BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Any Topic

Let us critically examine the resolution. In order for PRO to affirm, PRO must show that Hitler should be considered someone who deserves approval for his actions.While the Nazi regime's weapons development and human experiments have contributed to advancing our knowledge in science and technology, these advances do not negate the fact that the actions and agenda responsible for these advances are atrocities. I argue that Hitler is responsible for an inhumane agenda of genocide and a war which consumed the lives of over half a hundred million men, women and children[1], and that the benefits which may or may not have indirectly sprung from the evils of a titanic scale of war, hatred, murder and torture are ultimately irrelevant.And so let us present the facts.1. Hitler was responsible for sustaining the war on the Western Front. This war consumed an immense quantity of resources and lives. Cities were sacked and civilians murder in cold blood. Over 50million people, about 30 million of which were civilians, were slaughtered as a direct result of the Nazi party's war campaign.2. Hitler's goal was a desire to have Germany rule the world under a 3rd, 'thousand-year Reich', and to purify the world of people he deemed unfit. Hitler and his regime killed the disabled[2]; kidnapped, tortured and murdered about 6million Jewish people[3][4]; and signed and broke treaties of peace: choosing to continue to murder, pillage and expand the German empire[5].3. The war resulted in the desensitizing men, turning them into monsters:"[The war wreaked] a deep metamorphosis [..] on 40 per cent of German men between the years of 1939 and 1945 - the nearly 20 million who donned a uniform for their Fuehrer [..] This banishment of morality, of ethical behaviour, is apparent in transcript after transcript."[6]"They seized three-year-old children and shot them"[6]"[O]rdinary soldiers brag[..]about shooting women and children for sport as well as raping and slaughtering innocent civilians."[6]"[Soldier:]'In the Caucasus, when one us went down, we didn't need a lieutenant giving the orders, telling us what to do. Pistols out, women and children, everything you saw...cleansed.'" "[Soldier:]'I used to shoot at everything,' he said laconically, 'certainly not just military targets. We liked to go for women pushing prams, often with children at their sides. It was a kind of sport really.....'"Pushing an agenda of murder, rape, war and torture is not an action that deserves approval. No matter what may have resulted from these actions, these actions themselves are immoral and should not garner any approval whatsoever from the human community. Hitler is many things, a propagandist, a politician, a dictator, an organizer, a liar, a killer, etc., but he is not a good person.[1] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...;[2] http://fcit.usf.edu...;[3] http://fcit.usf.edu...[4] http://faculty.ucc.edu...;[5] http://www.biography.com...;[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Any Topic

Hitler will be defined to be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org...;I accept all definitions.You may either begin writing the affirmative case and leave your last round empty or you may have me start the negative case in round 3.Our first argumentative rounds will be arguments only. Our second ones will be arguments and refutations. The last round is strictly limited to rebuttals and closing statements.Many thanks for taking this debate.I turn the floor over to PRO. :)
Burger King is better than McDonald's

Really, salads? The only reason you take a salad in a McDonalds is because the McDonalds fries are disgusting. And everyone knows freedom is the most American thing and freedom obviously tastes like bacon and you can have bacon on your Burger. Burger King and McDonalds, if you want to eat healthy, look elsewhere. But if we talk about salad, most Burger King Burgers contain fresh salad, most McDonalds Burger only have one slice of pickle. In the end it is the taste that makes the difference and Burger King just tastes better.
Mike Huckabee and his supporters are Radical and Dangerous

"Violence only spreads more violence. Peace isn't the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means. That doesn't apply here. In this case, it's the U.S. government creating conflict." -Ron Paul supporter "So why is this a bad thing? There has to be conflict in order to bring about the End Times. You do want to hasten the coming of the End Times, don't you? I guess if you aren't supporting the Huckster, you'll have a lot to lose when that happens." - Mike Huckabee supporter you guys realize RP got what was it like 4.3 million in one day? Huckabee and his supporters want to: Impose Christianity on Americans. Bring about the "end times" Attack Middle Eastern nations to hasten the "end times" The Mike Huckabee Forums posts a set of pictures that show Chuck Norris kicking our Constitution and being upheld by God's Hands for it! Everyone I know calls him Tax Hike Mike in Arkansas, I just call him dangerous and insane.
Mike Huckabee and his supporters are Radical and Dangerous

Well I guess to when this I'm going to have to explain what I consider Radical and Dangerous. I consider expanding government power, dangerous. I consider imposing beliefs, Radical I consider the totalitarian elements in his political believes, VERY dangerous. Tax Hike Mike is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. I'm a Libertarian, which means I'm a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative. Republicans are socially and fiscally conservative Democrats are socially and fiscally liberal. And Totalitarians are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Politically, Mike is a big government totalitarian, radical and dangerous. So if you are not, I suggest you look into the other candidates… I lived (amazingly) through Huckabee's terms in office, and have plenty of reasons to be very anti-huck. His Radical fundamentalist Christian following doesn't help either. The last man the evangelical community supported, and still support… was G.W. Bush…
The earth is flat

So, the earth is flat you say? The studies beg to differ. Any picture you search up, (as long as it is to scale), it will be round. The force of gravity is applied to every quarter of the earth, making objects fall as you say. If the earth were flat, we wouldn't be in an orbit around the sun. There wouldn't be enough angular momentum to keep us in orbit. As I've researched, we would simply fall into the sun if the earth were flat.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real event

In the last round, Con told us there were Roman accounts of Jesus rising from the dead, and I pointed out that we needed some kind of citation or explanation of these accounts before we could assess the validity of Pro's claim. In this round, he simply told us that the accounts include Jesus being crucified on Friday and rising on Sunday, but again, he doesn't tell us anything at all about these accounts. I don't think this amounts to an argument for the resurrection, so I don't think Pro has carried his burden of proof. Pro also said, "Con is making no evidence to support that the Resurrection never happened, only making rebuttals." I have two things to say about that: 1. The burden of proof is on Pro in this debate, so all I had to offer was rebuttals. Since I don't have the burden of proof, I didn't have to argue that the resurrection never happened. 2. I did, in fact, argue that the resurrection never happened. I gave an argument against the resurrection from probability. Con never responded to that argument, so it stands unrefuted. In conclusion, Pro didn't offer us anything more than his say so that there were Roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, but he gave us no evidence that such accounts exist or that we should trust them. I, on the other hand, gave an argument against the resurrection of Jesus that Pro never responded to. So voting should be easy on this debate.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real event

Pro disputes my claim that there is "no such evidence" on the basis that there are Roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. But he fails to take into account the meaning of "such" in my statement. What I argued in the previous round was that there was no evidence for the resurrection that was such that it could overcome the enormous improbability of a dead man coming back to life. Maybe there is evidence for the resurrection, but it's not strong enough to overcome the initial improbability. Just like when I was late for dinner and explained that I was smooching with Kate Beckinsale, my lateness and my word are evidence that I smooched Kate Beckinsale, but they are not evidence sufficient to overcome the improbability that that would happen. Pro claims there are Roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, but he doesn't tell us anything about them. Are these claims that some Roman actually saw Jesus rise from the dead? Or are these claims that some Roman reported that Christians claimed that Jesus rose from the dead? Or are these claims from Roman doctors who examined Jesus and determined that he rose from the dead? Are these credible Roman sources? Are they satires? Are they news reports? Are they historical novels? Pro just doesn't give us anything to go on.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real event

No such evidence. If their is no such evidence, why is their roman accounts to Jesus Christ ressurecting. You are right, you do need evidence to support something like this, and like I just said, their are infact real roman accounts of Jesus Christ ressurecting from the dead. Such an event like this happened 2014 years ago, and to support this you would need witnesses. Sadly, I doubt anyone lives this long, so the roman accounts are almost like witnesses
Islam Vs. Hinduism

In the name of Allah the most merciful and the most compassionate. I start this debate wanting to know the truth behind Hinduism with out any hate, and I'd like to know what are the things that many people don't know about this religion and reasons to convert to Hinduism as well. So we will start this round by defining our own religion breifly yet clearly. In Islam we mainly believe that there is only one God and many different prophets and messengers of God and we believe that Mohammed (PBUH) is the last prophet sent by God, as muslims we believe in the day of judgement and also believe in heaven and hell.
Islam Vs. Hinduism

No, it never was okay. I will mention again the point that I said in the previous round, Which is to read Quraan to know more about Islam and to read the prophet's Sunnah. You can't hate a religion by the actions of some people that are not even Muslims but all they aim for is to show Islam in a bad way. If you truely want to know the "real" Muslims read about (Abubakir, Osman, Ali ....) and the rest of the prophet's friends.
Islam Vs. Hinduism

Never judge a religion based on the actions of it's followers because at the end no one is perfect yet no one can represent Islam perfectly. I can 100% guaranty you that the terrorist attacks that happen right now in the name of Islam do not represent Islam by any shape or form. If you would like to know the truth about Islam read our holy book (Quraan) which will be if God wills your guide to the straight path.
should September 2 be a holiday

I have to admit, I burst out laughing when I saw PRO's response. This is going to be good:Rebuttals1: 'well you will never find another war like this. 'So what? You will never find any other war that is akin to the War of 1812, or the Afghanistan War for that matter. Just because you will never find a war like that doesn't make it any more deserving of honor than any other war. It also doesn't change the fact that many other people died in many other wars. 2: 'i have m made my point so let the voting win'Are you kidding me? I'm going to put some of my answer in bold because 'I want to make my point:''well you will never find another war like this. 'The above text is what PRO said. After I successfully rebutted all of his/her arguments, all (s)he could come up with was 'you will never find another war like this guys. Vote PRO! ' You never made your point in this debate. I refuted everything, you refuted nothing. ConclusionI successfully refuted all of PRO's arguments, and PRO refuted nothing. In fact, all (s)he said was: 'Alright, you have a point,' to my arguments. Making September 2nd a holiday would be unfair to the many who died in other wars, as they don't get the honor and respect that the people involved in World War II do. We already honor everybody who were involved in wars: the holiday takes place on November 11 and it is called Remembrance/Veteran's Day. People will not learn from their mistakes if September 2nd is a holiday, because humans have been at war for thousands of years and nothing is going to change. All of my arguments are left uncontested.
should September 2 be a holiday

Rebuttals1: 'well there's another point you have. my point is this was the last world war out of two. its when well the world as at war.'Why does it matter if World War II was the last major war? The world was at war in World War I as well. 2: 'but civilians deaths were so bad. people were caught in a war they didn't want be in.'Why is that different from any other war?3: 'the civilians in japan had the atomic bomb dropped on them. two cities with population of about 300,000 each according to my history book. so has their ever been another war were a atomic bomb or nuke dropped? no their has not. because the cold war was based on it it but the we never nuked each because well plenty of reasons. so those civilians need to be recognized'I think the important thing here is that civilians died and were injured. That is no different from any other war. Yes, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrible. But that doesn't change the fact that all civilian casualties from wars are just as tragic. Contention 1/P1: Having an honor day for a group who fought and/or lost their lives in one war is unfair to everybody who fought in every other war, because they deserve credit as well as respect and I already proved that it would be a ridiculous idea to honor every single war on separate days. P2: People who fought and/or lost their lives in other single war deserve credit and respect too. C1:Therefore, it would be unfair to people who lost their lives and/or fought in every other war if people involved in World War II got an honor day, thus, the end of World War II should not be a holiday. Contention 2: Remembrance/Veteran's DayWe already honor everybody involved in every war ever--it takes place on November 11 every year and it is called Remembrance/Veteran's Day. Therefore, because World War II was no worse than every other war combined, the end of World War II being a holiday would be unnesecarry. Contention 3: People will not learnIf we make September 2 a holiday, people will not learn from their mistakes, as CON has claimed earlier. There has been 3 010 wars in history [1](even more than that, actually). Humans have been at war since the beginning of time and making September 2 a holiday will not make humans stop going to war. Citations:[1]-http://www.vency.com...
should September 2 be a holiday

well there's another point you have. my point is this was the last world war out of two. its when well the world as at war. the odds of that happening well i don't know because of all the stupid politics. but civilians deaths were so bad. people were caught in a war they didn't want be in. 2 the civilians in japan had the atomic bomb dropped on them. two cities with population of about 300,000 each according to my history book. so has their ever been another war were a atomic bomb or nuke dropped? no their has not. because the cold war was based on it it but the we never nuked each because well plenty of reasons. so those civilians need to be recognized. well and the Isis thing. i was saying killing Christians like Nazis killed Jews and i thought you bring it up
should September 2 be a holiday

Well again true to Afghanistan war. Butt there are people who survived from the holocaust. And honestly this was the last war when most of the world together. Also I meant graves im typing on a phone don't have a computer. People dont relize that if England and America stsyed out of the war than Nazis would rule Europe and god knows what else. 2 America was attacked. The world was attacked. Different from ww1. People lied too. Millions of innocent people killed. And yes there is stuff.like isis killing Christians. Know your point on Vietnam. That wasnt are war. They didnt attack us like pearl harbor. So people vote pro Heads up wont reply tomorrow ill be off at track meet and aldo appreciate debateing with you. Your turn con
should September 2 be a holiday

Yes I see your point but some countries try to hid some of the things. Germany does not really have grwces for those who fought for Germany during ww2. Everyone should remember this day so we can learn from are mistakes. And another thing is this was the most destructive war in human history. The civilians that lost their lives and the troops deserve this day. If we dont then most countrys will forget there past. Look at greece. Guess what there third biggist political party is. A nazi party. Greece jist might end up like Germany if people dont do something. The war lasted 6 years about. Most of the world participated the war. This war freed the people from nazi and Japanese . So but another point is.millions of germans and jews and every country lost alot of good men
should September 2 be a holiday

I accept. I will be arguing that September 2 (end of World War II) should not be a holiday. What PRO fails to understand is that we already have a holiday in honor of anybody who served in wars and all the civilian casualties --it takes place on November 11 and its called Remembrance Day or Veteran's Day. Estimates about how many people that have died from war range from 150 000 000-1 000 000 000 people [1]. Let's suppose that only 150 million people died in wars. PRO admits that 60 million people died in World War II, so all of the deaths in every other wars amount to 90 million. Do you see what I'm getting at?If only 150 million people died in every war ever, making a special holiday for those who served specifically in World War II would be extremely unfair to people who served in other wars, as they aren't getting as much respect and credit for their efforts. Not only that, but 60 million people are getting honored rather than 90 million. Singling out specifically 60 million out of 150 million is unfair to the other soldiers/civilians and ludicrous, especially since it is more probable that a higher number of casualties were a result from wars.Yes, World War II was a tragedy, but PRO's claim that specifically those who were involved in that specific war rather than every person involved in every war should somehow receive more credit, respect and honor than others who were involved in every other war is ridiculous, not to mention we already honor everybody who served and/or died in wars.Therefore, vote CON.Ciatations[1]-http://www.nytimes.com...
Solve the riddle 3

Stream of conscious mode -> ACTIVATED!Okay, so the riddle is "I have a little house in which I live all alone. It has no doors or windows, and if I want to go out I must break through".This to me can mean a few different things. I don't want to say it's a concept because something non-literal cannot physically do an action. So it has to actually exist. But from there it can be a little bit different. So lets take this line by line."I have a little house in which I live all alone".Assuming we're talking about the I in the sentance, it could be something like a prisoner or something. Especially if it's solitary confinement, then you're in a crampt cell all by yourself and so that could be a "little house all alone". But that seems too specific to work, so I dont't think I'm gonna throw that out there just yet. Maybe another line."It has no doors and windows"Well that throws out the prison idea, since it definitely has a door. I hate riddles (why did I sign up for this if I hate riddles? Weekly Stupid material right here). Maybe the last line might help a bit more."and if i want to go out I must break through the wall."Fvck riddles. Seriously, why did I accept this?Oh well, might as well give it my best shot. Maybe it has something to do with pregnancy? (god my mind jumps to odd places). That might work. Little house might be the uterus, no walls or windows there. I don't know how well the breaking out through the wall would be, since the women tend to just shoot them out via contractions (that sounds so wrong lol). Dammit I really shouldn't be doing this on an empty stomach. I want some pancakes and and bacon and maybe some scrambled eggs and sau--Wait a second. God my hungry belly is a genius? Wait does that actually work? A female egg doesn't really break out of anything, but rather changes into a baby once the semen makes it preggers, so I don't know how well that works. But what about a chicken egg? The chick inside it would live in a "tiny house" being the egg, and it definitely doesn't have any doors or windows (unless that chick is running a peep show. ;) get it? Get it? No? Damm.) And to be hatched a chick has to break through the egg in order to "go out". By god breakfast IS the best meal of the day. But do I answer the baby chicken or do I answer the egg? Well the egg doesn't break out of itself (egg into another egg into another egg. It's eggception.) So I'm inclined to say it's a baby chicken. But eeeeeehhhhhhhFvck it. I ain't scurred. Why? Because honey badger don't care. Why? Because fvck you that's why. A baby chicken
Dose Capitalism Work

For this debate to proceed, we must first define what we mean by working. Based off of the claims of my opponent, it is claimed that capitalism works for the vast majority of people. It is furthermore claimed by my opponent that those with wealth have worked for it and that capitalism therefore distributes wealth on the basis of merit. My opponent furthermore claims that corporatism is exogenous to capitalism and that a truly capitalist system would naturally promote free competition. Those that claim that capitalism promotes fair competition base their arguments off of simplified economic models that fail to take key factors into account. In industries where there are large barriers to entry of firms into the market, such as the cable industry owing to the large investment required in infrastructure, competition is suppressed and a market can ensue in which competition is repressed. Capitalism fails to work without government intervention as can be seen by the necessity of anti-trust legislation. [1] The majority of wealth is actually derived from inheritance and returns on owning capital or wealth. According to data collected by Thomas Piketty, the portion of inherited wealth as a proportion of total wealth exceeds seventy percent in most developed nations. [2] This is largely owing to the fact that the returns on capital and wealth exceed the rate of growth of the economy as a whole. The system of capitalism therefore exacerbates the issues of inequality systemically. The world wars were the exception to the rule of growing inequality owing to the rapid growth they caused. It can also be concluded that a system that distributes wealth in a manner that only benefits a small portion of society does not work for the majority of people. [3] 1. http://www.economicsonline.co.uk... 2. https://www.quandl.com... 3. http://www.theguardian.com...
Dose Capitalism Work

Capitalism allows people to accomplish their dreams and goals! What right dose the government have to take away all their money away that they worked for! But yet Socialist vein Capitalism as a corporate giants but no it ist, their a word for that and its called !Corporatism! But yet they stick their self inside this myth! Capitalism gives people self responsibility! It is quite a dangerous idea for the government to provide every thing for that people and I will quote from Thomas Jefferson " A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have!"