BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Germans should have waited to invade russia in World War II

I contend that Germany should not have waited to invade Russia, as they had no benefitial alternative as 1941 began to roll around. Mikhail Meltyukhov, a russian historian, has done a study on the offensive plan of Stalin during WWII, called "Stalin's Missed Chance." The study is backed by thousands of confidential files that show that Stalin and the other leaders of the Red Army were planing on invading Germany as soon as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ended in June of 1941. These confidential files show that Russia was massing their troops and building up their troop strength to launch the invasion. The fact that the soviets outnumbered the germans by nearly 9:1 in tanks and 4.5:1 in planes, as well as in artillery and infantry, shows that an offensive strike would overwhelm the Germany army, which was designed on offense, not defense. Victor Suvorov, a former soviet spy (defected to the UK in 1978) aslo brough knowledge about the USSR's offensive desires against Germany. While most russian historians that know anything about the inner workings of Russia at the time agree that Stalin was not going to let Germany take over Europe, he holds the belief that Russia was actually planning this from the very beginning. Allowing Germany to run amouk, and wear down the capitalist nations, and have the USSR step in at the end of the day and be the hero and make communism look all cool (too bad the US did a better job at that). http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Germans should have waited to invade russia in World War II

I am not arguing as to a specific date for the invasion of Russia because that would have depended on how the war would have gone if they had not, which we can never really know. However, I do believe they should have invaded Russia after they defeated England (by defeated I do mean by either invasion or signing a treaty to end fighting.) After this had happened, the opportune time to invade Russia would have been at the end of the winter in the year which they planned to do so.
Patriarchy and Barack Obama are the same thing.

May I also point out that my opponent has made a terrible (no offense) logic mistake? I'm sorry for not pointing this out earlier, but he says "Feminazis blame everything on the patriarchy, and republican whackos blame everything on Barack Obama. It seems logical that only one thing could be responsible for everything, so there you go - Barack Obama and patriarchy are the same thing. " Only one thing could be responsible for everything? What a great assumption that is. You think people's death is only caused by one thing? No! It's caused by world hunger, diseases, war, murders, accidents, and other things I didn't think of to list here! My opponent is basically saying "if patriarchy is blamed, and Barack Obama is blamed, they must be the same thing". What kind of argument is that? It's like my flimsy argument that "MassiveDump claims he's the greatest troll. Imabench is the greatest troll. Therefore MassiveDump is Imabench. " And I was wrong! In conclusion my opponent has failed both in logic and in semantics/vocab.
Patriarchy and Barack Obama are the same thing.

Your opening argument was hilarious.Argh, you used your own definitions. This is my debate, so if you want to try and make it your own, GET OFF MY LAND.Definitions'Bama - the thing republican whackos blame for everythingPATRIARCHY - the thing feminazis blame for everythingthing - thingymabobthingymabob - objectsame - same I thought I made that quite clear in the first round. o & btw, ibid means "in the same place". It's latin, get w/ it dawg.In conclusion:- Con tried to STEAL MY debate- Con doesn't know basic debating semantics vocab- I am right I thinkThank you.Sources[1] ibid
Patriarchy and Barack Obama are the same thing.

Patriarchy: a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribeand descent is reckoned in the male linehttp://dictionary.reference.com... Same: identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned:http://dictionary.reference.com... Thing: some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely describedhttp://dictionary.reference.com... Barack Obama: "Barack Hussein Obama II ( i/bəG2;r;3;H0;k huH0;G2;se=8;n oA0;G2;b;3;H0;mə/; born August 4, 1961)[4] is the 44th and current President of the United States and the first African-American to hold the office. He is a Democrat. Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election, on November 4, 2008.", from http://simple.wikipedia.org...So, you are saying the president of the US and a social organization are identical "entities/objects". Well, I tell you they're conpletely different. People are not identical to society. One person cannot form a society. Now, had you said "Barack Obama is part of a patriarchy", then the case would have been different. However, you are not saying Barack is part of a patriarchy. No. You are saying "Barack Obama IS a patriarchy".Patriarchy is further defined as "males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children" by wikipedia. Although Barack is the "primary authority figure" and he is a male, the whole democratic system of the US is not a patriarchy. Indeed, "only make up 17% of Congress" is females, as seen in source [1], but this is the congress. You might argue the congress is a patriarchy, but in no way can one person, the president, be identical to a patriarchy.BTW what in the universe is "ibid"??[1] http://www.dailykos.com...;
Patriarchy and Barack Obama are the same thing.

I just realised this while I was peeing in the shower, because that's where my cognitive abilities are at their peak. Once this idea popped into my head, I thought it was obvious. Feminazis blame everything on the patriarchy, and republican whackos blame everything on Barack Obama. It seems logical that only one thing could be responsible for everything, so there you go - Barack Obama and patriarchy are the same thing.I also think that this will be a brilliant opportunity to cut down the number of looney groups. Instead, we will just have one group, who hate the being that is both Obama and patriarchy!Mathematicians and philosophers alike have for long said that an actual infinite cannot exist. However, the stupidity of this newly-formed laughing stock is (no doubt) at LEAST infinite!Thank you.err, oh yeah, I need some sources? sure thing, here's my sourceSources[1] Personal experience[2] ibid
A human life is of no more value than an animals

God made a mistake of creating man but solve that with the sacrifice of Jesus. War is a problem. Animals don't do war. Image a World without war. A world where animals and humans can eat what they can eat. A world where technology would be much greater than now because we are not scared of Isis. A world where money isn't wasted in fighting each other. If man can follow the guidelines of life wouldn't the world a better place.
A human life is of no more value than an animals

You and Me have very similar views. I have a mexican background so I know some story with animals. For example cutting chickens head off. I not the biggest animal lover but I disagree with that. God is good god is great. "The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." Genesis 6:6 My opinion is that man is worth less than animals. You wouldn't kill humans for fun or entertainment would you? Well some people do.
A human life is of no more value than an animals

A human life is of no more value than an animal's God put certain animals on earth for us to eat and others for pets. I am an animal lover and I think that animals should be treated as equally as humans. For example, animal fighting for entertainment and killing them for fun. You wouldn't kill humans for fun or entertainment would you? So if you wouldn't do it to humans why would you do it to animals. I'm for this argument. Feel free to express your opinion whether it be for or against.
A human life is of no more value than an animals

I'm against the idea that animals have the same value as humans. I'm not saying that animals have no value but not as valuable as humans. My points -Animals live, reproduce, and die that's it -Humans feel emotions like love and lust -If animals kill its for survival -Some humans kill because they kill(poaching and war) -Human hate each other, kill, and rape -Animals don't kill without reason Concluding sentence Animals live, reproduce, and die. Humans thrive, kill, and destroy. If you know humans in general we are murders and killer for example holocaust. I'm not saying that all humans are killers but our past show it. Humans as a animal kind are less valuable because we destroy the world. If there was no humans the world would be peaceful if there was no animals humans would still kill each other.
Affirmative Action (Specifically, Standardized Testing)

There's a fundamental problem with the framing of your debate; you claim that the debate is only to be about standardized testing – but you go into several other types of affirmative action (like college admissions processes). In order to properly respond to your argument, one would have to go into those other areas that you've delved into – so hopefully you won't hold it against me when I do. I would first ask that you provide evidence that the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) gives points-based bonuses (or detractions) to people based on their racial affiliation, because I can find absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Such a claim strikes me as patently false for two reasons. First, identifying one's race on the SATs is optional so it is impossible to determine the race of the people taking the test (the question is also posed on the honor system, so if a white applicant wanted to apply for these alleged bonuses on the SATs, all they need do is fill in their race as African American). Second, points-based affirmative action programs are unconstitutional per Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) so this system you're alleging of plus points for black applicants and minus points for Asian applicants would be unconstitutional. What I think you may be referring to is admissions processes and criteria at universities (which use SAT scores among many other variables to determine access into popular programs that have restrictions on how many applicants they will admit). If this is incorrect, please feel free to clarify. As to the general argument against affirmative action that you're making – you fundamentally misunderstand how affirmative action works. The premise of Affirmative Action is that, all things being equal, public institutions should attempt to foster a diverse environment. That's it. There are no quotas, no points systems and minorities are not automatically given preference over whites. If an institution already has a diverse environment that reflects the general demographic characteristics of society, it is under no obligation to give anyone preference based on race or sex. Universities also weight a variety of other categories as well that no one seems to have an objection to, such as geographic region (Michigan universities, for example, give preference to residents of Michigan). Affirmative Action applies to ALL races and sexes; not just minorities and women. If whites or males are underrepresented in various academic programs (as they are in Early Childhood Education and Nursing) – affirmative action applies to them in those cases so they may be given slightly more consideration into those programs. I disagree fundamentally with your claim that Affirmative Action is racist. I would contend, conversely, that it is anti-racist. What is racist (a fact borne out by the myriad statistical quality of life indicators that attest to the lingering racial biases that exist in our society) is not using a program like Affirmative Action to take the implicit racial biases that exist in our society into account because it perpetuates those existing racial biases.
Affirmative Action (Specifically, Standardized Testing)

Note: this debate is only about standardized testing; not any other type of affirmative action These days, the principles of affirmative action have infiltrated the education system. The SAT gives out all kinds of bonuses and even deductions based solely on what race you are. This is not justified. If you are black, you get a 200 point boost. If you are Asian, you get a 50 point deduction. Does this seem fair? If you have one white kid and one black kid, both with the same grades and credentials, and both get the same (pre-adjusted) score, the black kid has a better chance of getting in to the college of his/her choosing, even though the white kids worked just as hard his whole life. This isn't only unfair, but, it's actually racist. What is more racist than saying, "Hey, you can't do this on your own, because you're black. You need this point boost." Or even, "Hey, you are too smart to take this exam. Minus 50 points!" This is basically what College Board is doing. Changing test scores based only on race is unfair, racist, and plain stupid. I will elaborate in the upcoming rounds. Good luck!
Do you know why you don't want to be happy? LUCKY

Don't you think that we all should or even would or to ever consider could be extended a hand of compassion? Do are or is people that can only say as you have twice now ask for more and do nothing but help themselves? Is it any wonder that an existence creator would say when Earth is as Heaven I will extend a hand to help? 2880 Dreads Rock. Is it any concern to you or I that this won't happen in our lifetime or even our childrens, children's lifetime and the problem is 2far4u2? Now this is second-hand information is it not and all things have 2 sides does it not?. So where is 2sided4u2 or 2much4u2 or 2scary4u2 or 2anything4u2 or how about 2rubicscude4u2 or 2infinite4u2 or 2farout4u2 or 2f#cked4u2 or 2screwy4u2 or 2lucky4u2 or 2halerious4u2 or 2or4u2 how about 2x4x24u2 or how about 2x4x2x4x2x2= 256 or how about 2x4x2x4x4x2= 512 what can you see in these numbers it looks to me to be of computers 256 fat 512 bus path 768 or is it 256 or is it 131,072. Maybe we should go to the decimal system with 1 and a 2 and a 3 and a 4 and a 5 and a 6 and a 7 and an 8 and a 9 and a 10 fat table, should we? Gatesy. Well, this is just 2far4u2 as it is for me so we can mix and match while Humpty falls apart about us as it seems to do on a daily bias event from one to the next as they asked Nero my dogs got fleas while he fiddled as Rome burned. Have fun on this site I have had enough of the stupidity of it all the SES needs help. We of us might be bothered with 2much4u2 to do. But hey the captain doesn't have to go down with the ship if the rats have already scurried away. Does the 2captains4u2 do they? https://www.bing.com... Peace be with you. All praise and glory belong to our existence creator. Amen.
Do you know why you don't want to be happy? LUCKY

oh, comprehension issues once again are it? Well, I will put it out for you in the simplest manner for you to consider how lucky we all truly are. Love is within a ball that is the 360 x 2 degrees of lust and love is within the six-sided cubes insides and outsides 12 corners and 12 sides. so 24 times 90 degrees is 720 + 2160 = 2880. Get the picture yet? So toss a cube in with the ball to slow things down to create the fabric of time. https://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Do you know why you don't want to be happy? LUCKY

Because we all know of the child in the cold that we all should bring silver and gold and it seems to be that we have nowhere else to go. So let it snow let it snow full of hate as long as you love us so. Slay bells ring as the bluebird sings for the new bird that walks within the snowy winter wonderland. Arch the angels sing to the Herard king "good will to women and man" to him the angels sing a tale of the little box of meagre so small to all but for the haves and the have-nots of the faithful dog that we all know to well, but are too bitter to see. But the course of the cause of this topic is scientific so here goes. The pulse of our own water spectrum of 7 angled colours morphed into 8 patterns of mannerisms that vibrate the sands of time that influences us to be unhappy So lucky are we that practice to be you to be and we as that is 4, not 3 it's us not me. Right and might are of us, not an a or an i or the first for that not i is a capital I, not a small L. i is not me it is us. No more than us. What happened to A. It just flew by in front of my eyes. I or should that have been we do wonder what the UN is doing today? I think so oops we think so.
Do you know why you don't want to be happy? LUCKY

Did you miss out on Take a chill pill? That is written obviously in the context structure of the sentencing statement. As you should for your sake and your families and all others about you create some empathy, sympathy and humility as to not be inflicted with your inability to comprehend the cause and effect of the fact that you are a very nasty individual. So back to the do you know why you don't want to be happy shall we?
Do you know why you don't want to be happy? LUCKY

His walnut sized brain strained at the magnitude of this project, He has to write a poem but has a mental defect. He was one of the special kids in class, Ate crayons and shoved them up his arse. His poem made as much sense as a senseless sheep, Sheared suddenly by a farmer in his sleep. It reads as follows, “Let the darkness of dread in while those of us benefit as not to profiteer from another's misery.” He is a man who works in the towns local jizzery, As he drinks sperm from a large cock he works busily. Eerily and easily he eats the edible ejaculate, Immersed in his fantasy, his life is immaculate. It has been agreed that Djksp cannot vote.
Do you know why you don't want to be happy? LUCKY

So being happy as Snow Whites little special friend or as is happy to be as it is too be sad as grief is to be stupidly intelligent as dread. Take a chill pill and let the darkness of dread in while those of us benefit as not to profiteer from another's misery. This black and white charade that falls within the greys that shadow within the browns maroons relaxes into reds oranges yellows greens blues and purples that fade away into the shadows of greys once again. So is it gray, or grey while our own brains have abandonment issues upon this bicycle ride out of hell. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Pizza is a Better Breakfast Than Pancakes

Round 2 Rebuttal Nutrition Most foods available to us have a 'fat-free' version. There are low fat pizzas as well as low fat pancakes. I believe the argument of there being a low fat substitute to be a moot point as both sides can claim this as an advantage over the other. Pancakes made with the recipe I posted in round one have one tablespoon of grease spread between as many as twenty pancakes. I haven't any sources that measure the amount of oil per cubic inch of pancake or pizza, but I do believe you and the voters can agree that pizza will always have more, even if it is not visible. fat and grease hide in cheese and seasoned meats such as pepperoni and sausage. One ounce of regular pepperoni contains 23% of our daily need for saturated fat, most of which is in the grease of the meats and cheese. For comparison, the link for buckwheat pancakes I posted above calls for one ounce of cooking oil. This ounce contains 121% of our daily value of saturated fat, yet this is divided into 20 pancakes, so each pancake only has 6% of our DV of saturated fat Convenience I would just like to reiterate that Pro said "Okay, I see your point here. [...] I concede this argument." Adaptability I think we are letting nutrition take over in the value dept. Although it has been at the beginning of every round, we must not put it at the top of the value hierarchy since nutrition is not the most defining of a 'better breakfast' in my opinion. I suppose we never defined 'better' for the purposes of this debate. Neverminding nutrition, pancakes are more adaptable. The end user can apply any topping he wishes seconds before consumption. Once the pizza is placed in the oven, the toppings cannot be changed [ for all intents and purposes] and the consumer can only add sauce like ranch or seasonings like pepper or more cheese. In the case of pancakes, one consumer may put healthiness at the top of his values and put strawberry preserves on his pancakes, while another consumer may want his to be very sweet so he piles syrup, powdered sugar, and marshmallow fluffing on his pancakes. This is where pancakes adaptability is greater than that of pizza. Unintended Consequences The debate is between pizza and pancakes. I've never seen a pancake with onions, peppers, or any sort of meat in them, although such may exist. Omelets with onions, peppers, and strongly seasoned meats sure do leave an aftertaste and produce certain flavored burps and breath. You may not have experienced this with an omelet, but it is very prevalent when eating pizza with onions, peppers, and meats such as pepperoni, sausage, and anchovies. Garlic breath is deadly. I addressed the grease issue under Nutrition above. Sources>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.thecaloriecounter.com... http://nutritiondata.self.com...
Pizza is a Better Breakfast Than Pancakes

This is only my second debate, so if there are unstated norms and procedures, I don't know them either. Nutrition In most pizzas, there is a considerable amount of fat; however, there are fat free pizzas you can order online [1] or low-fat pizza recipes to be made at home [2]. In this case, removal of grease with napkins is unnecessary. There is no fat, but the pizza still has other nutrients. This argument also applies to pizza, as they can easily be made with whole wheat crusts. There are also numerous recipes for gluten-free pizza crusts [3]. Those with Celiac Disease can still eat pizza. Convenience Okay, I see your point here. I'm far too used to pizza leftovers and freshly made pancakes, it seems. I concede this argument. Adaptability "...and come off as childish." To whom? Pepperoni and plain cheese are among the most popular toppings for pizza. [4] If people of all ages eat pizza, how can this be considered childish? Aside from fruit and peanut butter, the toppings you listed are mainly sugary substances, which are quickly digested and do not provide lasting energy. Peanut butter , although high in protein, is also high in fat, which you noted as one of the downsides to pizza. It also has peanuts, which doesn't work for those with peanut allergies. Unintended Consequences If peppers, meat, and onions are foreseen to be a problem, the simple solution would be to avoid eating them. I understand this debate is not about omelets, but these ingredients are also present in them. If it is possible to eat omelets for breakfast without ill effects, then why not pizza with the same toppings? The grease problem has been addressed earlier in this round, and it is also possible to order from a pizzeria that does not use too much grease (such as wood-fired pizzas or those with cornmeal on the bottom, which, in my experience, have not been nearly as greasy). You can also make your own pizzas, using only the amount of grease that you find suitable. It would appear that I am not the only one to debate at a time that could be considered either early morning or late night, and it is far too late here, also. I await your reply, and some sleep. :) [1] http://www.pizzafree.com... [2] http://chowhound.chow.com... [3] http://glutenfreecooking.about.com... [4] http://www.ehow.com...