BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Use google as a way to find multiple sources of agreeing information.

Anyone can post anything on the internet. So when you use Google to find your information dont trust one single site alone. For instance, if you must know the answer to a question, type it in the little search bar and let Google do its thing. After loading check out several sites, not just one. Make sure the sites are not displaying the same exact information. For example, if you're looking up a movie review and you read that the movie was horrible, its more credible to read "The acting was horrible." "Needs bettor actors" "Bad acting made this movie hard to watch" rather than "The acting was horrible" "the acting was horrible" "the acting was horrible". The same exact quoted words, usually in the surrounding paragraph(s) of the information youre looking for is key to compare the sites for having the same exact article. So again, make sure youre getting your information from various sources and compare because different website doesnt always mean different source!
Google dependency is risky business

[[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/micro-markets/google-wins-as-newspapers-battle/866?tag=content;siu-container]] This just leaves us with the matter of defining what "It's business" is, is any company paying Google for result slots "It's business"? Established authorities in various subject areas have the money and resources to get top slots if they want them or maybe they're comfortable in already being in a vied-for position and are more concerned with protecting copyright/patents than in being accessible to gullible children who don't trust their parents (I sense an oxymoron here).
Google dependency is risky business

"Contrary to Google’s assertions, the AdSense “Ads by Google” are not unobtrusive and do not appear to enhance the content page. Additionally, contrary to Google’s assertions, AdSense is not an unequivocally “fast and easy way” to earn money"- [[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/micro-markets/google-dependency-is-risky-business/883]] "COMPETITIVE RISK Google acknowledges “there may be situations in which you don't want to display particular advertisements -­ for example, you may wish to block ads leading to competitors' sites” and offers a “Competitive Ad Filter" "PROPRIETY RISK For all of Google’s talk of “quality,” the Google bottom line is that higher cost-per-click bids win the privilege of buying ads from Google." "BUSINESS MODEL RISK: We do not permit Google ads or search boxes to be published on websites that also contain other ads or services formatted to use the same layout and colors as the Google ads or search boxes on that site. Although you may sell ads directly on your site, it is your responsibility to ensure these ads cannot be confused with Google ads." In sum, Google directs people to (A) It's own business (B)Information that is paid for the most and is not necessarily the most reliable. (C) 'World truths' rather than truths that should be intelligently arrived upon visa critical thinking, that is Google has turned the vast majority of internet users into sheep.
Google wins as newspapers battle

The problem with the line of argument on the right is: a) Google doesn't block results for 'Authorities on subjects" if someone wants an article from the New Scientist, all one has to do is type in 'New Scientist"alongside their search search query. b) Is the issue that Google is an-ultimate-truth-selling authority or that it challenges existing/established authorities such as The Economist on Economics? c) This is how the largely capitilist world works, monopolies/diopolies exist and kill off potential competition. Startups need funds, investment leads to profit/loss, those who can stave off risk and make smart choices and therefore profit win and others lose out. Google is simply protecting its assets/turf, just like every other existing company in the world.
Google wins as newspapers battle

"Every company and every individual in the world is a Google target. Google CEO Eric Schmidt : We are in the search business, so we need all of the information…We're also in the advertising business, and we'd like to provide advertising services to people who have their own proprietary content. So depending on where we are in that spectrum, we either do an advertising deal or a content deal or a hybrid deal. But ultimately our goal at Google is to have the strongest advertising network and all the world's information, that's part of our mission. Google wants all of “the world’s information” (including individuals’ personal information), it wants to sell advertising to all of the world and it wants to distribute its advertising throughout all of the world. Is the Google world circle a virtuous one?" This means that even though I personally don't the Daily Mail newspaper is most credible source of information on anything, I'm clicking on it's links because they are top Google results for anything I search for. restricted academic Journals accessible only via Student portals/Moodles/JSTOR are harder for me to use as references because they are not globally/universally accessible even though many(Le controversial Lancet, included) are far better information resources than top Google results. Now I would prefer to get my science news largely from 'The New Scientist" or "The Scientific American" because even they are magazines they are 'science' mags and they have less scientific errors than say a health-related article in say, 'Newsweek' or other non-scientific equivalents. Just as I personally would prefer getting my Economics/Finance info from the Economist or Bloomberg or the LSE(London School of Economics)/UC(University of Chicago) websites, but are articles in these mags or from these universities ever Top Google results for Econ-related issues? Google gives leeway to unreliable authorities in many subject areas to dictate what we perceive as the today's reality. Spam on miracle cures falsely reported to be sponsored by celebrities is all over Google. Children are constantly being exposed to less credible more expensive advertising and their impressionable minds are less likely to question internet bunkum. That is not to say that nothing in the Google sphere is reliable but that blindly trusting everything Google is dangerous territory for all of us especially children.
Our perception of Hitler is coloured by wartime allegiances

The wartime divisions between the Allies and the Axis powers have left a deep cultural impression. You only have to watch England and Germany play football to see that the old antagonism dies hard. We need only look at the image that Stalin holds in public perception to see the difference. He was responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians who starved due to his economic policies in the thirties and many more in the political purges of the USSR. Stalin's Gulags were as cruel as many Nazi camps. Yet despite the divisions of the Cold War, Stalin retains an image as a kind of 'cuddly dictator' that is far from the demonic portrayal of Hitler. Why? Because Russia fought with the Allies in WWII, whereas Hitler, in the minds of the public, is eternally the figurehead of the enemy.
NO

The opposite is actually a yes argument! Counter: Being evil does not just mean doing things yourself but setting the conditions for it is equally 'evil'. Creating an ideology where such a thing is acceptable or even encouraged is a worse kind of evil as it is deeply insidious twisting others morals. Many people learn what is right and wrong from those with authority and based upon 'the moral standards of the time'. If those in authority are setting moral standards that are abhorrent evil will result.
He was not in his right mind

It is a known fact that when two family members have a child together that, that child can be affected Hitler's mother and father were cousins. Also Hitler spent some time homeless where he was led to believe that it was because of the Jews that he was there. He fought in the first world war where he was gassed which could have confused his brain also because of this gas whenever the'November Criminals' surrendered it would have been harder to accept for him leading him to be more determined for the strong and united Germany he outlined in the 25 point programme. So to summarise I believe that Hitler was never truly evil.
Hitler was no worse than Churchill or Stalin

The fact that Churchill and Stalin were no better (and certainly no heroes their nations assume them to be) bears no weight in argument that Hitler was evil. But lets get data straight: Stalin DID NOT kill 20 million people, as often misquoted in the cold war western propaganda that persists to this day. NYTimes admitted that, and that total number is more likely less than 10 million, most of which died in hunger in Ukraine, and around 1 million died in Gullag and less than that were directly shot. Now political reprisals not withstanding, death from hunger and from genocide is not the same thing, plus Stalin was repressing his own people, not attacking other. As for Churchill, yes, same as Stalin is hero to the Russians but not to some other people, he is hero to British but is widely hated in India. He was racist which was very widespread in England in XIX century and even in his time, but although British rule was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths by hunger in India during two centuries (and Hitler modeled his racist approach on British practices, which included concentration camps for women and children in the Boer war), death from hunger, even of oppressed racially hated people, like Indians, is not the same as the use of poison gas in concentration camps. Although British had all the racist elements of Holocaust and were also involved in genocides and war crimes, Hitler was first to use poison gas (used by British on Iraqi civilians in the 1920s), concentration camps (invented by British empire in Boer War) and hunger in COMBINATION - to great effect. Although Churchill and Stalin have some evil in them, Hitler was much worse.
Hitler was not directly responsible for what occured under his leadership

Just because it was not Hitler holding the gun and herding thousands of innocent people into concentration camps does not mean he is not responsible. He created a racist, fascist dictatorship and gave approval for this mass programme of ethnic cleansing. He had ultimate power and therefore the ultimate responsibility for what took place. Although Hitler had his officials organise the death camps, the ideas of racially purifying Germany and exterminating the Jews were still his idea, and thus he was directly responsible for the atrocities comitted.
Hitler is evil

i personally think that hitler was madder then mad he killed a lot of people he killed hi German shepored that he loved a lot. he got inicent litle disabled babies killed with out thinking twice so he killed a poupilation of pure Germans. so that means he was out of his mind beacause how can you get babies killed. and in the end he was so scared that he commited suicide. so that proves it that he was a coward a murdrer a madman i mean he should have been in a mental ayslum instead of the fuher of Germany
Hitler was responding to the problems of his time; we cannot judge him in hindsight

The problems of his age cannot excuse Hitler's actions. The Holocaust is not a logical response to poverty or political weakness; it is merely an atrocity motivated by personal racial prejudices. Fascism may have seemed a solution to the political problems of the early twentieth century but it was not the only way; Hitler and his associates made a political choice. They must be responsible for their reaction to even the most difficult of circumstances. He CAN be judged in hindsight, not by what we think we would do but judged in comparison to those who ALSO lived in his and did not chose the path he chose. Under the chancellorship of Stresemann, many of the problems of the time had already been solved - the reparations were no longer so crippling, hyper-inflation had been contained... While it can be argued Germany would have been justified in starting WWII following the excessively harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, by the time Hitler came in there was no longer such justification. Hitler was not simply responding to the climate, as could be argued had he risen to power through the 1920s, but at least to a degree setting the climate. I Hitler was responding to the crises of the time, and was left with a broken and economicly unstable country, then apparently America could have done this during the Great Deppresion, right? No, because if he did this during a state of weakness and financial loss, then he would not bee able to afford it, because all of the terrible things he did cost money, which he would have not had. The biggest problem with you idea of why Hitler did what he did doesn't even make sense with what he did. You say he was trying to help fix Germany. If this was true, why was he more focused on taking over more lands than doing what was right for his own country?
this is a neutral point

While it is understandable as to why you would want to be neutral (this is actually a valuable skill), the fact that Hitler killed millions of innocent people will not change. Most, if not all, historical events have been written by winners and have biased point of view, but the reason why Hitler deserves his reputation as a evil man is because, even without all the emotion and "selling the idea" garbage, he killed that many people under the belief that his race was superior and was given the right to cleanse the world of all other "inferior races." That remains as the truth. Mother Teresa has the reputation of being a woman of virtue who helped poor people all over the world. Was this because the media or the government tried to sell the idea or because it was written in the point of view of someone who admired her? No, the fact is, she did do a lot of charity work and helped those less fortunate around her. While I do agree that people tend to dramatize and exaggerate on some points (it is still highly debatable whether Hitler did have his men make book covers out of Jews' skin for example), Hitler does deserve his reputation of being evil because of the unbiased fact that he killed millions of innocent people. How do we know it's not made-up? We have a myriad of solid historical evidence: from Hitler's own recorded speeches, books, accounts, photos.. etc. to back this up.
Answering this question depends entirely on how one perceives and defines the notion of evil.

Before one can answer this question, the concept of 'evil' has to be understood and defined. What exactly is evil? The concept of evil is very complex and ambiguous. One would say it's simple: that evil is 'what is bad', that it is ' what is morally wrong', 'that which is in violation or has the intent of violating moral code". Here lies the problem though and the inherent ambiguity: of what consists the moral code? Morality is not easy; it has many paradoxes: "If you think something is morally wrong but society (or other people) thinks it's morally right, is it right or wrong?" "If one believes (as Hitler did) that a certain class of people (the Jews) are the root of all that is morally wrong (evil), shouldn't that person act on those beliefs? Shouldn't one deliver oneself and others from evil?" Genocides, torture, and other 'crimes against humanity' are not the product of a person's senseless actions or a certain mystical/absolute evil. These acts are the cause of irrational group (because it's never just one individual) behavior stemming from misperceptions, ethical ideals, psychological traumas, delusions, dogmas, radicalism and loss of control over emotions (irrational hatred). There are many examples of this: Rwandan genocide, the heretics during the Middle-Ages, the witch hunts, the terrorism of Al-Qaeda so on and so forth. Even modern examples such as the Srebrenica massacre, the Sabra and Shatila massacre; these happened during warfare by groups of people who had an irrational hatred, who were under a state of mind of warfare and brutality. Hitler wasn't evil, he was racist, he believed that the Jews were inferior and extremely detrimental to society and on the other hand that Germans were a superior race. He actually (along with his followers) lifted germany from the rubbles of WWI and made it (arguably) the most powerful nation during the late 1930's, early 1940's. One should not judge by evil or good. Hatred breeds hatred. One should understand and learn from the past, not condemn its actors.
Hitler was not directly responsible for what occured under his leadership

The structure of the Nazi party meant that policy was not necessarily handed down from the top. Instead, officials in the party were said to be 'working towards the fuehrer', proposing actions that correlated with the broad aims of Adolf Hitler. So while Hitler's ideas on Aryan racial superiority lay at the core of the holocaust and he almost certainly sanctioned it, he was not the one responsible for instigating or implementing the creation of the death camps. Responsibility for this tragedy must be shared with the other members of his government; Himmler in particular was particularly influential in the racial policy of the Third Reich.
Hitler was responding to the problems of his time; we cannot judge him in hindsight

In retrospect, knowing what we do about the devastation of WWII and the holocaust, it is easy to condemn Adolf Hitler. Yet he took power in a country that was suffering from terrible economic depression. Germany had been broken by the disastrous outcome of WWI and the reparations awarded at the treaty of Versailles. The threat of communism also lay heavy over the whole of Europe in the wake of the Russian revolution. In these kind of extreme situations, people naturally turn to extreme solutions. Fascism was a way forward for Hitler, a way to make Germany great again. Patriotism and the belief in cultural supremacy is hardly unique to Nazi Germany; it was equally part of the political belief of the British Empire. The racist elements of Nazi ideology are naturally abhorrent to us. But at the time there were plenty of scientists who believed in the inferiority of some races and that physical appearance was an indicator of some inner nature. This thinking was behind a lot of criminological practice in nineteenth century Britain. The point is, none of the elements of Hitler's belief were new or unique. Germany in the 1920s and 30s was an extremely problematic society. In this situation, it is almost inevitable that a radical ideology like Nazism would come to the fore as a solution; Hitler was responding to this climate, rather than actively leading Germany astray.
this is a neutral point

History is written by the winners of the wars. I am against racism/fear/ignorance in all forms, but understand that culture is an influence on anyone. I used to watch tv movies like "sobibor", "Schindler's List", etc., and feel just as angry about the atrocities portrayed in such movies. Let me tell everyone, that I felt similar feelings when I saw the Abu Ghrahib gallery. At that point, I realized that any culture, any civilization, can become insane/evil. In fact, the ones most likely to become 'evil' are those who believe it cannot happen to them. I do not know how this applies to Germanica; all I know is my own time. The truth is... is that all we 'know' about WW2 has been taught by textbooks and movies written by people who have taken second hand information for truth without critical thought. It has occurred to me that most educated civilians everywhere on Earth regard war and violent conflict of any kind as repugnant. So a government needs to sell the idea to its people. Like the 'secret map' speech by FDR (later debunked by, of all people, the Swiss), or the 911 attacks, dissectible by anyone with the presence of mind to digitally record the news from Hour One on that 'fateful' morning, or anyone with enough memory to remember the way the Mujahideen (Taliban), or Saddam Hussein were glorified by the US during the years of Reaganomics. The truth is, that the US needs its underclass, to ignore the inconsistencies and unexplained anomalies whenever a foreign conflict is brewing. Such an underclass is, by nature _and_ nurture, incapable of collecting all of the historical data in order to think critically about whether or not to rush into battle with a culture they have never bothered to learn about, and, even more insidiously, anyone with enough education/intelligence to question, is probable worried about social standing and credit rating enough to not want to rock the boat. Even Noam Chomsky, an outspoken critic of US foreign policy, or the author of Zeitgeist (a flawed and yet uncowardly vocal masterpiece regarding that which 'everyone "knows"' about the last hundred years of Western/Judeochristian civilization/economics) remain tight-lipped when it comes to the most relevant questions about the last few decades of the world. Consider this a completely _neutral_ comment about Hitler. If there were such a person as described by history or Spielberg, then, yes, such a person would be considered a psychopath. However, it has also been demonstrated that everything we know about these things is a product of media; media which can be controlled/censored/corrupted by interested and entrenched parties with a determination to control that which we think. In other words, if I am to truly hate someone or characterize him/her as evil, someone who I have never met (and never will), then I reserve the right to demand an opportunity to examine _critically_, the very facts upon which such a powerful, potentially negative/destructive emotion is based upon. And unfortunately, the opportunity here is limited... rendering this entire debate moot. Peace
Hitler banned Smoking and Vivisection..

Pointing the finger at others does not mean that Hitler was not evil too... it seems particularly difficult to see how you come to the conclusion that Ike was evil but not Hitler. Ike as a general was simply following orders and fought the war as best he could. I am not aware of any particular massacres that are put at his feet. If Ike was evil then so was every other general. Your idea that the Jews declared war on Germany is so twisted from the facts as to not be worth responding to.
Bias

Something just doesn't add up about the slandering of Hitler. Ok, so, he supposedly killed all these Jews and was a terrible person, but why is it that others who have done the exact same thing are not slandered in the same way that Hitler is? Think about it. The British, French, Dutch, and Spanish royal families have done the exact same thing that Hitler is accused of. The British, Dutch, French, and Spanish went around the world, and still continue killing millions more than Hitler is accused of. Christopher Columbus killed 4 million Native Americans, but we have a holiday for him. The Spanish, British, and French regimes killed over 50 million Native Americans. All of the guys printed on the U.S. dollar have all been guilty of the same crimes Hitler is accused of. The U.S. military and intelligence agencies also do things that are very similar to what Hitler is accused of, so how come there is so little criticism of them? Why are we constantly not reminded of the crimes they committed? Obviously the critics of Hitler aren't really concerned about genocide, and torture, because they only seem to focus on attacking Hitler, while keeping silent on the crimes of the American, Australian, Canadian, and European regimes.
17 million!!

Adolf Hitler has at least killed 17 million people during his time in goverment and thats just people from the halocuast. His Gestapo and Waffen SS killed, tortured and imprisoned thousands of people who spoke out agaisnt him. Also during operation Barbosa he cost the lives of thousands of soldiers. When he ussualy ordered his generals not to retreat. At the end war his refusal to leave berlin cuased the deaths of many civillans who were killed by arty fire or russian troops. Hitler may have rebuilded Germany at one point but he still is Evil!