there been any concrete evidence to suggest it is harmful to the child? Maybe just a couple of cases but then again there have been a few cases where it has proved to quite beneficial. In fact there have probably been more cases of it benefiting the child than harming him.
Parents should have the right to have their male children circumsized

Parents should not have the right to order that their child have his foreskin (healthy, functioning tissue) mutilated. Its health benefits are controversial, and even if we suppose that these benefits exist, the presence of the foreskin does not pose direct harm, in itself, to the infant. By forcing their children to be circumcised, parents are infringing upon the individual autonomy of their child and the child's right, as a human being, to make his own decisions when it comes to unnecessary acts of this nature. So what is the harm of circumcising male children? Isn't it the same? Sure, functionality tends to, holistically, not change much. But should parents have the right to order the removal of their male children's nipples? Surely, the nipples are not needed, since their removal does not affect functionality... But the risks involved in their removal do not outweigh the lack of benefit. Moreover, shouldn't the child be able to grow up and make his own decision about whether he wants to have nipples or not? There is yet to be concrete medical evidence that circumcising a child is substantially beneficial, so there is no reason to allow parents to make the decision to mutilate their children's healthy tissue simply for the sake of their personal ideals and customs. Thank you.
Parents should have the right to have their male children circumsized

"If you want to stop parents from having the right to circumcise their male children you might as well ban them from having surgery to remove a tumor." Removing a malignant tumor is required because it threatens the life of the child. Moreover, a benign tumor can cause seizures or discomfort. [1] If they do not cause any negative effects, though, then we must consider that they are abnormal. Despite their abnormality, I would say that parents should not be allowed to make the decision to remove it. However, their abnormality can be used to defend an argument stating others. But the presence of a tumor is very different from the presence of a foreskin; one is normal and one is abnormal. Virtually all healthy male children are born with foreskin; in this way, it differs from a benign tumor. And foreskin is healthy tissue that poses no immediate risk to the child's health, unlike a malignant tumor. Virtually no major established medical institution in the developed world advocates the circumcision of male infants. [2] If a doctor were to specifically recommend it, then he/she would be going against the platforms of a vast majority of established medical associations in the first world. Seldom, hence, would such a recommendation be made. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.circumcision.org...
Limiting freedom of expression

My views on the subject are rather simple. No there should be no limit to freedom of expression, providing you do not cause harm to people or property. With hate groups like the kkk, they absolutely have a right to hold their own views they can hate all the blacks and jews they want. That is their right just as it is my right to hate them. Something becomes a hate crime when harm is done to people or property specifically because of their ethnicity, sex of sexual orientation. My point with voltaire is that even if I think what a person is saying is horrible and I find it reprehensible I have no right to say that they can not say it. the government can not make Ideas illegal.
Limiting freedom of expression

This is more of a discussion than an argument per se. So, is there a limit to freedom of expression in America? Should there be one? If so, where should the limit be? If there should be no limit, why not? How would this limitless expression affect others, and the freedoms of other people to live how they choose? Speaking as a Jew, I have been told many times that I am going to hell (which I find great amusement in personally). Should people be allowed to damn others for their beliefs? How far should they be allowed to go? When does something become a hate crime? Should the KKK be legal? Once I can get a handle on your opinions, we can further discuss your quote from voltaire (sp?) about not agreeing with someone but defending their right to state disagreeable things to the death.
Limiting freedom of expression

I am in favor of the separation of church and state, I am very much against requiring prayer in school, I do not believe that there should be time out of an already short school day for prayer. but I also believe that if some one wants to shout from the rafters how great god is, them they can do so. it is perfectly legal. Just as it is perfectly legal for people to ignore them. or argue back or even heckle. as for curse words absolutely not, but people should have to deal with a possible public backlash. for example if a network wants to put curses in a kids show then it should not be illegal and censored but they would have to deal with very angry parents. It just simply is not the governments place to regulate what our ideas and beliefs are.
Limiting freedom of expression

By "not causing harm", do you mean emotional or physcological harm as well? (As in harming others with words) When you say the that the government shouldn't make ideas illegal, does that mean that mean that you are also against the separation of church and state, since that is technically saying that certain ideas are outlawed in certain places? If so, are you then in favor of legislation that requires prayer in schools? Also, you don't believe that the government should sensor TV and radio for curse words? I like the quote, I just want to see how far you go with it.
Global Drone Warfare Preventable

The problem with the idea that nuclear war heads could be used with drones is not only daunting, but more importantly, unlikely. If the US was to add nuclear warheads to their drone's armament, other countries would also be obliged to add nuclear warheads to their drone's armaments. They won't necessarily use them though. For example, after the world found out that the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, our allies such as Great Britain and Russia started to develop their own nuclear weapons. Yet no other country has used them. Drones have are being more developed and used more and more at present times. The military is still developing robots that can go into buildings with a gun attached and scout out dangerous areas. I feel that, many Western countries and America's allies will soon put human life in more importance than anything else.
Global Drone Warfare Preventable

You made a very good point. It is very true that a nuclear bomb can devastate on a much larger scale than what a drone can do, based on historical data we have learned from the news media reports. But who is to say the devastation caused by a drone attack is forever limited to the current scale? If I were in charge of defence of this country, I'd make sure there is robust research and development going on to make the most powerful drones humanly possible - I'd like to see nuclear powered-drones carrying nuclear weapons to ensure we remain the world's number 1 country on the offense. However, I think you are wrong in thinking that people would see this country as imperialistic if the U.S. started using more drones than anyone else. People have been seeing us as imperialistic, long before the word 'drone' made its regular appearance in the newspapers. And, I do believe the U.S. has already started, not 'if started', using drones regularly in the current conflict with extremist Muslim gorillas. It is unavoidable the label of imperialist since it comes with the territory of being the world's number 1 power in military and financial might. Do I still believe global drone warfare is preventable? You bet. It's preventable if and only if the U.S. remains strong and in control. If we stay in control, we can 'police' other countries in order to maintain certain balance in world peace. What saves the world from human extinction is the fact that we, the majority of the citizens of this country, believe in humanitarianism. This belief, coupled with our democratic political system, guides us in our actions. I think the U.S. will lead the world in the battle of good and evil, and in the end good will win.
Global Drone Warfare Preventable

Even though no one has used a nuclear weapon against another nation since WII, that is something totally different compared to drone warfare. Nuclear war is the possibility of human extinction. The United States Enola Gay dropped the world's first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. In just four months it is estimated that 130,000-150,000 people had died. But on the initial blast, 66,000 people died. And that was just ONE bomb. Now the U.S has 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warheads. Only about 1000 are active but since there are 196 countries in the world, that is enough to drop 5.1 nuclear warheads on every country in the world. You simply cannot compare nuclear warfare to drone warfare. While nuclear weapons are designed to kill many thousands and even millions of people at a time, a drone is a pinpoint weapon made to kill only a certain number of people. If the U.S. started using more drones than anyone else, people would see that as imperialistic. It would using our power to force other countries to not do things they would otherwise want to do. Plus, if the U.S. developed the strongest drone "army" wouldn't that defeat the purposes of not having drones? According to your statement, the U.S. would become the only country to have drones.
Global Drone Warfare Preventable

To argue for the preventability of the global drone warfare, all I need to say is let us take a look of the status of the global nuclear warfare. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...), 9 countries in the world are considered "nuclear powers" because they possess nuclear weapons. Some of these countries have been historically archenemies of each other. Yet, to this day, no country has used nuclear weapons against its enemy since the end of World War II. The reasons are: 1) the existence of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), and 2) the over-powering strength of U.S. military and intelligence which have acted as the de facto "global police". I believe that most, if not all, countries should participate in discussion NOW on how to curtail the proliferation of drone development for military use. I also believe that in order to scare people from using drones in fighting a war, U.S. should develop its drone warfare capability to be the strongest in the world and continue to policing the world. That's what a leader should do!
Global Drone Warfare Preventable

Drone Warfare although is being available to more and more countries, it would not be hard to prevent more use of the weapon of war. One way we could prevent this would be to sign an agreement to not use Drones. NATO has done this for landmines and flamethrowers. And all the countries now are holding up to these agreements as agreed. Another solution would to just resort back to human pilots. Humans have a moral conscience so they will be able to make better decisions in their mind to shed less blood. Even though Drone Warfare is growing rapidly, a few assertive steps could be taken to prevent it.
Global Drone Warfare Preventable

No doubt we can not avoid drone warfare. It's already here. This can and likely will get out of control and become global...unless we start thinking about how to prevent it from happening. I believe it's doable. It might take some drastic measures though. (CNN) -- Drone technology is spreading rapidly. As many as 50 countries are developing or purchasing these systems, including China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Iran. Even non-state actors are involved. Hezbollah reportedly has deployed an Iranian-designed drone. Iran is developing a new drone aircraft with a range of more than 600 miles. These systems are used mostly for surveillance, but it is not difficult to equip the aircraft with missiles and bombs. Recently in Massachusetts, a man was arrested for plotting to place explosives on a drone aircraft and fly it into the Pentagon or the Capitol building. Private contractors are getting into the business as well. We now have companies offering drones-for-hire...
Papa no gods are real and just based and live by truth, fake truth or original truth lets debate

Papa no gods are real and just based and live by truth, fake truth or original truth which changes by spirits. papa no gods are real and original and just based and live by truth, gods proves they are true and continue to live and with truth they bring everything in reality in front of there people to show they are true but they cannot bring anything by themself without being lie in everything because they are fake. papa, gods are nothing without truth and when there property of truth is finished they continue to become rich by proving there people believe them to be true and they become true. They are not true that is why they die from truth and that is why they win from anyone by spreading terrorism and riots and forcing someone to sin by proving there are true that they are gods using fake truth which is temporary. These gods are not of there spirits and ends life of anyone by claiming its there people with temporary memory of fake truth.
Pedophilia and homosexuality are inseparable. Therefore, homosexuality should be stigmatized

"According to the definitions of "inseparable' and 'association', I'm CORRECT." Your premise (and position in the debate) certainly isn't. At least going by the data provided by Pro. "Again, it's literally impossible to separate all the gay heroes from pedophile heros because many gay heroes ARE pedophile heroes ." This is wrong on several levels (most importantly, in that it wouldn't even support Pro's position were it correct). To start off, the fact that Con claims that many - and not all - gay "heroes" are pedophile "heroes" contradicts his previous assertion that it's impossible to separate all the gay heroes from pedophile heroes. Even if Pro had claimed that absolutely all gay heroes are pedophile heroes, he has provided no evidence to support such an assertion. Not that it would've helped - the debate isn't even about gay/pedophile heroes, but homosexuality itself. The examples provided do not even make a solid case for the *majority* of gay "heroes" being pedophiles/pedophile supporters - let alone gays in general. To argue that homosexuality is inseparable from pedophilia, is to state that sexual attraction to the same sex is effectively same thing as sexual attraction to children. Which is, self-evidently, absurd - and most importantly, not supported by any argument or evidence provided by Pro.