BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
did Hitler do anything wrong

Before I move on to my third and final round of arguments, I would like to point out that my opponent's argument against Hitler was literally "OMG Hitler did bad stuff". He provided no objective standard by which to determine that Hitler's actions were right or wrong. He said nothing to address my point that a leader's first responsibility is to the wellbeing of his people. He failed to address my point that, even if by today's standard Hitler's actions would be considered atrocious, he must be seen within the context of his day, in which the Anglo-French order acted similarly oppressive towards their African colonial subjects. He asserted that "urbanization" would solve Germany's population density of 364 people per square mile, as though that would magically increase the amount of available food, drinking water, building materials, textiles, metals, oil, materials used in producing electronics, and luxury items. In short, my opponent has done a truly abysmal job of arguing that Hitler's actions were not justified, and for this reason I ask the readers to vote Con. 3. Hitler's Foreign Policy of Aggression towards Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union First of all, it should be noted that in 1919 the Allies of WW1, forced the German Empire to pay an exorbitant sum in "reparations". Article 231 of the Treaty states that "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments...have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by...Germany and her allies." Source: http://net.lib.byu.edu... This is despite the fact that the war was started by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The sum amounted to 6.6 billion British pounds. This led to the hyperinflation that afflicted Germany in the mid 1920s. http://www.johndclare.net... In 1923 inflation went as high as 200 billion percent. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com... Whenever Germany proved unable to pay its massive debts imposed by the Treaty, the French occupied Germany's Ruhr region for more than two and a half years. Source: http://alphahistory.com... In short, the Allies totally wrecked the economy of Germany and totally humiliated the country. If I were a German living at that time, I would want to impose this same kind of misery on the French and the British. The Soviet Union at the time was one of the world's only communist country, and definitely the center of communism. The "Reds" murdered millions of their own people in cold blood and it was evident to most that their economic policies had led to widespread famine, and millions starved to death. If Hitler was right about anything, it was that communism was one of the worst systems ever devised by man. Communism needed to be eradicated totally.
did Hitler do anything wrong

First of all urbanization would have solved their problems, and quite easily. But we know from Hitler's speeches that his intent was not to give his country more land it was to take over the world. More importantly, you are using the same argument that white slave owners were justified, because hey, in their eyes, it was OK. With this argument, you could justify any massacre, any abomination, and it's disgusting. Of course it was wrong. This is like Mao's killings, Lenin's massacre, and most importantly ISIS. This is genocide. You cannot justify it. By finally, you refuse to address how he did it. Targeting civilians. Chemical warfare. Burning women and children alive. Gassing them. Tourture. Justify
did Hitler do anything wrong

"Urbanization" was something that Germany was already doing. It did not magically make Germany's density problems go away. Anyways... 2. Nazi Racialism Before I would continue, I would like to point out that a national leader should put his country first, and other countries second. Hitler had no responsibility to Poland, or to the Soviet Union. I would also like to point out that Germany was (and, to an extent, still is) an ethno-state. That is, Germany exists as the country for the German ethnicity. This kind of ethnic nationalism is a new concept; Germany did not exist prior to the Battle of Austerlitz, in which the Holy Roman Empire was destroyed. The Holy Roman Empire was a monarchic state whose citizens happened to be of ethnic German majority, not a German ethnostate. Germany as we know it today is different. Hitler's first responsibility, then, was to ethnic German people. It was not to Jewish Germans, for whom the state of Germany was not established. The racialist hierarchy of Nazi Germany was not wholly unique to Nazi Germany. At this time, the Anglo-French world order was one where white men lorded over the Negros of Africa, the Orientals of East Asia, and the dark-skinned Mohamedans of the Middle East. At this time, Japan was virtually the only non-white country on planet earth which could've commanded the respect of the white race, and this would not be so had they not embraced modernity. Hitler, then, simply took the prevailing racialist hierarchy of the day and took it one step further by establishing a hierarchy of white races. And frankly, it made sense. The Germans toppled the Roman Empire. Germany stood against the might of the Anglo-French during the Great War. The Poles? Pfft, they were everybody's doormat for centuries. The Russians? Total wimps. Despite their great population and land area, they proved unable to compete with the West, and against the German onslaught during the Great War they collapsed. In a day and age where the "evolvedness" of a race was determined by the advancement of its civilizations, it was perfectly reasonable to believe that the Poles and the Russians were inferior to Germany, and thus it was perfectly reasonable for Germany to take their land and resources which would of course first involve clearing the land of all inferior inhabitants. But what about the Jews, you may argue? Well, the opposite was true in a way. The Jews, to the perspective of the Nazis, were an inferior race, evidence by their ethnic relation to "inferior" non-white races. However, they were an inferior non-white peoples who largely controlled the economy of Germany, and also they threatened the racial purity of the superior German race through their white appearance and subsequent ability to "pass" as white. Germany needed to free itself from the inferior peoples within Germany who economically exploited Germans and threatened their racial purity . To "free" itself from these people, of course, involved exterminating them.
did Hitler do anything wrong

Among other things they could urbanize, and not kill people, like every single large civilization before it, but that's not the question I asked. Your entire argument is based on Hitler needed to get more land so his country could survive. There are many many solutions to the problem that you have brought up, most importantly that that size population density is around the population density of Virginia, clearly not overcrowded. But still that's not the question I asked. What I need you to do is try to justify the mass murder by burning gassing and shooting of civilians, the other crimes he committed. From a moral standpoint, there is no justification of this unless it is for the greater good, and the cruelty and genocide required to do these acts has no greater good. Still I request that you attempt to justify these human rights crimes.
did Hitler do anything wrong

As "Hitler did nothing wrong" is impossible to argue, the resolution of this debate will be the following: "On Balance, Hitler's actions as Chancellor of Germany were justified." I have a limited character count, so I'll begin my arguments now. 1. Lebensraum In 1925, the Weimar Republic had an area of 468,787 kilometers, which is 181,000 square miles. Source: http://www.gonschior.de... Note: Graph under "Verwaltung". Each figure for km is thousands. "Deutsches Reich (Berlin)" represents the total area of Germany at that time. In 1933 the population of Germany was roughly 66 million. Source: http://www.tacitus.nu... If you divide 66,000,000 by 181,000 you get 364.640884 (we'll just say 364). That is, Germany in 1933 had a population density of 364 people per square mile. In comparison, China today has a population density of roughly 375.5 people per square mile, meaning that Germany in 1933 was nearly as dense as modern day China. Technology allows countries to provide for a larger population than before. For example, around 1750 A.D. there were roughly 6.5 million people in Great Britain. By 1901 that number had risen to around 41 million, meaning the population increased more in those 150 years than it had in all of human history before that point, despite the fact that about 15 million people emigrated from Great Britain in between 1815 and 1914. This coincides with the First Industrial Revolution, which began around 1760 and ended around 1820-40, and the Second Industrial Revolution, which began a few decades afterwards and ended in the early twentieth century. Source: http://www.localhistories.org... Another example is global population growth. In 1750, on the eve of the First Industrial Revolution, the world's population stood somewhere between 629 and 961 million. By 1900 that number had risen to somewhere in between 1.550 billion and 1.762 billion (that is, according to which estimates are used it may've more than doubled). I would add that this doubling was not consistent with prior historical trends. In 1600, 150 years before 1750, the population stood somewhere between 545 million and 579 million. In 1400, 200 years before 1600, the population stood between 350 million and 374 million. Source: https://www.census.gov... All of this is to say that while a population density of 364 may be fine and dandy for developed nations today, whenever your civilization is 80 years less advanced than today, that makes it a lot harder to support such a large population, since technology is what makes large populations sustainable in the first place. Germany needed more land, so it could have more resources. That was the conventional wisdom of the day. Germany lost its African colonies in WW1 so that wasn't a solution. So what was Germany to do? The only thing it thought that it could do: take the land of its neighbors.
UN Should Ban Manga and Anime Depicting Sexual Violence

there are various reasons why the UN shouldnt ban manga/anime epicting sexual violence: 1. the definition of sexual violence differs between person to person to the extent of which fairly light-hearted jokes can be taken as sexual violence. imagine a scenario where anime gets banned because a joke that didnt strike the authorized personnel right, thats simply unfair- considering the effort anime creators put in- for a whole episode , possibly series, to get banned from the general public because of that. 2. some mangas are for adult audience, so sexual violence is expected (for some extent) , most of it is clearly shown as wrong and very traumitizing making banning them counter-effective, as it implies the ban is used to lower awareness of problems that could occur in he general public. 3. the idea of banning manga/anime is bad because said series can have a sexual violence in one episode and then the next episode is completely fine, however the you cant show an episode without context , and so you practically just banned completely fine content. dispite all the previously mentioned stuff, i have to concede that anime/manga intended for kids (lets define kids as ages 5-11) including sexual violence to be shown to said audience.
The world is ending for DDO Mafia

Read the title.DDO Mafia is dead or dying. The last post in the Games forum was made by me about 11 hours ago. In a few minutes this above fact will be irrelavent, but still. A long time ago, when DDO Mafia was a new and semi-revolutionary concept, there was a post every few minutes-no, every few seconds. Now? Virtually no posts. Many of the topics are days, weeks old. God.
Farting could kill humans

Good luck and welcome to debate. org! Okay. Let's begin: 1. Refutes True, but you did not argue about how farting does not kill humans. Still, farting smells horrible! My classmate goes, "I going to take a dump! " and then, he lets out this atomic bomb of fart (exaggeration). It totally smells! Anyways, you did not argue about how farting does not kill mortals. Okay. I'll move on to my contentions: 1. Extension to Round 1 arguments "Therefore, farting could kill humans. " I'll start from there. Shock is a life- threatening emergency. It could cause death. 2. Effects of farting Surprisingly, frequent farting could lead to gastrointestinal reflux disease. This disease could cause death. If you hold your fart, in other words, not trying to fart, even though you have to, leads to discomfort. Discomfort from this leads to constipation. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://firstaid.about.com......
Farting could kill humans

Good luck! Now, let's start debating! 1. Definitions Farting- a flatus expelled through the anus. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Kill- slay . http://dictionary.reference.com... Humans- a human being . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. Farting We all know the rumor about "If you eat beans, you will pass gas. " This gas, aka fart, could cause someone to faint. Frequent fainting will cause shock. Therefore, farting could kill humans. . http://firstaid.about.com...
The starship enterprise. Ellison, Gates, Soros, and Strong.

My opponent has again failed to rebut any of my points. Vote Aff for four reasons: Reasons to vote Pro: 1st, I have won spelling and grammar. My opponent failed to capitalize "the Starship Enterprise" in the resolution. My opponent should be penalized accordingly. 2nd, I have won conduct. My opponent's failure to capitalize "the Starship Enterprise" in the resolution made me cry, because it disrespected my intense belief in the grammar gods. My opponent should be penalized for rejecting multiculturalism and thereby supporting oppression. 3rd, I have won arguments. My opponent has no arguments as to why the Starship Enterprise is bad, while I have two separate scenarios in which the Starship Enterprise could save massive amounts of life. 4th, I have won sources. My opponent has provided no sources, while I have provided one source. --- To have a serious debate, one needs a serious, clear resolution. This is neither. Perhaps try "Rich, liberal persons control the future of the United States".
The starship enterprise. Ellison, Gates, Soros, and Strong.

My opponent has not rebutted any of my points. Please extend all of my argumentation and reasons to vote Pro. --- Max.Wallace, if you want a serious debate, center it around a serious topic. If the Starship Enterprise is mentioned as a simile for the United States, before immediately assuming that rich liberals control us all, then it's instantaneously not a serious debate.
The starship enterprise. Ellison, Gates, Soros, and Strong.

You are such a cat. It is really funny, too funny. I watch you beg and plead with the voters to vote for you. Sickening how you think of yourself as only able to be affirmed by they few that listen to your cat whines. Hillarity in all senses is your debate. Where is the truth of it? Your sources cannot be disproved, and that is the fallacy of you both litter boxer.
The starship enterprise. Ellison, Gates, Soros, and Strong.

The main focus of the resolution and my opponent's speech is the Starship Enterprise. Thus, this debate is about whether or not the Starship Enterprise is good or bad. As Pro, I must prove that the Starship Enterprise is good. What makes something good or bad? Look to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that the greatest good for the greatest number is best. Utilitarianism is necessary, because we are not certain about what is morally correct. This means that we must attempt to maximize our ability to determine what is morally correct and act on it. Is the Starship Enterprise utilitarian? Yep. It lets humans go to other planets [1], which solves for all single-planet extinction impacts. If a large asteroid was going to hit the earth, the Enterprise could either gravitate the large asteroid away from a collision path or transport life to another star and prevent extinction. Thus, the resolution is affirmed. --- Reasons to vote Pro: 1st, I have won spelling and grammar. My opponent failed to capitalize "the Starship Enterprise" in the resolution. My opponent should be penalized accordingly. 2nd, I have won conduct. My opponent's failure to capitalize "the Starship Enterprise" in the resolution made me cry, because it disrespected my intense belief in the grammar gods. My opponent should be penalized for rejecting multiculturalism and thereby supporting oppression. 3rd, I have won arguments. My opponent has no arguments as to why the Starship Enterprise is bad, while I have two separate scenarios in which the Starship Enterprise could save massive amounts of life. 4th, I have won sources. My opponent has provided no sources, while I have provided one source. --- Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Sun is a bottle of beer

So the sun is a bottle of beer as, When Mars is bright tonight, Mars drank the sun and became filled with light. I mean, Planets can't shine unless it is affected by the sun, Obviously, That is why planets glow because the drank from the beer bottle that is the sun. In addition, When the beer pours onto the ground, It gets absorbed into the plants, Which goes through alcoholic fermentation, That is why some plants are used as medicine. Rubbing Alcohol! Draw your last pathetic card Yugi!
Students should be allowed to be on their phones during school hours.

Don't get cocky now. I was spending some time with my family. All I have to say is that you did not emphasise your point of the actions of teachers and educators until the third round. Sure, your two examples in the first round explained the actions of them, but the entire round was based off of the pros and cons of phones in class. If students are disobedient in such a way that they will not listen to the teacher no matter what they try and do and the entire class shows this kind of behaviour (which is what you seem to be saying by saying "unable to educate the students"), then further investigation will be called for when the record of the entire class shows a poor average grade. Being in a classroom is like being at home: You live under the superiors roof, so you abide by their rules. Since this is the last round, I'll just end by saying I am a college student and I have many friends in the education department who spend hours and hours preparing for their dream classroom and how they cannot wait to become a teacher. Going along with that, some of my friend who have interned with actual classrooms of their choice of grade discovered at face value how difficult it is to teach students when you put your foot down and take their freedom away by taking their phone away. If they feel as though the phone will be distracting, they will confiscate it before anything actually happens and if that student is old enough to have a cellphone on them, then they should be old enough to put two and two together.
Students should be allowed to be on their phones during school hours.

Well, teachers react to phones in class by taking the phones away. That is when the argument begins. Should teachers just instantly take it away when they see it, as they do now, or should students have the right to choose based on knowledge, as I support. We have spent our time debating is the distraction from phones in the class takes up bigger and more valuable knowledge then knowledge that a person might gain by having their phones out in class and practicing the skill of deciding when it is appropriate, and when it is not appropriate to have a phone out in class. I think that the value of the knowledge a student gains from deciding whether it is appropriate to use a phone in a particular time in class is more then the value of the knowledge lost by having it out. I also value the freedom more. The teacher can always take a phone from a student if the student is distracting the other students by having it out, which will dramatically limit the amount of distraction caused by phones in class. This theory is based on the fact that if the principal or other person of authority in school sees that the teacher is unable to educate the students because they have their phones out, and has to decide, should the school ban the use of cell phones (Which I don't want, because of all of the reasons I have already stated) or fire the teacher and hire a teacher that is capable of doing great work for the same amount of pay. Choice number 1 seems like the easy solution, choice number 2 will actually make the students more intelligent, and have more freedom. I am failing to see why you support Choice number 1, which you say you support by your last argument, that you said the teachers reaction is more important, or otherwise we do not have an argument and I have won the debate. So. Why do you support the principal's Choice number 1?
Students should be allowed to be on their phones during school hours.

Well I apologise for any confusion. Although I do agree that taking phones away from students just because "it is not allowed" is a terrible way of dealing with the situation because it teaches them nothing, I still do not see, going off of your previous "the cons are not as major as the pros", the pros of having phones in classrooms at all other than having the right to make your own decisions. I have not seen the video, no, but I do understand completely why people would think in that way due to influence of their families, influence of their communities, etc. and they go off of what everybody else believes in. Likewise when you are young, you claim to be of the same political party in which your parents identify or in Modern Family when Gloria is upset that Lily isn't aware of her culture, Lily claims to be gay because she has two fathers. (If you are not familiar with the show, Lily in the episode is around 3-years-old perhaps.) Maybe the bigger issue here isn't the pros vs the cons of having phones in class, but the pros vs the cons of how teachers and educators decide to react toward it. Sorry for the lack of response, I'm about to head out for a bit.