BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
was germany responsible for the second world war

Hello, sathvikbarsi! This quite an interesting debate topic and I do look forward to it. Know in this debate that I am referring to the European front of the War, not the Asian front, which is arguably a whole different war. Here we have quite an interesting point. Con claims that the Allies’ “laid back attitude” towards Germany’s aggression was the source of WWII. This makes a little bit of sense, but it doesn't hold much water. We need to take another look back into history. World War Two began on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded the nation of Poland [1]. France and England Declared war two days later. However WWII didn't spontaneously occur, there were several factors that played into it. First, tensions in Europe were already high. WWI had left most of Europe in shambles, and nations had little reason to trust each other, especially Italy and Germany. Secondly, there was Germany's aggression. Germany had been taking political and military action to annex Czechoslovakia, Austria, and other smaller territories. The Allies were quite upset, but they took no physical action to prevent Germany from annexing any more territories. These were the largest components in leading to WWII, without a doubt.With these things being said, Con argues that the Allies apathy towards Germany is what spurred WWII. That is wrong. We must remember that WWI left Europe in shambles, and Germany was one of only a few European nations that were managing to pick up the pieces. Knowing this, Germany had decided to throw its power around and gather territory. Most of the Allies (England and France primarily) had little power to make Germany stop, so all they could say was no. What Con must realize is this: that wasn't apathy. The Allies had attempted to make Germany stop, but hadn't the power to do so. It was not apathy, but rather the inability to do anything. Therefore, WWII was not caused by the Allies, but rather a power-hungry and unchallenged Germany. Of course the Allies didn’t stop Hitler and his plans, but that doesn’t leave them responsible. Furthermore, Germany remains the nation that began the fighting. The invasion of Poland was the first military incursion of WWII, and this was committed by Germany. The invasion marked the beggining of the war, seeing as Germany was the nation to invade, the war is a result of Germany. Con argues that the Allied apathy was the force that spurred Wolrd War Two, but in reality it was only a gateway that Germanytook advantage of. Germany is the cause of World War Two. Thank you. Please vote Pro.Sources1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
This Resolution Is True

I appreciate Con taking his time to falsify my premises. 1) This argument was meant as a workaround for BoP.P1.In the case of a false resolution, I will fall downP2. I have not fallen downC.The resolution is trueBoP in to prove an unfalsifiable resolution and as such, an unprovable one. To get around this I gave con 2 options with this argument.1) In order to reject the conclusion he would need to falsify a premise, meaning he would have to falsify the resolution, which as you rember is unfalsifiable. The was meant to essentialy be a loop hole to give Con BoP.2)He could ignore the argument, saying I have BoP. However in doing so, he has failed to deny a premmise and therefore the conslusion stands, meaning I win.I must commend my opponent, he found a way to rebut this, and with that I have nothing left to argue.
This Resolution Is True

"What does my opponent mean by "fall down"? - Where? How?"Fall down: drop from a higher elevation to a lower one.I will fall down in my living room.I will stand up then immediately lean forward to the point where my center of mass is in front of my feet. I will then proceed by means of gravity to tumble to the floor and end up lying belly down. "How can we know you fell down?"I will inform you in the comments. "Even if my opponent did fall down, it is possible that "myself" broke the agreement."I will not break the agreement. My word is to be taken as truth unless proven otherwise, similar to a witness in court."Agreement only says my opponent will fall down, but it never says when. It could be after 50 years as well. There is still plenty of time for him to fall down."I will fall down 1 minute after being informed the resolution was proven false. There may be up to a 30 second margin for error.The resolution continues to remain without falsification, as such I have not fallen. Therefore, the resolution remains true.
Alternative medicine should be used more in the Western Culture

I'll take this. For this debate, I will attempt to prove that the use of alternative medicine, as Pro defines it, in Western culture does not need to be expanded. I will assert that there are no valid scientific studies that show alternative medicine has more effect than a placebo, and will put forth an argument that having such ineffective remedies presented as an alternative to conventional medicine leads people to turn to alternative medicine INSTEAD of the western medicine that has been proven to help manage or cure disease.
Dreamworks Is Better Than Disney

I would have to disagree. I feel an affinity for Elsa and Anna. We can all relate to getting back stabbed by a loved one or to get in a fight with family or losing a loved one. The ending is heart warming. Once again: GAY SNOWMAN!I don't think Dreamwork's characters not being good looking makes their moves anybetter. Cuteness is important in animated blatantly fictitious comedies. Disney is cute, generally becoming more witty and classic--everything one looks for in animated children comedies. And dreamworks made Sharktale.I enjoyed this discussion about Disney and Dreamworks. We should discuss more sometime and maybe one day we could debate a more serious topic. :)
Dreamworks Is Better Than Disney

Final arguments! All in all, I do like Disney but I feel like they are losing their touch slightly. Frozen was okay but I cannot relate to Anna or Elsa and in the end, I really can't bring myself to care about them. I want them to succeed but only because they are our default heroes. If they weren't so badly written I would have felt something and cheered them on but they were so bland and uninteresting. Dreamworks seems to be taking risks. They give us characters that are flawed and not beautiful. They give us under dogs to cheer for. They are having more fun with their movies but I also feel like they take their audiences seriously. They might not be as cute as Disney films but like I said, cute can only get you so far. Thanks for debating with me. :)
Dreamworks Is Better Than Disney

I apologize for taking so long. I have been writing articles and debating a creationist on evolution.LOL perhaps this should have been a frozen debate.Frozen Revisited: Your primary conflict seems to be that the one employee made a sexist remark. Maybe it was intentional maybe it wasn't but can we really look at frozen and disney as whole through that lense?The reason why Kristoff and Hans look less similar than Elsa and Anna is because Anna and Elsa are SISTERS. If Elsa had a ginger-haired little sister you would expect her to look like Anna. If I wasn't too tired of biology I would do a punnet square.Anna is selfish? She was unaware of Elsa's problem. You can not fault her on provoking somethinf she didn't know. I would say it's more so Elsa's fault for keeping her in the dark. Also Anna had a life of solitude and disappointment, one would expect her to become easily attached to a cute guy.Are you really getting into the irrationality of ice powers -.-. It's a fictional Disney movie. Yes I agree Elsa is sort of a coward, but she hurt her sister as a child and that has consequences. I will concede that the parents totally screwed up the troll's message. Instead of making her feel loved they lock her up.Also if you want to talk irrationality? The movie has dragons. Really? Also the dragons are amiable?? Come on now.I don't see how you don't care about them. Two adorable princesses who grow up with problems come out and have a journey filled with interesting characters and conflicts and a GAY SNOWMAN. I find it incredibly compelling, I guess you just don't. More On Racism: I think you do agree that it is getting better. Even if disney employs some intentional or unintended racial humor that does not negate the quality and level entertainment of the movies. You and I both know that America finds racial humor,well humorous. Most individuals of color I know find racism against their own race humorous. I concede it is a little worse because disney is primarily for kids, but as I said it is getting better.Pixar: Sorry to be technical but any argument for Pixar is an Argument for Disney. Also just as you concede UP is a good movie, I will concede HTTYD2 is a good movie but it's not ground breaking
Homosexuality

ROUND 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY Provide one"s consensus on homosexuality and whether or not it should be accepted and/or condoned Round 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY As I stated earlier in my argument, I said homosexuality is a choice, but not in the sense that one chooses to be gay. It is something that happens in your childhood and in the environment in which you were raised, so it therefore can be changed. My opponent mentioned this, but even said himself that there is still no evidence to support you are born gay! But let's just ignore that. Let's focus on if it should be accepted or not. NO! I even stated this earlier in my speech. People can just easily say "love is love". What about people who have sexual feelings for animals? My opponent pointed out homosexuality is common in nature. Well, so is different species falling in love with other species, such as the Dzo or Yakow. You might say, "Well humans can't reproduce with other animals". And you'd be right. But neither can homosexuals! And of course, a lot of you will say "well homosexuality can help with the population". We don't NEED homosexuality in order to control the population. Adoption, one child policy, and many other things can solve that. Let's also get into the health of this. According to aids.gov, "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV". And what does HIV lead too? You got it, AIDS. And what comes next? DEATH! So yea, we should totally accept something like that. But what about lesbians? According to womenshealth.gov, "Many studies show that lesbians and bisexual women have a higher body mass index (BMI) than other women" and " Studies suggest that lesbians may store more of their fat in the abdomen (stomach area)". This belly fat increases the risk for heart disease and type 2 diabetes, which again can lead to DEATH! So, a sexual orientation that can lead to health problems and eventually death is something we should just accept? I don't think so. And I'm sure some of you are wondering, "well, if we don't accept homosexuality, how are people who consider themselves that going to live happy?". That is a very good question, but as time goes on, we just need more evidence on the roots of homosexuality in humans, cure it, and reach a conclusion from there. So, in conclusion, homosexuality should NOT be accepted and therefore condoned. My citations will be posted below. I now turn this debate toward my opponent. See you in the final round! http://womenshealth.gov... https://www.aids.gov...
Homosexuality

Round 3: HOMOSEXUALITY AND PARENTHOOD: My opponent was definently right when he said I will argue that kids need a mom and dad. But he was wrong when he said there is insuffiencent data. According to FRC.org, kids of homosexual parents compared to kids of biological parents,"Are more likely to suffer from depression" and "Have been arrested more often". The same study showed kids of lesbian mothers, "Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance", "Smoke more frequently", "Use marijuana more frequently", and "Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense". Also, according too forthechildreninc.com, 29% of kids of homosexual parents said they had sexual interactions with their parents while only 0.6% of kids of heterosexual parents said they did. I don't think I really have to explain why that's bad. The study also stated that a disproportionate number of children of homosexual parents felt betrayed by their parents. There is much more statistics that you and everyone seeing this argument should go check out on the websites. But sadly this is all I have time for. I now turn this debate towards my opponent for round 4! http://forthechildreninc.com... http://www.frc.org...
Homosexuality

Round 2 (Part One): OPENING ARGUMENTS: Homosexuality is a very controversial topic. Let me just start off with the fact that it is a choice, but not in the sense one chooses to be gay. Basically, there has been no scientific proof that you are born gay, the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again. It happens in your childhood and in the environment in which you were raised, and therefore can be changed. Homosexuals cannot reproduce and keep the human population growing. either. Also, in many religions homosexuality is considered wrong, this will lead to kids who identify as gay breaking off from families and close relationships. I will further this as we go along in this debate. Round 2 (Part 2): Homosexuality and marriage Homosexual marriage will have a very bad effect on our society. People are just going to say "love is love". A man loving animals such as dogs or horses is ok? I mean, it's not ,much different then homosexual marriage. Neither can reproduce. And you can't say "oh, well they're different species". Different types of animals fall in love with other animals, such as how homosexuality is common in nature. That is all for now, and I now turn this debate toward my opponent.
Homosexuality

I hope to have a very heated and entertaining debate! ROUND 1 (Part One): Opening Arguments. Homosexuality is, by far, one of the most controversial topics in modern society. While we are living in a time were diversity is slowly being accepted, many people remain negative to homosexuality. The debate aims to question why people should accept homosexuality. It will look at 3 separate topics in hopes to resolve the question “Should homosexuality be welcomed and accepted by society? ” It is my belief that, since homosexuality does nothing to threaten society, it should not be viewed as an abomination. In fact, over the next few rounds, I will be arguing that homosexuals flourish in society, therefore helping it, not hindering it. ROUND 1 (Part Two): Homosexual Marriage As with most my arguments, I assert that there is nothing wrong with Homosexual marriage because it does nothing to harm society. Also, gay marriage should be accepted based on the fact that denial of gay marriage is to deny an entire class of citizens basic human rights. I could go further into this topic, but with the Supreme Courts ruling and the general public acceptance of marriage equality, I feel I do not need to. Therefore, I turn the debate over to my opponent.
Homosexuality

This debate adresses accepting/condoning homosexuality.I have taken the Pro stance against the question, asserting that homosexuality should be welcomed and accepted by society. Whomever accepts this debate will argue this notion with me. For the sake of the argument, I will not accept anyone who agrees with me, but desires the challenge of debating this subject. I am looking to have a heated, but civil debate with someone vehemently against homosexuality. Since this debate is somewhat eccentric, both parties must share the BoP, meaning we both must prove our points. Beyond that, I ask that both parties agree upon definitions in the comments sections as to not waste any characters. The debate structure is as follows: ROUND 1: ACCEPTANCE ROUND AND DEFINITION CLARIFICATIONS Accept my debate and provide your definitions. If I disagree with any of them, I will take to the comments section to clarify them. ROUND 2 (PART ONE): OPENING ARGUMENTS Provide one’s general consensus of homosexuality. ROUND 2 (PART TWO): HOMOSEXUALITY AND MARRIAGE Provide one’s consensus on gay marriage and it’s effect on society. ROUND 3: HOMOSEXUALITY AND PARENTHOOD Provide one’s consensus on Gay and Lesbian parents and their effect on society. ROUND 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY Provide one’s consensus on homosexuality and whether or not it should be accepted and/or condoned. ROUND 5: CLOSING STATEMENTS (NO NEW ARGUMENTS) Conclude one’s arguments with a brief statement as why one’s opinions are factual. This is also where you should place any remaining rebuttals. I hope to find a worthy opponent who will represent the very opposite of my opinions so that we may have an equally enlightening debate. Let’s keep this civil but impassioned!
kevin gates

Yet, you have to realize not everyone agrees with him making statements to their life. He may seem as he can relate to quite a few but you also have to see that not all of us have the same lifestyle, we all have different views and Kevin Gates can not relate to everyone's no matter how hard he tries he couldn't really grasp everyone's ideal perspective. Therefor restating Kevin gates is a good rapper but he isn't the best rapper to relate to a persons emotion.
kevin gates

I agree to that comment but Kevin Gates speak to a variety of cultures and have large crowds to come out and support him. s Kevin Gates doesn"t have an elevator pitch. That"s not to say he can"t sum up his appeal in a few short words"he"ll readily offer a statement like "I exemplify what it is to be a human being; I display emotion" if asked"but Kevin Gates isn"t an artist who makes sense in the cut-and-dry terms of business and marketing. You can"t focus group a Kevin Gates. You don"t bring Kevin Gates a hit single. To believe in Kevin Gates is to buy into him completely.
Persons Convicted of Pedophilic Crimes Should be Treated and Not Incarcerated in All Instances

Yes, I stated that if pedophilia was curable, then there would be more treatment centers treating instead of incarcerating them. I stand behind my statement because even if there were more treatment centers they would cost just as much to run, as running a program to treat pedophilia while incarcerated. Convicted pedophiles are in fact isolated from general population when incarcerated, and yes they may have their autonomy and freedom taken away from them as a message of punishment but that"s not as bad as a child suffering the rest of their lives for the actions a pedophile has committed against them. Therefore pedophiles like many others should in fact have many more privileges taken away from them as punishment for them to actually understand they are being punished as much as a child is suffering for the rest of their lives. Removing convicted pedophiles from society is not just beneficial to the children or the victim"s families and the rest of the society, most of all its actually beneficial to the actual convicted pedophile." It protects the convicted pedophile from people of the society such as victim"s, family members and just community members from taking action against the convicted pedophile for just being a convicted pedophile."
Persons Convicted of Pedophilic Crimes Should be Treated and Not Incarcerated in All Instances

You state that if pedophilia was curable, then there would be more treatment centers treating pedophiles instead of incarcerating them. However, the way pedophiles are currently handled in society doesn"t necessarily reflect the appropriate way they should be handled once convicted. You also state that if only incarcerating a pedophile, then we are no longer punishing them for their wrongdoing. I disagree with this because they are, in fact, being punished in a number of ways if incarcerated. The mere act of taking away their autonomy and freedom is a message of punishment in itself. Furthermore, while in prison, convicted pedophiles are considered the lowest on the totem pole and are often subject to harassment and victims of violent crimes. This is also a form of punishment they face while incarcerated. Convicted pedophiles sentenced to civil commitment centers receive a clear message of punishment, and removing them from the community is beneficial to children, the victim"s families, and the rest of society.
Persons Convicted of Pedophilic Crimes Should be Treated and Not Incarcerated in All Instances

1. If pedophilia was curable, then there would be more treatment centers treating pedophiles instead of incarcerating them. 2. Treatment centers would be good. 3. The treatment centers would be less costly than incarcerating pedophiles in prisons. 4. If pedophiles were incarcerated, then children would be protected from malicious acts committed by pedophiles. 5. Incarcerating pedophiles would be costly but good. 6. Incarcerating pedophiles would protect both the child and the offender. 7. If only incarcerating a pedophile, then we are no longer punishing them for their wrong doing. 8. Not punishing the pedophile would be bad. 9. Punishing the convicted offender would acknowledge the fact they had committed a crime. Teach them not to commit this crime again. 10. Pedophiles should be incarcerated and not treated but incarcerated with punishments to prevent them from recommitting and understanding that committing acts of pedophilia is wrong.
Persons Convicted of Pedophilic Crimes Should be Treated and Not Incarcerated in All Instances

1. Treating selective offenders for pedophilic acts instead of incarcerating them in all instances allows more offenders the opportunity to reduce or prevent the expression of pedophilic behavior. 2. Giving pedophiles a greater opportunity to reduce or prevent their behavior decreases the likelihood of re-offending. 3. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be sent to involuntary civil commitment hospitals rather than being incarcerated. 4. Civil commitment hospitals can provide incessant treatment to pedophiles while simultaneously keeping them out of society where they can potentially harm more victims. 5. If all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are incarcerated, there is potential for devastating impacts on the correctional system. 6. A rise in the prison population causes an increase in costs, resources to become limited, and less treatment and prevention programs for those incarcerated. 7. Confinement hospitals can also prevent violent attacks toward pedophiles, which can occur both inside and outside of prison. 8. It is true that incarceration sends a clear message of punishment to those convicted of a crime. 9. Other negative consequences of choosing to treat and not incarcerate all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are acceptable, such as evading a degree of punishment or causing emotional distraught to victims and their families. 10. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.
Persons Convicted of Pedophilic Crimes Should be Treated and Not Incarcerated in All Instances

Being sentenced indefinitely to treatment centers still does not justify as punishment. Yes they are protected and locked up in these centers but does not justify they are being punished. They should be punished for their immoral wrong doings and serve their punishments in prisons with the availability for treatment. I completely agree with your last statement regarding allocating our resources on making sure potential victims are ultimately safe while treating the victims that unfortunately have been victimized already.