BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sugar cookies are better than chocolate chip cookies.

My opponent has stated that chocolate chip cookies should be considered better because it has more variety and taste. Sugar cookies can be loaded with variety. You can add pretty much anything you want to them: frosting, sprinkles, and other toppings. Sugar cookies are meant for this! " I myself perfer to decorat the chocolate chip ones." You may, but don't you think that the chips on the cookies with disfigure the design, making it less pretty to eat? Sugar cookies are meant to be decorated. Another one of my points is that sugar cookies have existed long before chocolate chip cookies. Although this doesn't make them better, they had created a beginning to all the cookies we have today. Chocolate chip cookies wouldn't exist without sugar cookies. "People are allergic to many things, not just chocolate. You have heard of soybean replaces the classic cocoa in chocoalte for some chocolate cookies. There is also the dibetic cookies aswell. " Yes, I am aware that people are allergic to many things besides chocolate. But, how real is a chocolate chip cookies without the chocolate? Soybean may help, but how good is it really? Soybean replicants are not as good as the real thing. Like you stated, people like the good old chocolate chip cookies. Don't you believe that the people who are allergic would prefer to eat a sugar cookie rather than a gross soybean or even diabetic ones? Sugar cookies overall pretty much have less calories and are healthier. Sugar cookies also contain fiber. Overall, I believe that sugar cookies are better than chocolate chip cookies because they have "natural healthy benefits", more people are able to eat them due to allergies, they can have a lot of variety, or none at all depending on what you feel like, and there would be no chocolate chip cookie today if it wasn't for sugar cookies! :)
Sugar cookies are better than chocolate chip cookies.

WEll as you have stated that sugar cookies are "better" because 1. you can decorate them and 2. people who are alleric to chocolate can eat them. 1. You can decorate any cookie. Some (the burnt ones) are less subjective to the cause and are usually tossed into the garbage, but none the less any cookie can bee "decorated." I myself perfer to decorat the chocolate chip ones. 2. People are allergic to many things, not just chocolate. You have heard of soybean replaces the classic cocoa in chocoalte for some chocolate cookies. There is also the dibetic cookies aswell. The classic chocolate chip cookie is what many people favor. It halso has more of a variety and taste to this dessert. Sugar cookies are, well, very plain. dough + sugar(sprinkles)= sugar cookies. Most people perfer the chocolate cookie over the sugar because the unique taste of chocolate chip as compared to the sugar cookie.
Sugar cookies are better than chocolate chip cookies.

"Sugar cookies were like the basis of cookies today." I have already stated that Ch. Chip Cookies did not in anyway come from sugar cookies "indirectly" or "directly" and given proof. Just because Sugar Cookies came before Chocolate Chip Cookies does not mean there is a root system. The first Chocolate Chip cookie was made accidentally when trying to make a different recipe (not sugar cookies.) http://whatscookingamerica.net... "True, but again people do not eat cookies for health reasons." Yes people do eat cookies for healthy reasons. People who want to loose weight eat healthy cookies. It is also enjoyment because they may also enjoy the taste. "But, most people who are allergic to chocolate would much rather prefer a real sugar cookie instead of a healthier version of a chocolate chip cookie…" Can you give any statistic for this "most people" reason or are you just making this from generalization? Would they? Why do many healthy choice foods have healthy Ch. Chip cookies then? My opponent has stated that her cookie has more variety, even though I have addressed this before. You can do anything to any cookie. People who prefer sugar cookies may also not want to "decorate them" as you have designed. Also you said people who are allergic to chocolate would prefer sugar cookies. Again, another generalization without fact/proof. For my closing statement I'd like to say that on the website I have provided above it says more people prefer eating the classic chocolate chip cookie than any other cookie (including the sugar cookie). This may suggest that more people consider the cookie "better". This cookie has many health benefits as my opponent has already stated previously. Chocolate Chip cookies do not remain the same (They can and that's why many like it). Ch. Chip companies have made the cookie with all sorts of nuts and spices. Of course for the "Classic Sugar Cookie" to be what it is it cannot be changed or else the cookie name will change. Ex. Sugar cookie + peanut butter = peanut butter cookies. Thank you for this debate! I look forward to debating you on more serious topics in the future.
The Holocaust is justifiable

"*You are only in danger if you are a Holocaust denier. I don't think you will be arrested for debating on the topic. " Are you a Holocaust denier or you didn't read the above? Did the Holocaust benefited Hitler and increased his chances of World War II? Could Hitler ordered the deportation of Jews if he wanted to cleanse Germany? Shouldn't Hitler NOT declare war against America so America wouldn't have to fight in World War II? What are the benefits of killing the Jews? Could Hitler used the Jews to fight in World War II? I have added a video that I would like readers to see. Warning: Viewer discretion is advised. . http://www.youtube.com...
The Holocaust is justifiable

*You are only in danger if you are a Holocaust denier. I don't think you will be arrested for debating on the topic. Extend my arguments to this round this round with this argument added. A. Hitler didn't care for Germany at the end of World War II America wasn't supposed to interfere, nor pose a threat to World War II. In 1941 the American public wanted to stay out of war. However, The militarists in Tokyo, Japan attacked the United States, instead of letting the US hesitate and perhaps act in a limited way. Hitler decided to also declare war against America. This just ended America's hesitation about them and ensured their defeat too. In other words, if Hitler didn't decide to declare war against America, he could have possibly won World War II. Source: http://www.2worldwar2.com...
The Holocaust is justifiable

I will defend my own case before rebutting yours. 1. Utilitarianism I hate coincidences. The fact that most criminals in America are black does not make our country racist, just as much as the fact that most people that opposed Hitler were Jews doesn't make him a racist. The internal cleansing was extremely over-exaggerated and was a necessary action to insure the greater good be achieved [1]. Albert Einstein would be better off dead, as he only stole other people's intellectual property. It is well known that while he was working in the patent office he assaulted and robbed the original theorist of relativity and patented the paperwork himself [2]. 2. The end justifies the means Genocide is moral. We must look at the beliefs laid out by the great philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill on consequentialism [3]. The act of Genocide has great intentions. If an entire population opposes you and your views, and you have the ability to end their existence, then you ought to do so. It is your moral obligation to do so because if you do not internal strife will occur and the overall welfare of the people is at risk. Therefore, it is not only moral, but necessary, to incite genocide if the circumstances are permitting. Slavery and mass murder follow this same universal law. 3. All is fair in love and war This phrase "All is fair in love and war" was not argued at all, so it still holds it value. You say that because the Holocaust is immoral it is inapplicable in this phrase's meaning. The Holocaust is moral, however. It was enacted in order to insure the overall welfare, safety, and prosperity of its own peoples. Because of this moral intention, it is allowable to do whatever needed as long as the greater good is still achieved [1/3]. This is why all is fair in love and war, because everyone and anyone should be allowed to do whatever possible that is at their disposal to insure the safety and prosperity of their respective peoples. [I did not make this contention so I assume that it is your entire case] 4. Hitler didn't care for Germany at the end of World War II Hitler had lost the war due to several unpredictable actions. America was not expected to interfere, nor pose a threat, to the German War machine. Because this was false, Germany's demise ensued and at a rather fast pace. Hitler did not retreat because he believed there was a still a chance, and further establishes his care and compassion for his country [4]. This only strengthens his reasoning for inciting the Holocaust. He destroyed German industrial infrastructure before it could fall into Allied hands for that reason, so it would not fall into Allied hands. He did not want to give the Allies any spoils of war, for that would be foolish. Conclusion: Hitler clearly had good, moral intentions for creating the Holocaust, and because of these good intentions the Holocaust itself is a moral action. The Holocaust insured the greater good for the greater amount of people. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Click the first Link Listed) [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Holocaust is justifiable

Definitions: The Holocaust - the removal of non-nationalists from Hitler's controlled territory Justifiable - allowable given the current circumstances Opening Analysis: 1) The Holocaust was initiated by Hitler Contentions: I come with three contentions to prove my beliefs. 1) Utilitarianism - The greater good for the greater amount of people is what constitutes a moral action. Hitler was attempting to create a utopia. a place without war or conflict. While achieving this society, some peoples were not aligned with Hitler's views. For Hitler to achieve this utilitarian state, he had to subdue all opposition. The fact that the Jews constitute the majority of this internal opposition is merely a coincidence and a necessity for the greater good to be achieved. 2) The end justifies the means - This derives from my previous contention, because the greater good does justify the means to do so. For a more perfect society to be established and maintained, all negative opposition must be subdued. The Holocaust was merely a necessary action to insure the greater good. 3) All is Fair in [Love and] War - When in conflict, anything is moral. Hitler had one goal, to create utilitarian state. The people within his control that did not seek to assist or could assist his cause, or even worse, become a potential liability to his cause, had to be subdued. These actions are morally justified because in times of conflict, anything and everything possible should be at one's disposal to insure and victory and the greater good to his people be obtained. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Why all the fighting

ive seen the religious forums, and frankly that area to me and many others is considered a "Forbidden Zone" since all that goes on in there is carnage. But people are allowed to fight over religion simply because the right to, but its also because the sheer history of religious conflict over the years has made religion a very argumentative subject.... Since Christianity first became popular just after the Roman Empire fell, Christians have been sh*tting all over everybody and every other religion year after year century after century. Christians blamed Jews for the Black Plague, they launched four holy wars against Islam for reasons I believe arent worthy of war, and Christianity has been the second largest suppressor of science only after the DEATH of those scientists. Christianity at its hay day was all powerful and allegedly all knowing, with the Bible considered holy and just in any case. Now however with freedom of religion and modern civil rights movements, Christianity is now exposed to some of the same hate they have been dishing out over the past centuries, and the only thing devout christian followers can do in response is justify their actions or cling to what they have left. Respecting people's belief is one thing but poetic justice is something else entirely, and many people in the religious forums are in there simply challenging the views of Christianity and they then challenge the views of Mormonism or atheism, religions that back in medieval times either didnt exist or was borderline illegal. Religion has always been fought over, and theyve had good reason to because all religions have skeletons in the closet that others just want to bring to light. There arent any topics in the religious forum saying "Christianity is the best" or "Atheism is the way to go" its all topics questioning the same things that in medieval times if you questioned it, youd be put to death by the Church. Its freedom of speech + poetic justice + argumentative analysis, and thats all it is
Why all the fighting

I'm new to the site and this is my first attempt at a debate so be gentle. I just wanted to say that i think all the fighting about which religion is the right one (mine is the right way yours is wrong) kind of thing is absolutely ridiculous. I guess it come down to people forcing their views onto others. Why not just let people believe what they believe in? No right or wrong. Treat others how you wanted to be treated. Respect someones else's views and opinions and they respect yours. They may not agree but respect that those are your views. World would be alot better place if RESPECT was a top priority not religion, race or creed.
tacos should be shot

Tacos can't "taste" crunchy. Taste is defined as: The sensation of flavor perceived in the mouth on contact with a substance. [1]Crunchy is a descriptive term for texture, not flavor. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Secondly, not all tacos have crunchy "textures", some are soft-shelled tacos. Lastly, tacos are inaminate objects, meaning they don't "live or die". Shooting a taco would just be a waste of food which could have been given to starving children. Thank you.
models should not be allowed on the job unless they have been medically declared a healthy weight

While the idea of fostering a healthy body image throughout the world is an exemplary idea, regulation directly opposes personal liberty (freedom). Regulations like this exist to control the personal behaviors of citizens and should not exist among free people. A nation fostering freedom should never restrict free-will or individual liberty of citizens. US citizens have the right to pursue happiness. What makes a person happy is entirely a personal opinion. Perhaps some choose to be happy by eating too much and not exercising. The medical condition for this extreme is called obese. On the opposite side of the spectrum are people who are quite skinny for their height. Some doctors may argue such conditions are unhealthy, however, as adult citizens they have the right to eat - or not eat - as they choose. Regardless of one's Body Mass Index (BMI), people can be successful at both extremes. The hiring company, and likely the entire industry, will suffer from regulations like these. Companies should be allowed to hire or fire models (employees) anytime for any reason. If a photographer thinks a model does not look "right" for their line of clothing, the model is fired and another is hired on the spot. If this regulation were to be adopted by the US, companies would likely face wrongful-discharge law suits from models after being fired provided the models maintained a BMI within the healthy limits and brought their doctor's note to work. The quandary proposed is, "How can a clothing company hire models for plus sizes and skinny sizes?" Essentially, the only models permitted to work have to be an average healthy weight. Such a model could not fit into a size zero dress and anything above a size 20 will never look right. This would cause weight-based discrimination and make it harder for models to find steady work. Promoting a health body image throughout the world is an honorable goal. Regulating the height and weight of models restricts freedom and we should find a better way to achieve this goal.
models should not be allowed on the job unless they have been medically declared a healthy weight

- inspired by the recent implementation in France. - Recently in France, a set of regulations were implemented to help with the worldwide body image crisis as well as the health of the models. Models are now required a doctor's medical note stating that that the model's BMI is in the normal range for their age/height. - not only is this going to promote more healthful body ideology, but it will also save lives in the process.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

1: Government should not regulate marriage. 2: Jail for a VERY long time. Haha. 3: Jail for life. 4: Yes. 5: Um, live suffering. 6: Nobody, as in people? Yes, because the animals would enjoy it. Haha. 7: Community service. 8: No, equality should be valued over wealth. 9: It should be allowed because love is love. 10: Yes, equality should be valued over liberty. 11: No, environmental protection should be valued over equality. 12: No, safety should be valued over equality. 13: No. 14: It's their choice and should be allowed because of that. 15: No. 16: Yes, equality should be valued over justice.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

Danke. 1 Should government regulate marriage? 2 What punishment is just for rape? 3 What punishment is fair for murder? 4 Should people be able to prevent the life of another in order to avoid discomfort? 5 Is it better to live suffering or never to live at all? 6 Should environments be protected if it means that nobody can enjoy them? 7 What punishment is just for breaking a law concerning environmental protection? 8 If in conflict, should wealth be valued over equality? 9 What is your view on gay marriage? 10 When in conflict, should equality be valued over liberty? 11 When in conflict, should equality be valued over environmental protection? 12 If in conflict, should equality be valued over safety? 13 Should governments be able to prevent individuals from making their own choices between their personal values? 14 What is your view on abortion? 15 Should governments be able to define religious institutions? 16 When in conflict, should equality be valued over justice?
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

1: Yes, Life should be valued over Liberty. 2: No, Safety should be valued over Liberty. 3: Sometimes. But I think people should be somewhat responsible for themselves. 4: Yes. 5: No, Environmental Conservation should be valued over Liberty. 6: No, Environmental Conservation should be valued over Life because without the environment, we couldn't live. 7: No, Environmental Conservation should be valued over Safety. 8: No. 9: No. 10: Yes, Justice should be valued over Liberty. 11: Yes, Life should be valued over Justice. 12: Yes, Fairness should be valued over Justice, although they are VERY similar. 13: No, Life should be valued over fairness because without life, there would be no need to be fair. 14: Yes, Fairness should be valued over Liberty. 15: No, Religion should be a choice. The government should have NO control over religion.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

1 When in conflict, should life be valued over liberty? 2 When in conflict, should liberty be valued over safety? 3 Is government military defense vital to the safety of a people? 4 Should nuclear arms be limited? 5 When in conflict, should liberty be valued over environmental conservation? 6 When in conflict, should life be valued over environmental conservation? 7 When in conflict, should safety be valued over environmental conservation? 8 Is preemptive war justified if it prevents a more deadly war? 9 Should democratic countries instate democracy in nondemocratic countries if this requires military intervention? 10 When in conflict, should liberty be valued over justice? 11 When in conflict, should life be valued over justice? 12 When in conflict, should fairness be valued over justice? 13 When in conflict, should fairness be valued over life? 14 When in conflict, should fairness be valued over liberty? 15 Should government be able to intervene in religion? Thanks.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

*Alert* My opponent has contradicted herself. The unfortunate matter is that she cannot respond to this, but that is unnecessary. It is plain as day: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "When in conflict, should life be valued over liberty?" --->Yes, Life should be valued over Liberty. "Is the abortion debate a conflict between life and liberty?" --->I believe so. "Should the ability to choose to abort a fetus be consdiered liberty?" --->Yes. So, clearly, my opponent implies that abortion should be illegal. However: "What is your view on abortion?" --->It's their choice and should be allowed because of that. A contradiction is evident, as she should be supportive of the "life" viewpoint, giving life priority over liberty in what she acknowledges as a conflict between life and liberty. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So, my opponent has contradicted herself. The resolution is negated. I urge a CON vote.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

1: I believe so. 3: "those people" I referred to in the previous round were socialists and communists. 4: No. From what I know, in the early form of socialism, the working class had control. Now, this may seem fair or just, but if something happened and you were no longer in the working class, it wouldn't be. I know it's probably not this way anymore, but my answer is no. 5: No, I don't think so. From what I know about it, I don't think it's a just system. 6: Answered in 4 and 5. 7: Scaled? Yes. However, I think it depends on the situation. For some people, Community Service would be a harsher punishment. For others, jail would be harsher. If the question is which one is harsher in general, I would say jail. 8: You could help plant back some of the plant life that is available. Some types are endangered, and that's a shame. But what is able to be replanted should be. 9: Not necessarily. I'd have to see how they came to that conclusion.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

Thank you. 1. Is the abortion debate a conflict between life and liberty? 2. If not, what is it a conflict between? 3. Who are "those people"? 4. Is Socialism a just system TO YOU? 5. Is Communism a just system TO YOU? 6. If no to 4 or 5, why? 7. Is life in jail a punishment scaled harsher than community service to you? 8. How can people fix a burned-down rainforest? 9. Do you accept well-known scientific facts as truth? I now await a response
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

1: It depends on the crime. 2: Yes. 3: Most, man-woman, no divorce. 4: Yes, fairness should be valued over equality. 5: No. 6: Not usually. 7: It is to those people. 8: It is to those people. 9: Um, no. 10: Yes. 11: No, because without life, there would be no suffering. 12: Helping fix it in anyway possible.
I Will Not Contradict Myself.

So far, it has been very interesting. 1 Is life in jail a harsher punishment than community service? 2 Should punishment be scaled to the harshness of the crime? 3 What is the Church's view on marriage? 4 When in conflict, should fairness be valued over equality? 5 Should married people be treated different than nonmarried people? 6 Is Wikipedia a reliable source? 7 Is communism just? 8 Is Socialism just? 9 Should government be able to tell people if they are married or not? 10 Should the ability to choose to abort a fetus be consdiered liberty? 11 When in conflict, should lack of suffering be valued over life? 12 What should the punishment be for accidently setting fire to the Brazillian rainforest and ultimately destroying the entire thing (while camping)? Good luck.