BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nazi gold train discovery: Communists, Socialists should get their share of the spoils

Thanks Pro, it has been a pleasure to debate this topic. ==Rebuttals==As it happens, the existence of the gold has now been confirmed by Polish authorities--though it seems some experts are still skeptical as to how much of it there actually is. Yesterday, a Polish official stated that ground-radar images had left him '99% convinced' that the gold had in fact been directly located [8. ] . http://www.bbc.co.uk... Now, I'd like to note that Pro has failed to give sufficient reasons on as to *why* this gold should be given to socialists; which is exactly what his resolution was advocating. There is also a contradiction in stating that the 'same principle should apply to other victimized groups of Nazi oppression', when he believes that the Jews, technically the most persecuted group under Nazi Germany, should not receive any of this themselves. Once again, the primary reason on why Jews have claimed stolen Nazi gold is because in most if not all cases, it originally belonged to them--it would be misleading to assume that it was only because of 'collective suffering'. It should be recognized that each Jew [or Jewish family] that was killed and/or sent into Nazi concentration camps lost everything that they had previously owned. This includes their home, and of course personal belongings such as gold. Even gold teeth from Jews was removed during the Holocaust, with much of it being used on the Reichsbank [9. ] . http://www.jewishhistory.org...The likelihood of this gold being stolen from wealthy Jews who had previously inhabited Warsaw, Poland, and other parts of Eastern Europe is extremely likely: [10. ] . http://www.ctvnews.ca...However, I'd highlight again that I'm not arguing that the gold should go towards the Jews, either exclusively or in parts, but that there is a very valid reason why they historically been the main beneficiaries of stolen gold and financial compensation. To negate Pros resolution, my only task is to show that there is significant lack [if any] reason for the newly discovered gold to go towards socialists and communists. He has also not outlined exactly *how* this gold would be distributed among this particular group of people.
Nazi gold train discovery: Communists, Socialists should get their share of the spoils

It is true that the gold cannot be directly attributed to Socialists, no more than it can be directly attributed to Jews: but that didn't prevent the Jews from claiming previous hordes of Nazi loot on the basis of collective suffering - and the same principle should apply to the other victimized groups of Nazi oppression. It is also correct that the gold was discovered in the vicinity of Wroclaw but it was on a train - meaning it could have come from anywhere in Nazi-controlled Europe - to say that it was found en-route to its final destination in a town that had a sizable Jewish population does not entitle Jewish individuals in the US, Israel or elsewhere, who might already be very wealthy, from seizing it to line their own pockets. Finally, I am aware that Socialists do not lust over wealth just for the sake of being wealthy as some other groups do but a few dollars here and there to help pay the bills would not compromise Socialist principles. Remember, I will be keeping all the money in my Swiss bank account and will be very strict about who qualifies for assistance and who does not. Thank you.
High-5!

Suppose that Con is rational, and express a high-five in least possible terms (i.e., as a fully reduced fraction) as (4 fingers / 1 thumb) for natural numbers 4 and 1. Then Con can be expressed in lower terms as [(3) x (1 thumb)] / (4 fingers - 1 thumb), which is a contradiction. (The two fractional expressions are equal because equating them, cross-multiplying, and canceling like additive terms gives (fingers^2) = (3) x (1^2 thumb) and hence (4 fingers / 1 thumb) = Con, which is true by the premise. The second fractional expression for Con is in lower terms since, comparing denominators, [(4 fingers - 1 thumb) < 1 thumb] since (4 fingers < 2 thumbs) since [(4 fingers / 1 thumb) < 2] since (Con < 2).
High-5!

I am against the high-five for the following reasons 1) It is a quick way to spread bacteria, viruses, and other ilk to other people 2) There are many other classier alternatives that are already making the high five fade into extinction 3) Having someone walk towards you while holding their right arm in the air in high five motion was would led to the rise of Nazi-ism 4) Most people high five with their right hand and also masturbate with their right hand...... meaning people who high-five probably have hand herpes... 5) It discriminates against people who have arthritis, are too short, or are too slow
Should schools allow phones

Phones should not be allowed in school, for multiple reasons 1) Phones provide a distraction that are of great annoyance to teachers and other students. Students play games, go on Snapchat and Instagram, listen to music, text people, and surf the internet on their phones. Phones are way more entertaining than any boring lecture, and then students wonder why they are failing when they are playing on their phones and the students next to them are watching. Them not being allowed is beneficial to teacher and students alike 2) Phones get broken and lost. Anyone who was just a bit too clumsy will know. Students drop their phones, they get broken, or cracked, or stolen, or lost. The students then make a big fuss, even though they only have themselves to blame. This is a problem for parents and teachers, who have to deal with this child who really shouldn't be allowed a phone if they are going to break it 3) Emergencies, or "emergancy" as you call it, hardly ever happen. I have never been in nor ever heard of an emergency situation in school where i would or could call someone. It is also the schools responsibility to inform guardians of any emergency, and this is only in the case of an actual emergency , not personal problems. This sums up my views on phones in school. I'm also going to point out there are plenty of arguments that you could have used, but did not. Thank you for the opportunity to dismember your argument.
Adult have a responsibility to stop child bullying

I believe that adults do have the responsibility to stop child bullying. Considering the multitude of suicides that have been caused by lack of adult intervention because of bullying is astronomical. Not to mention is has been researched that bullying at a young age leads to numerous disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety. Probably even more so. Also, I am a victim of bullying and you may have been too. I wished for an adult to be there for me, do you think you would want the same?
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay.

Well that was quicker than I thought. Let's see how many pictures of lolcats I can post on here before my time runs out. ....... ......... ......... ...........http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...;http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Okay, I'm sorry. That's enough cuteness for one day.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay.

While the people who may watch MPL:FiM may or may not be gay, that does not make the actual video gay. The resolution clearly states "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay". So my opponent must prove that the video itself has to be homosexual in sexual orientation, as I posited the definition of gay was. He fails to do this, instead just insults people who watch it.I contend that the video itself cannot be gay because it cannot have a sexual orientation. It's a video, it is not a sentient being, nor a living being. It has no feelings, despite what some people feel about their prized inanimate objects. They have no feelings, thus cannot feel anything. They cannot feel love and lust, and cannot form a sexual thought (or any thought at all). Thus, it is impossible for videos to be homosexual, or gay, in nature. Thus, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic cannot be gay.Thus, the resolution is easily negated.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay.

It is gay. Why? Go to Google and type in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and take a look at those pictures. Look at those pink girly colors and ponies. All girls and sh!ts. Pink and ponies are for wee little girly sh!ts. If men watch this sh!ts, then they are gay. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is gay. Period. https://www.google.com...
The Playstation 4 is better than the Xbox one.

Its kind of obvious the PS4 wins. Because PS4 is more advanced than the Xbox One. Xbox One is just going to be like the Xbox 360 expect the main menu is going to be slightly different. The PS4 though is going to be much more advanced. The menu is going to be different, graphics is going to be better. They probably will fix the system to where you can change your name freely without worrying about the consequences.
The Playstation 4 is better than the Xbox one.

Okay this argument is going to go by in a flash. PS4 is better than the Xbox One. Why this is so is because of the fact that the PS4 has free membership and you get to change your name for free. The only bad thing is you have to restart to change your name. Xbox One mean while. You pay for membership and to get your name changed for about 100 dollars per month. That's a waste a money to pay to play.
You chose a reasonable thing to Debate about.

My argument will be about abortion. I am for abortion. Abortion is right in every way because the mother is the one that has to walk around for nine months and take care of the baby. In addition, the baby doesn't yet have rights because it is inside another person. In a debate for the senator seat of Illinois, Alan Keyes challenged Obama and compare the act of abortion to terrorism. He also said that Abortion is taking away the population of blacks. Now hear me out. I'm black to and in a way it's a good thing blacks count for 1/3 of abortion. Listen, most murders, drugs, gangs, theft (most of the crime of the U.S) is committed by African Americans. And these African Americans are the ghetto, drug taking, gang bangers. They aren't the smart and sophisticated African Americans. The Black women who are using abortion are the ones that live in the bad areas the ones that get pregnant at 16 and live in areas surrounded by gangsters and drugs. Now imagine a kid growing up in that are. He/she will be surrounded by terrible role models and they will not change the world for the better definitely not. The might even kill. So by using abortion, the black women are actually saving lives.
You chose a reasonable thing to Debate about.

The fetus, like I said above is completely reliant on the mother. It takes in the air that she breaths , the food she eats and the water she drinks. It's like a pimple or a disease. It lives off your body. Literally. In addition, it's not a a human or at least not yet. It has the potential to be a human. But it is definitely not a person. Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Also, the mother doesn't have to be in danger, to get an abortion, she may just be not ready to have a baby yet. The way she lives may not allow her to have a baby. She might not have enough money to sustain herself and her baby. It's her body, she can do whatever she wants with it.
You chose a reasonable thing to Debate about.

I wouldn't bring them back but I would stop them from being killed if I could. We're still in exponential growth, and yes I know that it doesn't last forever but your arguement is a bit similar to china's barbaric one child policy. In the end it came down to separated families, the rich being able to have children and infant genocide. You have of coarse not gone as far as proposing anything as far as that but my point is that they saw their population as just a number and the horrific things that happened all took place because they had lack of care for human life. I ask then, how exactly do you think abortion will reduce population? Where is your proof? I can't imagine it would be morer than a fraction of a fraction of a percent you are talking about. Every fetus should have the right to life as long as it's not going to harm the mental or physical state of the mother, if abortion is allowed on other terms it begs the question is life becoming disposable. It's only those who are born who have this choice to throw away potencial life. If someone is raped I can even understand it because it damages the mental health of the mother. The system however that you are explaining is the current one in which abortion is one of easiest things to do within the time given. If you come from america then I'm not sure about it because I think it varies from state to state. I live in Great Britain and I understand the need to end it. Unlike the other countries in europe, it can be done just under 24 weeks! I recently discovered that the youngest premature baby born was 21 weeks 5 days OLD! www.lifenews.com/2011/04/24/youngest-surviving-premature-baby-in-europe-heads-home/ It could have remained in the womb for 2 more weeks and still be aborted. That is the reason why I would have to disagree with you.
You chose a reasonable thing to Debate about.

There is also another reason why abortion is needed. two words OVER-POPULATION. There are way to many human beings on this earth and we're not helping it. We're sucking it dry just like a vampire would suck the blood out of a human. But unlike a vampire, we don't have another 6.5 billion earths to suck dry. (if u get what i mean) we are polluting the earth and taking away all the resources so hey if a more than a few embryos don't get to reach life, it's for the better. Let me ask you this, if you could bring back the 8 million people that died during the holocaust would you? i wouldn't 'cause imagine a world that has nearly 7.5 billion people.
You chose a reasonable thing to Debate about.

OK, so you're arguing for abortion and you are using the example of all the unfit environments for children to live in. I understand your point but here's what I think: Firstly, I think that abortion is in a way like taking of a life. My reasoning for this is that as soon as the egg and sperm join together it becomes a embryo. It at that has all it needs to become a baby inside it. From that point on it just develops. It gains a heart and brain, fingers and toes and more. Because it's such a hard thing to study the point at which the embryo gets called a fetus and therefore too developed to abort is hard to measure. Secondly, It is a kind of slippery slope that is being started. Every little step added up in the future could lead to the lack of worth of human life in the future. It should be allowed to help save the mothers life I think but right now there's only a time limit and a payment away. Because it has become so easy to abort a baby now it means that any baby from any background could be aborted not just the babies in the situations you mentioned. In the future who knows where it could lead. I am in the UK which means it's night now so I'll be gone for a long time now. I await your response.
Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes

1. Introduction- As agreed upon via PM, I will also clarify the burdens of both the Pro and the Con during this round! a. The only way a vote can be justified for Pro is if they prove the resolution to be true. They hold the burden of proof, whereas the Con holds the burden of clash. b. The Con has the burden in their refutations to argue that medical marijuana should be illegal. However they do not need to prove this claim to warrant a vote, they simply need to refute the Pro. This clarification exists to negate a 'balanced neg' approach to refutation. c. The debate should judged first and foremost on a standard of comparative advantage; if at the end of the round both claims seem equal than the vote should default Con. 2. Conclusion- I look forward to an entertaining debate and to my opponent's opening statements
Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes

The full resolution of this debate is "Mariuana should be legal in the case that it is prescribed by a licensed, board certified physician and used strictly for medicinal purposes." I will be aruging in favor of the resolution. My opponent must argue that medicinal marijuana should be illegal.Format:(1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statements(3) Counter-Arguments(4) Rebuttals(5) Closing StatementsRules:(1) No forfeiting(2) No plagiarism(3) No semantics(4) No arguing in the comment sectionA violation of any of the above mentioned rules shall result in an automatic loss of conduct points.
Individuals have more rights than the collective.

take for example , In a country's parliament or a legislative if act or a bill passes in then it is passed with the voting of a group of people then it goes in activated as everybody know that a country is active with a large group and mass of people ad goes for unity.... Because a large mass of people have more right in the country and in very movement of actions than a single and an individual person . But i respect ur views that you have got a respect and right as an individual and taking it forward.
Individuals have more rights than the collective.

in this part and in every point of your views i will not criticize u rather say the truth where the people who are in collectively and in group have the best way to do the happenings and manhandle the situations ...... If u go to place and the group of people make harshy comments on u and mislead u u need other frnds to help u . If u go to a police station and cry for help then that cop individual could not help a helpless woman like u but the people in public could come to ur aid . Thus Public are the only ways u can come across any situations
Individuals have more rights than the collective.

I'm sorry for the disagreement, but, rape victims can't always stop their rapists. That is just one example. If all of America lobbied to have me tortured to death, I before God would still have individual rights. Tat is why I'm a moderate Republican. Let me share a parable. A collectivist democracy is two wolves and a baby lamb voting on what's for dinner. An individualist republic is a well armed lamb ontesting the vote.
debate.org is retarded and so are the debates on this retarded website

I accepted the debate as simple debate etiquette, allowing you to expand on your opening argument why allowing us both the same number of rounds to argue. I’ll let my opponent’s resolution error slide seeing that his use of the word “retarded” is inappropriate for the resolution. Retarded - less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age. [1] This renders my opponent’s resolution incoherent giving him a burden of proof which would be impossible to fill, therefore giving me the win. Instead, I will accept that he used the “urban” use of the word retarded, meaning stupid. This should cost my opponent grammar/spelling points . Now, by the wording of the resolution, my opponent must argue that every aspect of Debate.org, in concept, and in debates is stupid. In order to fulfill such a burden of proof my opponent needs to offer an argument that can entail the stupidity of every single debate on this website including the website itself. My opponent has ever so obviously failed to do so, seeing that he neatly cherry picks two debates then concludes the entire website and all of its debates are retarded. My opponent must give proper reasoning for why a website that allows people from all over the world to come together in debate in order to further our intellectual knowledge is stupid. After all, knowledge is a universal common good, and my opponent must argue that something that supports this good is stupid. My opponent must also argue that every debate on this site is also stupid, including but certainly not limited to: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... My opponent simply has a burden of proof that cannot be filled, and therefore cannot win this debate. [1] https://www.google.com...
Has Ronald Mcdonald Killed More People Than Pennywise

Hi there, I would like to define a couple of terms. Ronald McDonald- Ronald McDonald is a clown character used as the primary mascot of the McDonald's fast-food restaurant chain. In television commercials, the clown inhabits a fantasy world called McDonaldland, and has adventures with his friends Mayor McCheese, the Hamburglar, Grimace, Birdie the Early Bird, and The Fry Kids. Pennywise aka It-Pennywise the dancing clown or Bob Gray, is the title character and main antagonist of Stephen King's 1986 horror novel It. The character is a demonic entity that preys upon the local children of Derry, Maine every twenty-seven years, through a variety of powers that include the ability to shapeshift, manipulate, and possess. (wikipedia. org, 2016)What I am trying to prove is that Ronald McDonald has not killed more people than Pennywise. Penny wise has killed multiple people, as stated above, which is way more than the Ronald Mcdonalds gang, and even then this is speculation.
Has Ronald Mcdonald Killed More People Than Pennywise

I believe that Ronald McDonald has killed more people than Penny-wise. I believe this because why else would a full grown man wear makeup in a diner targeting little children? Does McDonald have some sort of a strange problem? Of course he does. Ronald McDonald had many side kicks in the past, such as; The Hamburgler, Grimace and Wendy. But where did they go? I say he brutally murdered them because they were threatening to expose him to the media and kids of all kind.
should evolution be taught in school's

I'm going to ask you to provide evidence as to why creationism should be taught in public schools during your next round. Creationism should not be taught in public schools, first because of the separation of church and state brought up in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (http://www.ratical.org...) For this reason, public, government funded schools should not teach creationism in schools.
should evolution be taught in school's

(I'm sorry, but until tomorrow at least, I'll be extremely busy and unable to post a long response, so here's all I can today) Despite evidence that dinosaurs did not live alongside humankind, creationist beliefs attempt to teach this(http://www.creationism.org...). Is this what American schools need? Does this really teach any more or even as much as evolution? Also, you have yet to tell me why public schools should disobey the first amendment. Thank you.
Cats are better than dogs.

Dogs are held in a higher esteem than cats. According to livescience.com, cats are worse than dogs when it comes to allergies. It states that there are no true hypoallergenic breeds of cat. Secondly, you contradicted your side and argument by saying, "There is literally no difference." Also, you need to clean out a cat's litter box every other day, so you would spend more money on the sand or whatever you put in your cat's litter box, while all you need for a dog is a leash and a roll of poop bags that will last you a while. For these reasons, I stand by my argument that dogs are held in a higher esteem than cats.
Cats are better than dogs.

Cats are far superior than dogs. On the first note, cats don't take up much space. You can have it in an apartment. Second, note cats aren't much work. They can be indoor or outdoor and there is no need for walks. They are great with kids and easy to have at college as well. Cats are still as loving, soft, and cute as dogs. There is literally no difference. Cats are more flexible than dogs. Cats don't need to be pampered. Dogs have to be groomed, bathed, they must have a bed. Cats can sit in your lap, lick your face and do cute tricks. However, dogs are a small bit smarter. But this really matters on the consistency of your training. Therefore, cats are better than dogs.