BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Remaining Nazi War Criminals Should Be Prosecuted

"Punishing Nazi War Criminals in 2014 would be beating a dead horse." Pointless? Perhaps. But even so, part of the reason for prison is punishment. Another reason is deterrence. Even if the criminal cannot repeat his or her crime, it's still a good idea to lock them up. Besides, by no means is it pointless to those who suffered under these monsters. "Most of them are on their last bit of life anyways." So are you saying that the seriousness of one's crime is negated because it took place decades ago? It doesn't matter if the Nazis perpetrated their crimes in 1943 or 2013; they still deserve to be punished for what they did. "We should not waste resources finding and prosecuting these guys." Like I said: they'd be prosecuted IF they're found. In this case, it wouldn't be any more costly than prosecuting a normal criminal, correct? Now, besides punishment, here's another reason why they need to be punished: Deterrence. If you don't punish them, then why should we punish a perpetrator of a lesser genocide that also took place several decades ago? To do otherwise would be to say that: "Hey! If you can escape punishment for 40 or 50 years, we'll pretend you never committed that crime." I hand the (imaginary) microphone back to Con.
Those default circle avatars are terrible.

Yes, my argument is that we should brand the noobs. Who cares if they are ugly? It is the debater's choice. And you argument is irrelevant. It is impossible, because airmax won't do it. There is also the liberty of choice of having those circle default pictures. Because we have a liberty of choice of doing this, vote for Con. Why should we remove it? How can a circle be ugly? It's just plain, but its not ugly. Pro's argument is irrelevant and basically crazy because no one would actually execute the people just because of their avatars.
Those default circle avatars are terrible.

FrameworkThe BoP is shared because both sides can argue. Argument 1: UsefulAs weird as it seems, the purple circle avatars are very useful. Why? Most debaters who are new, or with the ones who have the purple circles, almost never come back. So, this is useful because you can just not accept the purple circle debates because they would probably forfeit. Another good thing is that many people "noobsnipe. " This means that they only debate with noobs. They mostly win when they do this. With these purple circle avatars, and knowing they would probably forfeit, noob sniping is easier.
We Should Condemn the Teachings of Islam and/or Muslims

Problems with Interpretation For the last at least 1300 years the holy books of Islam have been subject to interpretation from a vast number of scholars. Due to this this means that there the quoran and accompanying hadith has been twisted in every way possible to justify virtually every belief imaginable from secular democracy in the eyes of many people in Turkey (particularly in Istanbul) to relatively tolerant theocracy in the eyes of the rulers of the ancient Ummyaid Caliphate to the worlds worst barbarity in IS. Furthermore in modern times, while the quoran may be very clear in for instance its condemnation of homosexuality there are a small number of Muslims who have found a way to justify everything from legal tolerance of homosexuality to gay marriage. The result of these vast differences in interpretation is that there are hundreds of dozens of Islamic sects with significant membership [1]. These different sects all have different beliefs and many are substantially more violent than others with Kharijites and Salafis being generally thought of as violent and extremist and Ahmadiyya and Alevism generally thought of as being the most moderate (although in the last two there are some other unrelated highly hetrorthodox beliefs). And the problem when you condemn Islam in general is that you condemn every hetrorthodox liberal interpretation taken from the Quoran rather than just condemning the radicals and the ultra orthodox. For this reason when condemning highly diverse interpretations interpretations of one religion in one fell swoop should be replaced with the criticism of specific sects and doctrines which I give you would probably extend to beliefs held by the majority of muslims should we comdemn things from a western perspective. Problems with Reform One thing that people who universally condemn Islam argue for is a reformation within Islam [2][3], part of the problem however is that when Islam as a whole is condemned there is no room for any substantial reformation within the logic provided. Westerners condemning Islam as a whole simply provides western hate preachers and radical clerics with more ammunition to push people towards the more orthodox side of Islam. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] [3] http://www.theaustralian.com.au...
We Should Condemn the Teachings of Islam and/or Muslims

Islam is one of the most violent beliefs out there. It has verses that clearly violates basic human rights and a considerable amount of it's followers do think that these verses should be applied as law. In my opinion, even if the said muslim individual don't do acts such as killing infidels or stoning women who commited adultery like it was ordered in their holy book, they still should be condemned for thinking these are moral acts.
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win

Rebuttals Point 1: ChickenThe point made of the two cars driving towards each other is invalid because, as stated in my round one post, this debate refers to groups of armed people fighting each other, not individuals. Two cars speeding towards each other on the road are not two armed groups, but rather they are each an individual force. Point 2: Casualties from defenseWhile there were anywhere from 1.5 million to 2.5 million casualties reported in the Battle of Stalingrad {1}, the worth, for the Russians, was well worth the cost. The Battle of Stalingrad is considered to be the turning point in the war on the Eastern Front {2}. After the battle, the German army was in full retreat. {3} For the Russians, it was a choice between 1 million casualties (less than half dying {2}) and the war. Had they given up Stalingrad, Hitler would have likely take over the oil fields in that area, his main target {2}. Had he taken those fields, not only would it have hindered the Soviet war effort by deriving them of precious oil, but it would have bolstered the German effort by giving them that oil. That change could quite possibly have led to the capture of Moscow, the end of the war on the Eastern front followed by the Western front, Africa, and the Pacific, and then the deaths of millions more innocents targeted by Hitler. So when deciding whether or not to defend themselves, Russia was looking at a few hundred thousand lives saved for the time being or potentially millions of lives later on. While they weren't guaranteed to win, they fought, proceeded to win, and possibly saved millions of lives. As Spock said in the Wrath of Khan, "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." {4} The Second Battle of the Marne was another battle of great significance. It was the last major German offensive of the First World War. At it's conclusion, the German command was beginning to see that the war was lost {5}. So, while there were a great many casualties in the battle, if the allies had given in and lost land, rather than fighting and taking land, it is quite possible that the Germans could have turned a victory in this battle into a victory in the war. Sources{1} http://www.russia-ukraine-travel.com...{2} http://militaryhistory.about.com...{3} http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...{4} http://www.imdb.com...{5} http://www.firstworldwar.com...
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win

I will be defending the idea that nations should not defend themselves if they are not guarenteed to suceed. Point 1: Chicken For my first point, I will draw upon the popular Chicken game {1} from Game Theory. The scenario is simple: Two cars are speeding towards each other on a highway. Right before they hit, they have to do decide if they want to swerve out of the way. The worst outcome is one in which neither of them swerve. They both die/suffer heavy casualties. However, if one of them swerves, the other is able to keep riding along the highway. Therefor, the person who doesn't swerve is better off than the one who does. One must realize that even though one is better off, they don't both die. If one nation does not defend itself, it does not risk heavy casualties. It does not matter that they might still win. It would not be worth the risk of mutually-assured destruction. Point 2: Casualties from defense Before deciding to defend, you have to think of the outcomes. Is it worth it? For example, in the Battle of Stalingrad, up to 2,000,000 casulties were reported{2}. If Russia had given up the city, they would have avoided thousands upon thousands of deaths. Another example would be the Second Battle of the Marne, in which there were over 200,000 casualties and captures. {3} {1} http://en.wikipedia.org...(game) {2} http://en.wikipedia.org... {3} http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win

I believe that a nation should defend itself regardless of it's chances of winning the fight. To support my position, I will draw on one war and two nations. The war is World War Two and the nations are France and the USSR. In World War 2, Germany rolled into France and secured its hold on the nation. France had no chance at breaking free without assisstance. They had no assisstance at the beginning since Great Britain was fighting to maintain its own sovereignty and the US wasn't officially involved. Did France roll over and die? No. The French resistance formed. They fought back against the Germans as best they could despite the fact that their chances of winning were almost 0. They fought back, and became a key piece in Germany's defeat. If not for the French Resistance, D-Day wouldn't have happened. Without D-Day, it would have been much longer before the allies hit the mainland of Europe, if they ever hit it. If France, and all its citizens, had quit because "it wasn't a sure win", then World War Two would have turned out much differently. The USSR is another great example. Germany pounded them for a large portion of the war, and almost broke them. The army of the USSR never quit. They kept fighting to defend their nation despite the fact that "it wasn't a sure win." They eventually were able to score a few great wins over the Germans and turn the war around. They ended the war as a super power. That wouldn't have happened if they'd quit. I await my opponent's arguments.
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win

I accept. Definitions: Defend: To ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury (usually followed by from or against ) {1} Sure: free from doubt as to the reliability, character, action, etc., of something. {2} Win: to gain the victory; overcome an adversary. {3} {1} http://dictionary.reference.com... {2}http://dictionary.reference.com... {3}http://dictionary.reference.com... GL;HF
Resolution: You should only defend yourself when it is a sure win

I will be debating bossyburrito on the resolution "You should only defend yourself when it's a sure win". I will be taking the position that you should defend yourself no matter what. Bossy will be taking the position that you should only defend yourself when it's a sure win. R1: Acceptance R2: Opening arguments R3: Rebuttals R4: Closing arguments *******NOTE: This debate is refering to groups of armed people fighting each other, not one person attacking another.**********
Mr. Lumsden is a Bad Debate Teacher

Let me attack my opponent's points, then provide my own contentions 1. "Mr. Lumsden always has been known for his BIG WORDS. For example the other day he said a word, when he could have just said "give". It fustrates some people in the class, and at times class comes to a halt. By halt i mean people ask what that means, and that cuts into class times. " Using big words does not make you a bad teacher. In fact, it should make you a better teacher because it teaches students some vocabulary in a society in which education is underrated. 2. "Mr. L lacks social skills. This kind-of adds on to the 1st contention. In debate class you are supposted to take a interest in your students and be able to teach at the same time. This creates a great filled learning enviroment. Although Mr. L Does not know how to do this, which makes students not like him and make there learning suffer. " My opponent calls interest of the class "social skills" which is not true, first off. I think a more appropriate phrase is "interest of his students" or "interesting teaching methods. " Also, I believe there is some ambiguity of a good teacher and the interest of his/her class. Some may consider a good teacher to be one who provides the information, no matter how boring it may be, to his/her students. It's just a matter of how the student synthesizes it that makes it interesting. Others may consider a good teacher, one that can keep the interest of his/her class. However, still the teacher does not give the students the information, in this case. Very rarely, you find a teacher that can do both, and personally, I believe Mr. Lumsden does just that. 3. "My opponent stated, "My opponent knows how to debate pretty well considering his wins on this site". I may have 4 wins and 2 losses, but this will change. I am about to lose 2 which will give me a ties record. Clearly not signs of a good debater. " The only reason you are about to lose 2 debates is because you are throwing them purposefully. Also, you cannot judge a debater based on their win-lose record. The audience/judges or the voting system may be flawed. Clearly this contention is insufficient, for lack of a better term. My Contentions: 1. As said before, Mr. L is a good teacher because he taught my opponent everything he knows about debate. He clearly would not know anything about debate without him. 2. He is not a bad debate teacher because he does not fail to reach an acceptable standard (in this case teaching about debate. ) 3. If I or my opponent wins this debate, Mr. L IS a good debate teacher because he taught his students how to win in debate=good debate teacher. Either way, I prove my point by me losing or winning. P. S. Mr. L did not "teach" you to say BLAH BLAH. .. On the contrary, he made a joke (a very bad one, no offense) at how you would win this debate.
Mr. Lumsden is a Bad Debate Teacher

Mr. Lumsden Is a bad Debate teacher. I will give three contentions instead of actually doing what Mr. L Told me to do. Contention 1: He uses big words Contention 2: He lacks social skills. Contention 3: Failing on this site. Mr. Lumsden always has been known for his BIG WORDS. For example the other day he said a word, when he could have just said "give". It fustrates some people in the class, and at times class comes to a halt. By halt i mean people ask what that means, and that cuts into class times. Mr. L lacks social skills. This kind-of adds on to the 1st contention. In debate class you are supposted to take a interest in your students and be able to teach at the same time. This creates a great filled learning enviroment. Although Mr. L Does not know how to do this, which makes students not like him and make there learning suffer. My opponent stated, "My opponent knows how to debate pretty well considering his wins on this site". I may have 4 wins and 2 losses, but this will change. I am about to lose 2 which will give me a ties record. Clearly not signs of a good debater. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH - Mr L. Taught me to say that after every debate.
Mr. Lumsden is a Bad Debate Teacher

Let me start off by defining the term bad: failing to reach an acceptable standard (From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary) Mr. Lumsden is my opponent's and my debate teacher. Apparently, he feels he is a bad teacher. However, my opponent fails to see that everything he knows about debate was learned in a debate class taught by Mr. Lumsden. My opponent knows how to debate pretty well considering his wins on this site. Therefore, he cannot discredit his/my/our teacher. Sorry it was so short haha. (Note to opponent: no complex arguments from either side please)
was 1950s america a sexy time for women

I think that 1950s america was a sexy time to be a woman,gay,lesbian,non binary because women would be more obedient and less of hassle gays would have had a good time having illegal sex which would turn them on more,the same goes for lesbians. Family life would be more stable with women looking after the kids/cooking and the man doing the boring important stuff, then the man would come back from work the women will take off his shoes,cook him a meal, try to be delightful and all.If done correctly the women would be greeted with an awesome round of sex
Fun Debate - Sub-Lightspeed Spaceship Design Contest

The title of this debate should be fairly self-explanatory, but here are the details.Whoever accepts this debate will be designing two different spaceships that travel under the speed of light. That means that ftl travel will result in an automatic forfeit. (So no wormholes, okay?)The first spaceship must be for a small number of people, the amount who would travel together in a normal car. This spaceship will be designed for hour, day, or week long trips to other bodies in our solar system, such as the moon, Mars, or satellites of gas giants.The second spaceship must be a large liner designed for many people, perhaps as many as on a cruise liner or more. This spaceship will be designed for year, decade, or century long trips to other stars nearby such as Proxima Centauri, Sirius A, or Barnard's Star.The spaceships will be rated on three criteria:One: Scientific Feasibility - Make sure that your spaceship design follows known laws of physics, and might be possible to create in the coming future. The more detail you provide that fits within spec, the more likely you win this category.Two: Originality - If your spaceship copies a design already used in science fiction or proposed by an engineer or scientist, you will lose points here. However, this doesn't mean that you can't take inspiration from other's ideas so long as you add a significant amount of your own design.Three: Aesthetics and Comfort - A spaceship company will only really be successful if people are willing to step into their craft, so make sure your ship isn't hideous, and also that your passengers will be kept comfortable while travelling.The first round is for acceptance.The second round is for posting any necessary diagrams, drawings, and explanations of your ship design, as well as all sources for science.The third round is for comparing each of the ships, and explaining why yours is the best in terms of the three categories above.Sources must be from accredited scientists or space agencies.With that, let the best designer win!
The Tri-Omni God chooses life

Resolved: The Tri-Omni God chooses life Pro will uphold this resolution, whereas Con will negate it. The winner will be the person to prove his or her case with a preponderance of evidence. Tri-Omni God -- The Christian God, or in other words, the Prime Mover or first cause who is omnibenvolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Chooses -- pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives (1) Life -- the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death (2)(1) Google define "chooses" (2) Google define "life" Round 1 is for acceptance, Round 2 is for rebuttals, and Round 3 is for final rebuttals and closing remarks (no new arguments).
The best pokemon

Because of my opponent not responding, I will quickly stte my conclusion. In conclusion, for this debate, Espeon is by far superior than Typhlosion because of having a higher Special Attack and Defense. Typhlosion may be cool looking, but Espeon has better statistics; and this debate is not about apparel, but in general. I have proven this idea with Espeon, compared to Typhlosion. Also the fact to evolve Eevee to Espeon, you need to get a high enough friendship during the day time. Which actually reveals the meaning of Pokemon, being capturing Pokemon and "connecting" a bond among them. Espeon shows this moral of the franchise of Pokemon, compared to Typhlosion that is just a standardized level up. These are the reasons why Espeon is far better than Typhlosion.
The best pokemon

So your "counter-argument" for why Typhlosion is a better Pokemon, than Espeon, is because Typhlosion looks cooler? That is not an argument or fact, that is more of a opinion; which cannot be considered an argument. My opponent even states that Cyndaquill is weak, the pre-evolved form of Typhlosion. Now that I shared my opponents argument being an opinion, now to my newer argument. The reason why Espeon is far superior is because of having a better type, than Typhlosion. Typhlosion is fire, and with the future released Pokemon titles, fire is one of the weaker types in Pokemon. Having more weaknesses than Espeon, which is a psychic type within the game. My opponent also states that Typhlosion has a weaker defense, but makes it up with power. If we take a look at the Pokemon games, attack is one of the main aspects; but defense is far superior. Defense has been said of having a huge determination factor in most tournaments, compared to attack; which Espeon has more of.
The best pokemon

Typhoonion is the best Pokemon as I have played Pokemon games since pearl and diamond and it is the best Pokemon I have ever had. It looks awesome, with fire spurting out of the back of him and when he uses eruption or blast burn the sky turns red his past evolutions are feisty, even in the anime, although cyndaquil is quite weak. Also what it lacks in defence it makes up for in power. In the tcg it's card shows it with flames spurting out of it's back(definitely worth buying).
The best pokemon

For this debate, I will have my favorite Pokemon be Espeon. For those who do not know much about the game Pokemon, I will address what the game is real quickly. Pokemon is a Japanese Game, where you are an animal trainer whose goal is to train and catch these "animals" within tiny balls, while traveling the world of Pokemon. While traveling, the player encounters battles with other trainers and the player fights with his or her own Pokemon. The debate is which Pokemon is better between my opponents, and my own. My Pokemon I select is Espeon, the Psychic form of Eevee when it evolves. The reason why I claim Espeon is a far greater Pokemon, compared to Typhlosion, is because of having a higher Special Attack stat and Speed stat. Espeon is a stronger sweeper, compared to Typhlosion, where it uses special attacks compared to physical attacks. Where physical attacks are weaker in damage, than special attacks. I will save my later arguments in the next round, and good luck to my opponent!