BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Defending Hitler cont.

I completely agree that history is written by winners. Hitler had proven himself a genious on multiple instances in various fields, which in hindsight is perhaps his worst aspect but I'll get to that later. This is a bit odd but I will start with the proof of his genious, as he made several revolutionary ideas.The Volkswagen [1]This was a car built for the masses, made to drive on any terrain, he went as far as providing even the original sketches for what he thought it should look like. The Blow Up Doll [2] albeit debatable he definetely had a hand in this, infact the Borghild project focused on making an extremely realistic one. Great scientific weapons (near plague invented) [3]Hitler led Germany to massive scientific funding, so much so that the U.S. felt the need to bring over Nazi scientists at the conclusion of the war. In fact there were scientific applications in many fields, He of course funded the V-2 Rocket which was the first long-range guided ballistic missile. [4]Now you might be wondering what these advances have in common, simply put he made them all first in foremost to help his war effort. By any measure he was one of the most intelligent leaders of any country in the history of mankind, despite all this potential he chose to be an agent of chaos.Now when you're looked for a blurred motive you have to look at the result of his actions to find the motive, which we agree it's blurred, seeing as history is written by winners.World War Two was very winnable for Germany at one point in time. Hitler had a choice before him of what to do with the jews and the gypsies. He chose to round them up and enslave them, now if he wanted the third reich to thrive he would surely have them labor. While the war was being lost, he chose to speed up the process of the elimination which was extremely counterproductive. If he believed it had to be done for the third reich to thrive then he should have had them work and liquidate them after. Now in the case of Hitler, it would be extremely neglegient to say he made this choice out of well neglegiance. If you look at his own advertised propoganda along with his decision to liduidate the jews and the gypsies, which halted labor immensily at this also took alot of manhours. It is clear he didn't believe in what he was promoting, the motive now clear from the outcome was to leave Germany and as much of europe as possible in ruins.This is very well explained by Jordan peterson who is a clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. [5][1] http://www.history.com...[2] https://www.thevintagenews.com...[3] https://www.smithsonianmag.com...[4] http://www.bbc.com...[5]
Defending Hitler cont.

Continuing from where we left of. I said, In this round, we will be laying out the foundations of our main arguments in Round 2. Then we'll save the rebuttals for rounds 3-4. If warranted, we can continue in the comments. The main points about the defence of Hitler(in order of importance) that I want to highlight include: -Current Propaganda -The Socio-Economic Struggles of Pre-Nazi Germany -How he managed his Propaganda and PR -Religion -Hitler was an Innovator -The World after Hitler In terms of current propaganda, we are all aware that victors get to rewrite History, and that is evident in Hitler's case. Most uneducated, ignorant people believe he was an evil monster, especially if American media outlets tell them so. Hitler had a motive and deep passion in life, and that clearly makes him human... In depth, after suffering a heavy financial loss in WW1, Germany suffered a Depression much like the Great US Depression, inflation rose and unemployment soured. Germany was 10 * worse off than Greece is today. Hitler had the balls to take this burden on himself and implement a strategy for a better, more socio-economically balanced country. Some may view what he did as ethnic cleansing, but Hitler saw it as an opportunity to redistribute wealth and gain a huge public backing... In other words, he was a master strategist who took advantage of his sheeples hatred towards Jews, and used it to gain their support. And that is what a leader needs, support and a following. Furthermore, Hitler was no maniacal idiot, he himself was a decorated soldier, and he was highly educated, unlike his haters. Being heavily invested in Hinduism, he sort to bring tradition and culture back in to the forefront. Moreover, he literally developed and built the first motorway system, so pray tell me how you'd get around without that, Heyy?!?! Moreover, without Hitler, modern science would be nothing, Hitler took advantage of his murderous tendencies, and used his prisoners as scientific experiments for the betterment of the future. Yes Hitler is the reason you have survived many diseases, viruses and infections. Lastly, if Hitler won WW2, there would be now US/UK-RUSSIA-AL QAEDA/ISIS BEEF, OK, so relax. Hitler would not care if you didn't get more than 10 likes on Insta, OKAY, he would have made sure you contributed to the wellbeing of a nation better any leader has done since god knows.
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

Hello. I am a high school debater looking for some extra practice before an upcoming tournament. This is a public forum debate and seeing as we only have four rounds to debate after the introduction, we will not do any crossfires. Instead ask any questions at the end of your speech and the other person will bring up the answers in their next speech. Here is the format for the rounds: first round = introduction. say hi. second round = case. present you arguments here third round = rebuttal. explain flaws in you opponent's case and crystallize your own here. fourth round = summary. summarize what the key voting issues of the debate are. this should be half the length of your case and rebuttal last round = final focus. briefly explain why you have won the round. I thank anyone who accepts this debate. I'll be waiting :)
Only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

Looking at your answers, you still haven't really got what I am saying. The idea isn't to not give anyone aid, or for any selfish reason like that, it is to encourage long-term development in those countries, which ultimately helps those people more. There is no arrogance, or anything stupid like that, we are simply trying to help countries the best we can, in a way that even you, in your first sentence, admitted was the most beneficial method of aid. As to finding a peaceful way to take care of things, introducing values like equality and democracy is more peaceful than outright war, (which is what I was meaning when I mentioned Afghanistan), and much, much more effective than simply throwing money mindlessly at these corrupt people. As to my source not being reliable, a quick search on the Internet corroborates my source. I chose wikipedia simply because it was the first one I picked. I think it is fairly easy to prove the accuracy of my claims. To close, you wished me to say how not giving aid will benefit these other countries. I'm pretty sure I've been saying this throughout my debate, but never mind. Here goes... There is no point sending money to countries when the majority of the money will go to the rich and corrupt, not helping the common public and the needy at all. The best way of looking after people in a country is to help them look after themselves. Therefore, we must improve the country's infrastructure and attitude towards the common people, as well as eradicating corruption, to ensure that any future aid is effective. The best way to do this is by setting goals for the country to meet, in terms of eradicating corruption and promoting equality. This method is in fact the one commonly used by the major countries already. Please note that this is still "giving aid", but so much in terms of money, but as in long-term development of the country, which will ultimately benefit that country more. "Catch a man a fish, and he doesn't go hungry for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he doesn't go hungry for life" -Gandhi
Only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

In response to your first paragraph: How do we know that stopping to give hem aid will benefit them? It will not, it will just make it worse. What about our reputation and promise to give those countries aid? Are we just going to forget about that and demonstrate our arrogance even more? You are forgetting that we send aid because we can afford it, we have a better quality of life than they do and as an M.E.D.C. we should be happy to give without any incentives. If we, as you put it, "bend" to the way of terrorists and dictators it would save more lives than forcibly removing them from power. I also disagree that we are bending to the will of cruel dictators, we just finding a peaceful way to take care of things that will not result in violence. 2nd paragraph response: You are correct in saying that our goal is to help countries the best they can but how do we expect to do that without giving aid? You found a source from Wikipedia, however can we really trust the reliability of that source? In your last points I would really love for you to illustrate how not giving them aid would benefit them. 3rd paragraph response: Again, what would you suggest we do exactly? Giving aid to countries is the most peaceful way.
Only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

I must apologise for my repeating of the argument, my computer has been acting up a lot, and I didn't realise that it had worked the first time. In response to Para 1+2 (Round 2): You admitted in your first round that countries would benefit more from being allowed to develop independently. Your reason against this in this paragraph is that it might risk the ire of certain countries or terrorist organisations. So you're saying that we should not allow the majority of people to live fuller, better lives in these countries because we are scared of putting ourselves at risk? I'm not sure a policy that bends to the will of terrorist groups and brutal dictators is necessarily the best idea ever. In fact, the refusal to help others to the best of our ability because we are scared of a minority group retaliating seems to be the more selfish idea. In response to Para 3 (round 2) Once again, as you admitted, helping a country help itself is the best form of aid. So how exactly are we being selfish? You seem to be confused over what I am saying our goal is. The goal is not to save money, it is to help the other country the best we can. Also, do you think other countries just throw money at these poorer countries? No. This whole idea of long-term development involves countries working together to get the best outcome. If you want proof, research the 31st G8 summit (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I particularly liked the section whereby the group of countries agreed to a plan to relieve the debt of countries who met the required growth in terms of reducing corruption. Sounds familiar? This is the course of action I am advocating, and it seems to be backed up by the leaders of many important countries. Go figure. In response to para 1 (round 3) Your example of America's war in Afghanistan just shows how big a problem giving aid can be if done improperly. When Russia invaded Afghanistan, the USA sent a lot of aid, with no end plan. The results speak for themselves.
Only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

Maybe you haven't realized but you stated the exact same argument that I did a response for and as I dislike repeating myself if you want my reply to that argument look above the one I am replying to now. However, I do have a new statement since you obviously cannot reply to my others. You said that we help them financially so have you thought what would happen if we stopped? Thousands of people could die and the U.K. would be responsible. Also, I agree that removing bad dictators from power is a bad thing but at what cost does that come at? America removed the Taliban from power, forcefully which resulted in a war with thousands of lives lost, do you wish for that to happen to the U.K.?
Only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

Which countries do you think we are giving aid to? We are not giving aid to rich countries like China, the USA etc, we are aiding 3rd world countries who are stuck in poverty. How many people in countries like Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Libya can afford to visit the UK? How much do they contribute to the tourism of the UK? As to going to war, how much of a threat do you really think these countries are? There's a reason we are giving aid to them, not them to us. In regard to countries hating us, the only people who might hate the change in policy we are trying to make happen would be the corrupt officials and dictators, certainly not the common public, whose living conditions would improve tremendously if we can convince other countries to make changes. Personally, I don't really care about being hated by people whose actions are detrimental to their entire country, and whose selfish, sometimes even brutal actions, harm their people. Surely using our aid to remove these people from positions of power can only be a good thing?
Only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

These countries are a real threat and I believe it is ignorant to think otherwise. You pick out certain countries like Nigeria or Libya that might not be a threat but you seem to miss out countries like Afghanistan that can be a threat to us and can potentially cause war, or at least cause terror on our country which would have the same impact as war. I'm not saying people in those countries won't come to the U.K. I'm saying everyone else won't because they will be too scared in case a terror attack happened whilst they were there. After 9/11, airport income plummeted since people were too scared to go on a plane in case the same thing happened. I also believe that it is ignorant to say that you don't care whether or not dictators hate us. May I remind you that dictators rule the country, whatever they say, goes. If they say attack the U.K. what do you think the citizens will do? The reason why 9/11 happened was because of Al-Qaeda's hatred for the West, do you really want to risk that happening? I would also like to point out that they would not be the only countries hating us since the U.K. along with other developed countries made a law that meant that they had to give some money to less fortunate countries, how do you think others will react when they see how selfish we are being?
Only give development aid to countries that share British values of democracy and equality

It is true what you say about countries benefiting more if we let them develop on there own, however have you stopped to think about the implications of this happening? What do you think countries would do if we stopped giving them aid? They would hate us which would give the U.K a bad name and a bad reputation and we cannot afford that. The U.K is one of the most visited countries in the world and we get most of our money from tourism, what do you think would happen if people started a war on us because we stopped giving them aid? They would be scared and stop coming to the U.K and our income will go down dramatically.
All gingers should dye their hair black or blonde.

1. How are Gingers an Abomination?A. My opponent's statistic source is not reliable. It is a joke website meant for humor purposes only, not for actual statistics.For whatever reason, my opponent missed the giantass disclaimer at the bottom of the page:"This site is not intended as a tool for hurting other people because of the color of their hair or skin!" *Actual sizeB. My definition of abomination n. Anything greatly disliked or abhorred. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]This definition should be valued above my opponent's because it come from Random House Dictionary 2013, the most commonly referred to dictionary to date. Also, it's not a subjective definition unlike my opponent's.While suicide may be abhorred, my opponent has not proven that gingers are the main cause of suicide, therefore has not proven that gingers are an abomination.Also, all gingers must commit suicide for all gingers to be an abomination, therefore requiring all gingers to have to dye their hair. 2. How Will Dying Their Hair Change This for the Better?A. Boom, statistics invalid.B. My opponent makes a fairly decent point. He's no trying to implement a law, so what's his plan? If there is no plan, this won't work. If this won't work, we shouldn't do it.Also, he dodges that the only way to prevent bullying through making people look the same is to make all people look the same, A.K.A. fascism.C. i. Attacker's motive not confirmed.ii. I'll allow this one.iii. The attacker was drunk. He's named one definite case. I unfortunately have to call out an "if one then all" fallacy.D. A far easier solution would be to raise awareness of bullying (if it's even that bad) rather than forcing gingers to change their identity.3. Why Not Brown?A. [http://beauty.about.com...] Maybe my opponent likes it, but experts beg to disagree. Jet-black hair will wash a pale person out. It simply looks goth and trashy.B. Blondes feel social pressure for their issues, too. Whether the jokes still exist or not, blondes still feel targeted (try having a blonde girlfriend. No, really, try to go a day without a complaint about being blonde). Bottom line, brown is the safest color, if any, a ginger should have to change to.ConclusionI like being a ginger and I don't want to change, therefore not all gingers will benefit from this, therefore not all gingers should change. There's the only thing I really need to say.No reason, no plan, no proof.Con.
All gingers should dye their hair black or blonde.

1. How are gingers an abomination?A. "First, of all, I request that my opponent cites where he found those statistics."http://www.jlowman.com...B. "Commiting suicide does not make you an abomination"I strongly disagree. First of all, let's get the definition of abomination straight.a·bom·i·na·tion Noun1. A thing that causes disgust or hatred.2. A feeling of hatred. Whenever a human being commits suicide, it makes the suicide rate for the nation higher. When I see a high suicide rate for the nation that I live in, it fills me with disgust.2. How will dying their hair change this for the better?A. I was simply making an estimation, I apologize for the confusion. I should have been more precise.B. Whoa, whoa, whoa. let's back this train up, I said nothing about a law where gingers have to dye their hair. I am simply stating that gingers should dye their hair. Just trying to solve the world's problems one step at a time, right?C. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk...There you are good sir.D. False. I would like to help the abominations in this world. So, you know, they aren't abominations anymore. My intentions are 100% devoted to helping the ginger people in this society.3. Why Not Brown?A. I have to disagree with you. I like how the black hair contradicts with the white skin. I think it looks good.B. Really? who makes blonde jokes anymore, man? That was so fifteen years ago.
All gingers should dye their hair black or blonde.

1. How are gingers an abomination?First, of all, I request that my opponent cites where he found those statistics. I don't believe them, and I don't think anyone else does either. Making up statistics is what sends people the ninth circle of Debate.org Hell, so I ask that these statistics be cited.But let's assume those ridiculous percentages are true for a moment. Commiting suicide does not make you an abomination, nor does being a satanist or a paga, nor does being harrassed.2. How will Dying Their Hair Change This For the Better? A. More fake statistics.B. If a law is implimented that all gingers have to dye their hair, there will be no more gingers. If there are no more gingers, natural instinct will kick in and children will simply find another physical or mental feature to pick on. The only way to cease bullying is to make everyone exactly the same. Second holocaust, anyone?C. "There are many cases where a child has been severely beaten, just because of the collor of this person's hair." Name three.D. My opponent contradicts himself by saying that we should help gingers, but also calls them an abomination. If they're an abomination, we shouldn't be helping them. Contradiction-no-jutsu.3. Why Not Brown?Black hair would look absolutely horrendous on a ginger because it would emphasize their pale skin. Blonde hair would not cease bullying due to blonde jokes.My opponent needs some fashion sense, let me tall you, sista.Conclusion:C'mon. Are we really going to impliment this policy? Of course not. Con wins.
All gingers should dye their hair black or blonde.

A. How are gingers an abomination to society? 30% of gingers commit suicide by the age of 16, or feel great self hatred. 20% of gingers are completely aware that they lack a soul, and commit to a life of satanism or Paganism. That is half of the ginger population that have such problems, not to mention all of the gingers that are harassed every day for the color of their hair. B. How will dying their hair black or blonde change this for the better? At least 90% of the time a ginger is bullied for their color of hair. So if the child's hair is dyed before they attend school, the other children will not know that the child is a ginger, and the chances of this child being bullied for the color of their hair decreases significantly. There are many cases where a child has been severely beaten, just because of the color of this person's hair. C. Why not brown? I suppose brown is a fine, I was simply suggesting some of the more preferred hair colors.