BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Web design competition

Well, that story's going to be pretty hard to beat. I was reading about the Cosmos reboot they're launching this year and thought I'd make a high-tech sciency website. Don't forget to click on the magical prism of science! (Clicking on the atom in Chrome can be a bit tempramental for some unknown reason - click it a few times if it doesn't work the first time) DESIGN: http://lynkd.co.nz... HTML CODE: http://lynkd.co.nz... CSS CODE: http://lynkd.co.nz... Remember that I'm not allowed to use any ja vascript. This is all HTML5 and CSS. Featuring extensive use of CSS-based animation and various cutting edge css techniques, including my own model of the solar system with real-time shading, a model of an atom with 3D billboarding, a huge 3D DNA model (yeah - I had to transform all 160 nucleotides in the model seperately!), a full periodic table etc. All of the graphics on the site that aren't photos are CSS generated too. Browser compatibility notes: Chrome: generally runs correctly (though still it doesn't always get it right) Firefox: generally runs correctly, but can be a bit slow Internet Explorer: gets some of the 3D stuff wrong (I've put in some fall-backs but it's better to use a different browser) Safari: runs really fast but unfortunately gets the prism wrong I remember back when Flash was the only way to make sites like this lol. Still please remember that I'm using very experimental technology here, quite capable of crashing your graphics card if the browser has a glitch. Looking forward to the last round!
Web design competition

First off, that was an utterly impressive round by Larz. His experience is definitely leaking through! Great job once again. Round 2 Larzthewinner: http://www.future-writers.org... This theme is a Larzthewinner and edb8.com fansite. It should work better than my last design. It has better compatibility with different browsers, is more responsive, and looks a little cleaner. I tried to keep this one from going overboard like my last one might have been. And if you are interested, click the "read more" link under "the story of Larz greatness" and it will link to a silly short story of his feats, and pretend DDO story. I was bored lol. Or click here to read it:https://docs.google.com... HTML: http://www.filedropper.com... CSS: http://www.filedropper.com...
Should the Government Brake Our Bad Habits

My opponent says that the government does not help, that is such a false accusation. If the government didn't help then schools wouldn't receive funds from ones taxes and there wouldn't be control on how people drink and drive. In order to be in a safe society we depend on the government to make schools safer the streets far from danger. Maybe we can't force kids to eat healthier but if we add more activities to schools from K-8 in the gym, sports, and playgrounds I don't think that the kids would mind that and some parents would support that Alexandra Meyers says " If the government would add more activities most of us as parents wouldn't have to suffer from our children being obese and getting diseases at such a young age." Maybe meth can't be stopped but their are people like the government stopping people that are addicts. Taxing cigarettes is to get more money for schools and jobs.
Should the Government Brake Our Bad Habits

I have not spoken of anything that the government has done to stop obesity. I have just spoken of the question of is this the correct path and evidence against it. Yes many people are obese, but school lunches and fast food restaurants have changed. Smaller portions and more organic foods are to be in school lunches and restaurants. This has done nothing to stop obesity, your statistics even prove so. And even though if they add more options of sports and such, what will make kids do them.You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Kids are growing up in a society of constant bombardment of ads, the products that are hurting kids are not being banned just being given in smaller doses. Nothing stops kids from taking more food from mcdonalds and such places. Government control has done nothing. Look at cigarattes, the taxes are extremely high and people still buy them, what else can they do? ban them? Any illegal item can bought in the u.s. All this will do is make the market a scary place to buy and unreliable.Yes many people die because of tobacco, and so people from meth. Meth illegal and look how many people still use it. Government does not help, they make things worse.
Should the Government Brake Our Bad Habits

My opponent says that the government has done some changes for obesity like healthier foods. If that was so then how come school foods haven't changed and fast foods are still selling foods that are not healthy for one's body. In the United States more then 35.7% of adults are obese and 15.3% are children, why shouldn't parents allow that the government offers and allow the government to add more sports, play grounds, and rec centers for children so they will become healthier. Rob Eissler says that 34 children die each hour from being obese, is my opponent trying to say that we should keep having all these children to die then get the government to help. Obesity isn't the only thing killing human beings, but also the cause of cigarettes and how the government cut back on how much cigarettes a person can smoke. Each year around 6.5 million people die from smoking cigarettes. Millions of people die each year from getting cancer and people aren't willing to get help so would we rather have more dead bodies then a lived ones.
Should the Government Brake Our Bad Habits

Sam Baker says in his article "study:health law key to fighting obesity" "No state saw a drop in obesity levels" he is referring to the fact that even with all of this government control and regulation of unhealthy food states aren't seeing drops Obesity levels. In an interview witha scholastic news reporter Michelle Obama, a leading person in the fight against obesity, said " Let's move is not about having government telling people what to do, because the government doesn't have all the answers" Something does need to be done about obesity and bad habits, but is government regulation the way to go.
Should the Government Brake Our Bad Habits

Should the government brake our bad habits? I say yes, why shouldn't we allow help from the government. Over the years people have gained more weight statistics show that in the year 2007 24.7% of the population was obese and in the year 2010 35.8% was obese so over the course of three years the population showed in extreme growth on over weight. Kids that are the future of this world are dying from over weight why shouldn't we allow the government to help if parents won't even help their own children. If the government would add to schools more activities like sports, better play grounds, and more rec centers then more of these children's health can be saved.
Defining "Good" and "Evil"

Not only is it bad conduct and totally illegal in debating rules to change definitions half way through a debate but even if we accepted Pro's new addition to Syntropy, Pro has provided us zero ways to determine 'volition' and hasnt even proved that free will itself even exists to the slightest extent.Free will leads to disorder, a universe of determinism is more orderly than one with free will thus volition is entropic by its vary nature.
Defining "Good" and "Evil"

I think that ContraDictator brings up some good points. Specifically, the question posed "Are all orderly beings equally moral?" seems relevant, and ignored by me. I think the only option I have is to answer no. ContraDictator noted that the Nazis (who I considered to be evil), are very orderly--moreso than the Jews. Thus I believe my definition of "good" and "evil" is lacking in specificity. Order cannot be the intrinsic good. Perhaps if I were to shift my definition, this could alleviate some of the complications. Consider "Syntropy is good inasmuch as it doesn't abdicate others' volition." This would account for the orderliness of the Nazi's not being "good" because it was acting counter to the volition of the Jews. In reference to the issue of syntropy being an unattainable virtue in the absence of disorder, I would respond that never has there ever been, nor ever will be, a time in which disorder is completely eradicated from the universe. This assertion may lead to an 'agnostic' response, for I don't know how either of us could prove or disprove the proposition.
Defining "Good" and "Evil"

For those who are confused as to what Pro is saying, Pro defines disorder as the ultimate goal of evil and order as the ultimate goal of good.More specifically Pro defines any entropy (in Pro's context this is an entity leading to disorder) as a catalyst for evil and a syntropy (in this debate, this is an entity leading to order out of disorder) as good.The first and foremost hole in what Pro states is that the way syntropy works means that without evil there can be no good to begin with, making evil the default state of any and all things even if they are not directly leading to disorder. This is because according to Pro there is no third state of being and syntropy requires entropy to have previously occurred as the order must be made to come from disorder. If evil is a prerequisite for good then what happens before evil? What is the state of morality on something that isn't causing disorder but is also not making order come out of disorder? Are all orderly beings equally moral?Pro gives the example of the Nazis, who were extremely order-oriented and the Jews at the time, who were in utter chaos and hoping that the orderly regime of the Nazis would fail as an example to contradict their own definition. The issue here is that this alone is how Pro has lost the debate. Pro genuinely conceded the debate at this very point.I conclude that Pro has already lost the debate by a key case study example where Pro themselves states that the order-seekers were evil and the ones encouraging disorder to be maintained were good.
the usfg should substantially increase public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa

Extend round 2 paragraph one. - you have to vote on topicality because it is against judges jurisdiction to vote on non-topical plans. My standards are the best for the debate community as conceded by the affirmative. Hidden voting issue means that the aff is non-topical on two accounts. Extend the DA Extend Case numbers 1-4 in round 2. the plan makes the world a worse place to live in and does not uphold the stock issue of solvency. Vote Negative
the usfg should substantially increase public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa

Extend T. You can't evaluate the plan if it is against your jurisdiction. You must accept my conceded interpretation and set standards for the debate community. Extend the hidden voter in the standards, even if you don't believe it, it was conceded. Extend the DA. The plan causes the impact. Extend case. 1 - Trade Liberization solves. Plan would offset success of status quo. 2 - A change in the current foreign policy would spark numerous wars which would turn any solvency when food and water sources are polluted by nuclear fallout. 3 - The current assumptions of the African continent are ignored and reified through the plan's discourse causing solvency to be repealed in the future by worse policies within the mindset of the affirmative. Also trade policies solve this mindset as they deal with entire continents and not neo-colonialist sections of continents. 4 - Even if the DA does not link to the plan, it goes conceded that Obama will win the election and according to his website, he will push for more free trade policies, turning case. I understand that I probably did not have to post this but I wanted something to do.
"This" clause is perfect and revelationary.

so you came here to put on a straw man suit and hit yourself for our entire audience to see. cheers, my opponent forfeited and then gave away his tactic, and followed with false allegations, by hitting yourself repeatedly all through your last round, including lies in That round, "I respond by requesting proof that these scriptures you claim yourself by, were in fact written by God." and on a side note, the Prophets do not suggest or draw people into their cause. Only away from a petty life. ur rambling though, because we're not discussing that. In any way shape or form. All content reverts back to my round one Introduction, and follows with my round 2, the only on-topic content in this debate. I win. I'll start this again tomorrow.
"This" clause is perfect and revelationary.

I do as I wish. You stated that we cannot find one flaw. Within 20 minutes I had found it. . https://www.google.com.au... From our definition of Blackmail, which you have meticulously calculated and used (As you assert you have made a perfect clause) - There should be no room for negotiation on what you wrote, right? Please send me one documented case of a 'Prophet' who has received money from God, as the term 'Blackmail' indicates using terror or intimidation tactics to extort wealth from another - What wealth are they receiving? I believe God is taking the best tactic for any potential scam attempt, as you so eloquently put it " God doesn't listen to people who don't hate what he hates & love what he loves" - He ignores them. I suggest you take the same tactic. I have other points I wish to discuss with you, but I will pass the baton back, to see where you take us :)
"This" clause is perfect and revelationary.

I use this a lot in my spare time, I say it with mur, joy, delight, jubalie. This clause is perfect - The behaviour is called for - and you cannot find one flaw with it: "So many people Blackmail God, "God, if you don't speak to me: I am going to be a womanizer(F/ enable womanizers). " + "God, if you don't speak to me: I am going to idolize womanizers(f/sluhts)" + "God, if you don't give me a sign: I am going to promote agents that support or cause negativity actively, subliminally and passively. " here is the kicker: God doesn't listen to people who don't hate what he hates & love what he loves. He hates people that think they're so damned smart that they can argue with logical wisdom and practical advice becasue they don't trust the source. Don't worry about the source*. Listen to the wisdom. God's judging you on your arrogance, not your ignorance. Can you imagine how stupid that sounds, "God, if you don't make me your prophet, I am going to be a blasphemer. " Especially when you are not ignorant to the negative effects of your assertions. You are not fawcking ignorant of the fact that after thousands of years of history and billions of people on the planet right now, You are not a prophet material if YOU ARE BLACKMAILING GOD. Fawking TURDS. I repeat, "You are not fawcking ignorant of the fact that after thousands of years of history and billions of people on the planet right now, You are not a prophet material if YOU ARE BLACKMAILING GOD. Fawking TURDS," . " handle it.
Threats to the Weimar Republic: Spartacists (Pro) vs. Freikorps (Con)

Economy An example of the Spartacists" powerful threat lies in the large economic problems of the conservative government of the Weimar Republic. [Doc 1] shows the disturbing hyperinflation that took place in the Weimar Republic as the conservatives took over. As workers" wages became more and more devalued, communist support would inevitably grow. The Spartacists" philosophies and ideals promised fair and equal wages. These policies combined with the government"s clear lack of economic control helped promote the communist cause. The government faced destruction under the massive pressures of fixing its economy, and the socialist movements than would take place more and more often. The obvious benefits of the Spartacists" government over that of the conservatives" were very effective in rallying support for the workers" party. The rightist government was clearly ineffective and unable to fix its fiscal problems. The looming threat of the Spartacists over the Weimar Republic is demonstrated by this hyperinflation of the price of goods and devaluation of money as the government sunk deeper into debt. [Doc 1] In 1922, a loaf of bread cost 163 Deutsche Marks. By September 1923, this figure had reached 1,500,000 and, at the peak of hyperinflation, November 1923, a loaf of bread cost 200,000,000 marks.
Threats to the Weimar Republic: Spartacists (Pro) vs. Freikorps (Con)

To clarify, the debate will be over the Spartacists and the Freikorps; Pro will argue that the former were a bigger threat to the Weimar Republic, and Con will argue that the Freikorps were. In other words, I will be arguing that the Spartacists were more dangerous to the Weimar Republic. Both sides share the burden of proof. Rounds: 1) Acceptance, Opening Remarks or Questions 2) Arguments 3) Arguments, Rebuttals 4) Arguments, Rebuttals 5) Rebuttals Rules: 1) Examples are not necessary but preferred. 2) Semantics are allowed and encouraged. 3) No use of outside arguments.
Threats to the Weimar Republic: Spartacists (Pro) vs. Freikorps (Con)

Stab-in-the-Back Regardless, the theory did apply to the socialists. Although both caused many problems for the Weimar Republic, the Spartacists were a much large threat to Germany than the Freikorps in the 1920s. Their movement continued to grow at a rate much faster than that of the Nazis, the current conservative government had failed economically, and they were portrayed by both the media and themselves as a bigger threat. The communist party in the Weimar Republic was very dangerous to the government, and not only staged revolutions itself but also had the ability to put down Freikorps coups by going on strike. Clearly, the Spartacists held power over both the Weimar Republic and the Freikorps, and were a much more substantial threat.
Threats to the Weimar Republic: Spartacists (Pro) vs. Freikorps (Con)

the stab in the back myth didn't only have to do with communists. it was mainly about jews. also, it irrelevant whether or not they succeeded in their rebellions (after all, the Spartacists also failed in their revolutions). what matters is that the freikorps could beat the spartacists in a military conflict. also, they could overthrow any military resistance that the government could put up against them
Threats to the Weimar Republic: Spartacists (Pro) vs. Freikorps (Con)

I extend my argument about the conservatives' economic power, as my opponent failed to address that. Communist Public Image The Spartacists also caused direct problems for the Weimar Republic. The "stab in the back" legend was the idea that the Bolsheviks and socialists had undermined Germany's armies in World War I. It spawned huge amounts of government propaganda depicting highly caricatured "enemies of the state stabbing serious, and unknowing, German soldiers. These disturbing images clearly demonstrate the threat of the Spartacists; if the public image of communism was for it to be destroying Germany's military, it was clearly a large threat to the Weimar Republic. After all, the German army was easily the best-trained in Europe and was all that provided the Weimar Republic safety. If the communists compromised its ability to fight, Germany would be in serious trouble. The German newspapers were exceptionally desperate to halt the march of communism with powerful images; the Freikorps never received propaganda as strong as this. The Spartacists were shown undermining the Weimar Republic's army, which was hugely important to Germany"s functioning. This theory shows the communists" ability to sow chaos and, in essence, destroy the Republic"s main strength to implement socialism. If the Spartacists were portrayed this way, the government was clearly terrified of them. The Spartacists held a much bigger threat over the Weimar Republic than the Freikorps did. Nazi Power Growth This is true, but the communist party also gained 23 more representatives, bringing their total number of MPs up to 77. Also, bear in mind that the Nazis were under a socialist guise. Freikorps Military Power Despite the Freikorps' military power, the socialists were always able to undermine its revolutions. A notable example is the Kapp Putsch... despite the Freikorps' military strength, the strikes enacted by the working class forbade it from gaining headway in its struggle. Clearly the Freikorps' would have great difficulty taking over through sheer military force alone. Also, they would stand nothing to gain by deserting the Weimar Republic's government as it would provide the communists' a wide open opportunity to take over.
Threats to the Weimar Republic: Spartacists (Pro) vs. Freikorps (Con)

although the communists got a more mp's into the reichstag in 1928, the nazis got 107 in 1930, showing their huge increase in power also the freikorps had military experience and could more effectively fight against the government the freikorps comprised the government's main protection, so if they rebelled the government couldn't fight against them
Threats to the Weimar Republic: Spartacists (Pro) vs. Freikorps (Con)

Growing Power The Spartacists became a massive threat mainly due to their rising power. [Doc 2] shows how the Spartacists slowly gained power. After their failed 1919 revolution, the Spartacists were thrown into disarray and failed to gain even a single Reichstag representative. By 1928, however, the Spartacists had 54 representatives, more than four times that of the Nazis. This vast gap is clearly the result of a much larger communist movement than fascist one in the Weimar Republic, as the members of the Reichstag were voted in. The massive, and still growing, socialist philosophy within the Weimar Republic made the Spartacists a much more formidable threat than the Freikorps. As the Spartacists gained power in the Reichstag, they became able to implement their ideals more easily. The power, and therefore threat, of the Spartacists was clearly greater than that of the Freikorps in both the Reichstag and in the people themselves. [Doc 2] In the 1919 election, the communists got no MPs into the Reichstag. In 1920, they got 4, in 1924 45 MPs, and in 1928, 54 MPs (the Nazis only had twelve MPs by 1928). Hitler and the Nazis' Rise to Power Yes, that is true. However, Hitler was only able to do this by masquerading as a socialist. Hitler joined the German Workers' Party from 1920 to 1921, and then joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party from 1921 to 1945. It was during this time that Hitler gained his power. Although Hitler's true views were fascist, he was only able to appeal to the public through communism.