BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hitler did nothing wrong and tried to bring the American Dream to Germany.

Please share with me your sources that show that the estimation of Jewish Deaths was exaggerated. "Us?" Please define us. Hitler had very strict criteria for the perfect race. If a person did not fit that criteria then they were forced from their homes, experimented on, tortured, locked up, and murdered in horrific ways. This was not just done to Jews, but many different types of people. Even a lot of the Germans who did fit into his perfect race image did not agree with what he was doing and secretly hid or helped Jews leave. Hitler wanted to build the perfect race and to conquer land for that race to live on; this bears no resemblance to the American dream. As for the Jews should have just left; they had lived there for generations. They had every right to that land and their homes. Why should they walk away from all that and face uncertainty and homelessness. I would also like to point out that some Jews did try to leave. They had to be smuggled out because Jews were not just allowed to leave, that was not enough for Hitler. He wanted every Jew to be killed.
Churches Are Slaughtering America's children for not believing in Christmas, can churches be bombed

Let's take a look at the resolution. "can churches be bombed"First, I'm going to discount the first part of the resolution because this is objectively false, I am part of a church myself and I can tell you that the statement is definitely false; also, there is a lack of evidence to back up that claim. However, it is the second half of the resolution that got my interest. The key word there is the word "can". This means that the debate is about whether churces *can* be bombed, not if they *should* be bombed. My opponent argues why they *should* be bombed, and then says "but still no nos", despite seeming to argue that they *should* be bombed; also he never argues about whether or not they *can* be bombed. Thus, all I have to do to win is to successfully argue that churches *can* be bombed. They can be bombed. Churches have been bombed before, 100% proving that they can be bombed. (Source in comments section).
Should we ban contact sports for 12 and under (youth)

I'd like to point out that my opponent actually meant to be pro (saying that we should ban contact sports for 12 and under), so he still has the burden of proof. 1. "First of all, there are about 3.5 million injuries regarding contact sports per year" You need to cite your sources 2. " Let's say you make B team or C team at your school, you might think your not good enough so you might do something to hurt your self" If you join the team you have to understand that they chose you because you are good. They wouldn't let you join if there was any way you couldn't meet up to the standards. Even if they did let you in and you weren't good at it, you wouldn't hurt yourself. You would quit or get kicked. 3. "If you get hit hard in a game or practice it can lead to serious brain injuries or a broken arm or leg" Most youth injuries are minor and don't last long. Now to prove why they should stay. (I'd write more but there aren't enough characters)
Should we ban contact sports for 12 and under (youth)

We should ban contact sports for the youth because it can really mess up some of the kids both physically and mentally. First of all, there are about 3.5 million injuries regarding contact sports per year, and that is a pretty large amount. It can also cause depression. Let's say you make B team or C team at your school, you might think your not good enough so you might do something to hurt your self. Or let's say you have loads of homework but you aren't doing so well in your sport, so you practice on your sport and not doing your homework, so it can get you behind in school. Kids should focus on school before having to worry about sports. If you get hit hard in a game or practice it can lead to serious brain injuries or a broken arm or leg, which is a lot of money in medical bills. If you have any comments please comment, Thanks!
evolution

As I stated before, evolution only says that primitive life will become more advanced life overtime. I never said the universe was created by virtual particles. What I said was that they were the best explanation for the expansion of the universe we observe. Put simply, the idea is that in a vaccum, particles are spontaniusly created out of nothing. Each particle has a corresponding anti-particle, with an opposite charge. This means that there is a net energy of 0, not violating thermodynamics. These particles normally annihilate each other before they have much effect. They do however have the effect of pushing the universe apart at an accelerating rate.
evolution

"Evolution in no way implies that something came from nothing. It does not even attempt to explain how life began. Evolution does however, explain how life becomes more complex." Evolutionists do not believe that a higher power created animals, plants, etc. They believe that over a matter of billions of years everything came from some primordial "sludge" so to speak. If you say the universe is created with "vitual particles", (which in itself is a watery and vague term) explain how the said term came from nothing....
Home school or public school.

Public school is a great way for students to be exposed to how the real world works in a safer setting. It allows us to interact with other kids our age instead of just being associated with adults. It allows kids to get a thicker skin and learn how cruel people can be. If kids are home schooled, they won't learn how horrible cruel and trashy people can be. They won't be able to withstand things like that when they actually hit the real world. Kids need to be taught in a semi-competitive (but still safe and stimulating) environment where they can learn to compete for jobs and learn to have a spine. Kids who are home schooled don't learn to get a backbone, they don't learn to have a thick skin and let things roll of them. Its a better idea to have kids exposed to different cultures and types of people than to be sheltered and coddled by parents through home schooling.
Home school or public school.

But you are saying being coddled is fine. It's not fine, it is just going to hinder your success. I'm not saying you shouldn't practice at things you aren't good at but I am saying that with things that are natural talents like singing, parents tend to just say "Ohhhh you are so good! Good job honey!" instead of telling you the truth. You don't want your kid to be going around believing they are good at something they can never do and embarrassing themselves. Home schooled children tend to be sheltered and uncultured. That's all I'm saying. My argument is that public school is a better option because the disarray and sometimes rowdiness of a classroom can actually benefit children because that is the way the real world is. Reality doesn't have your mom waking you up and holding your hand through every little activity. Reality is people are cruel and you have to be around people you don't like sometimes and you have to actually work for what you want. Reality is mothers can't hold your hand through everything. Public schools teach students to work on their own as well as with children from different cultures and backgrounds. Children are exposed to different ways of life, which is obviously extremely beneficial. Home schooling doesn't help as much as it hurts. Many home schooled children go into the work force having never experienced being in an academic or working situation. Yes home schooled children participate in social activities. But it isn't the same as being part of an work/academic activity. Home schooled children grow up with their hands being held by mommy and daddy and don't really always learn to deal with other people. They don't learn how to stand up for themselves, probably having never been teased. They don't learn to get a backbone which is what people need in this world. Public school will allow kids to be surrounded by people their own age and learn how to do work on their own without hand holding. Public school equips kids for life after high school whereas home schooling does not.
Home school or public school.

So you're saying it's not good to practice and get better at what you want. Most moms want their kid to make a good living and encourage their kid to get better at the subjects that there not good at. Not being ready for the world is out of the question since we enter in activitys showing how other people are different then we thought. Our moms do tend to "coddle" their kids but also teach them what is wrong and right. On average, home schoolers out-perform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. http://www.homelifeacademy.com...
Home school or public school.

It's not good for kids to be mean to each other obviously but that's just the way the world is I'm not going to try to sugar coat it because that's just not the way it is. I think public schooling is better because you are always going to be working around a lot of different people with different backgrounds and that's the way it is at public school. Home schooling is just an excuse for your parents to coddle and tell you that you can't do anything wrong and you will succeed with everything. That's wrong. You can't do everything. You can make mistakes. Public school, though it can be cruel, teaches kids that they have flaws and can't succeed with everything. I don't mean like academically because if you study yes you can do whatever you want, but I mean like physically or talent wise. If I was home schooled I would have gone to try to be a professional singer. I can't sing and public school taught me to face reality and look at my strengths and work on the weaknesses I can work on. Yes it can be cruel. It can be harmful. It can also be the best thing that happens to your kid because they meet new friends and learn how to interact with kids the way they actually would interact, not being monitored by parents. Home schooling just lets parents coddle their kids. That is more harmful to kids than public school ever will be.
Sonic the Hedgehog and Legend of Zelda are in the same universe

The Sonic Lost World map where Sonic is in Hyrule is most likely Sonic entering another reality. There is no physical location in Sonic's planet called Hyrule, and no way to verify that it is in the same universe or in an alternate universe to Sonic's. Solaris does bear a striking resemblance to the bird emblem on the Hylian Shield, and I'll give you mad props for binging that to my attention. Couple things though: two things that look similar don't necessarily mean they're in the same universe. Secondly, Sonic 06, the game Solaris is from, is pretty much wiped off of the Sonoc cannon. It's existence was erased and restarted, so the beings/events/places in Sonic 06 and before were erased and replaced. Lastly, just because these two series COULD have been on the same planet/ in the same universe doesn't mean they were. We need more solid evidence than two similar looking birds to, beyond a shadow of a doubt, claim Sonic and Zelda exist in the same reality.
Sonic the Hedgehog and Legend of Zelda are in the same universe

considering the fact that Sonic lives on Mobius (Earth thousands of years after the Xorda invasion, and the dropping of the gene bomb that changed it forever) It could be plausible that the 2 games may have been on the same planet (probably not the same time period). Since the gene bomb wiped out almost all the cities (and altered the landscapes) this would show why each franchise has different landscapes/features. Also, some Sonic games do have ancient temples, them being the Gaia temples seen in Sonic Unleashed, for all we know, Sonic's were-hog form could be using the same kind of energy Ganan uses (don't use that last sentence against me, it's probably not accurate, just my speculation). There is also a theory people are discussing, that every Nintendo universe is connected, so if the Sonic-Zelda connection is actually true, that would mean Sonic could also be connected to every other Nintendo franchise (including Mario).
Sonic the Hedgehog and Legend of Zelda are in the same universe

I would like to begin by stating the shocking lack of evidence presented for this theory. If these two planets were one in the same, then the archaeological record would show evidence of the previous civilization's activities beyond denial. If Sonic came first, there would be visible satellites in the sky, ruins of cities, and old highways seen in Sonic. If Zelda came first, massive temple and dungeon complexes would be easily discoverable. After studying the maps of Hyrule pre-flood and New Hyrule (the most late canon Zelda material), I've found no evidence that these two worlds share landforms or features tat would imply they are the same planet. If they were on different planets in the same Universe, then the burden of proof isn't on me to deny it, but on the one with this theory to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these two canons exist in tandem. If no solid evidence beyond cameos can support this theory, then it sinks.
Sonic the Hedgehog and Legend of Zelda are in the same universe

Ways that they are in the same universe: 1: In Sonic Lost World, there is a special map where Sonic goes through the Kingdom of Hyrule (wearing Link"7; famous hat) and collects Rupees instead of rings. This "Zelda Zone" could show that the 2 games are at least in the same dimension. 2: Look at Links shield, it has some special artwork on it. Look at the center of it. See those wings and bird shaped form. Look familiar? What if i told you that the bird shape on his shield shares a striking resemblance to Solaris, the molder of time from Sonic 06. Now you see the similarities? 3: so Solaris is the molder of time, right? time that could mean, maybe, as i OCARINA of time?
Sonic the Hedgehog and Legend of Zelda are in the same universe

I will be arguing that the characters, planets, and universes of Sonic the Hedgehog and The Legend of Zelda are not cannonically connected. Aside from cameos, third party material, side games (like Mario Kart), and other media, the two universes are independent of each other in regards to the main game series and canon material. Thanks for posting this debate. It looks like it could be fun, and I can't wait to hear your evidence.
Moon is better to colonise than Mars

Sorry I forgot to mention the sources of my first argument Sources of First argument:- http://www.sciencealert.com... http://www.popsci.com... https://futurism.com... Coming to my last round's argument The planet Mars has been associated with its namesake god of war for millennia, but its own past may have been more violent than was previously imagined. A new study suggests that Mars was once hit by an asteroid so large that it melted nearly half of the planet"s surface.Researchers came to this conclusion while studying a strange feature known as the Martian hemispheric dichotomy"a dramatic drop in surface elevation and crustal thickness that occurs near Mars" equator. In the northern hemisphere the land"s elevation is on average about 5.5 kilometers lower and the crust is around 26 kilometers thinner. SOURCE:https://www.scientificamerican.com... Pow! Mars Hit By Space Rocks 200 Times a YearSmall space rocks are carving fresh craters into the Martian surface more often than previously thought, researchers say. A new study finds that there are more than 200 asteroid impacts on the Red Planet every year.These asteroids and comet fragments are usually no bigger than 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters) across " about 10 times smaller than the meteor that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in February. Small space rocks burn up in Earth's atmosphere, never making it to the ground, but they can do damage on Mars because the planet has a much thinner atmosphere. The holes gouged out by these asteroids are typically at least 12.8 feet (3.9 meters) wide, the researchers say. The 200-per-year space rockl impact rate for Mars was based on a portion of the 248 new Martian craters that have been identified in the past decade using images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a NASA spacecraft that has been circling the Red Planet since 2006. SOURCE:http://www.space.com... Conclusion: It shows how dangerous Mars is to colonise.
Moon is better to colonise than Mars

Firstly , the moon is closer than mars from our Earth. The colonization of the Moon is proposed and is establishment of permanent human communities or robotic industries on the Moon.Discovery of lunar water at the lunar poles by Chandrayaan-1 has renewed interest in the Moon. A lot of focus over the past 12 months has been on NASA's journey to Mars. But a group of space experts, including leading NASA scientists, has now produced a special journal edition that details how we could establish a human colony on the Moon in the next seven years - all for US$10 billion. According to the research papers, the lunar base would house around 10 people for stays of up to a year at first - and could eventually grow to a self-sufficient settlement of 100 within a decade. Mars is covered up of 95% Carbon-Di-Oxide , Several elements have been detected in the lunar atmosphere. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter recently detected helium. Detectors left by Apollo astronauts have detected argon-40, helium-4, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.Oct 15, 2012
Antibiotics should be heavily restricted.

Thanks to my opponent for clarifying his argument and providing the meat of his side in this debate, and now it's time to dig in! I'd like to start by pointing out that both of my arguments go dropped in this round. I'll get into why they matter over the course of my responses. Pro talks about how prescriptions should determine who gets to take antibiotics. I agree, and this is why most antibiotics are prescription only. A few "natural" antibiotics are over the counter,[1] but as they're not fungal-derived, the resistance they engender doesn't affect the majority of available antibiotics. More importantly, my argument about how doctors prescribe antibiotics to treat viral infections stands showcases the problem with letting doctors have free reign to decide what is prescribed. As Pro hasn't outlined any restrictions on their practices, the harms continue, but they even get worse since now everyone's going to rely on seeing a doctor about any infection instead of pursuing over the counter meds. Pro talks about animals being given them. Again, I agree, though if you deny farmers access to them, they will simply pursue other methods, such as steroids and hormones, to beef up their herds. This will only make things worse. We know they're cancer threats, but it's also got a wide swath of uncertainties, with many possible deleterious health outcomes for humans and cattle.[2] Lastly, overuse. Interesting that he cites mayoclinic.org, a link very close to the one I used, but doesn't appear to have read it thoroughly. There's no mention of overuse, just misuse, which often results when patients stop taking their meds early (or being prescribed them for viral infections). High concentrations of antibiotic are actually far more likely to kill even a resistant bacteria.[3] 1. http://medsnoprescriptiononline.com... 2. http://www.phschool.com... 3. http://www.pnas.org... Good debate.
Antibiotics should be heavily restricted.

Good argument, but firstly, antibiotics should only be taken when prescribed by doctors. Plus, the local authorities shouldn't let anybody (farmers, ranchers, etc.) use the antibiotics. That is what I mean by restricted. This is because people take the antibiotics for minor pains and think that the antibiotics will just save them. Plus, antibiotics for animals is also a huge problem which I will clarify later. You mention how the problem isn't antibiotics overuse, but it is. People just take antibiotics thinking they will get better. Also if you take unnecessary antibiotics, some bacteria will get killed but the rest will just become resistant. (1) Plus, the resistant bacteria will form an infection that almost cannot be cured. (1) (2) Back to the livestock. When farmers and ranchers saw that just a small dose of antibiotics could make their livestock grow faster, they started to increase the dosage. As time passed and the amount grew, farmers now used about 15 to 17 million pounds of antibiotics are used to make their animals grow. Infections form in the livestock and that infection could had been in the meat you just ate. Gross, right. Oh, but don't you worry vegetarians, the manure of the livestock is used to help the plants grow, which also affects the plants. Studies have shown that the antibiotics are still active in the manure (3). Almost out of words so I can't go into more detail. Sorry for the late answer. 1) http://www.mayoclinic.org... 2) http://www.pbs.org... 3) http://www.treehugger.com... GOOD LUCK!
Antibiotics should be heavily restricted.

Well, I'm still lost on the parameters, so I guess I'll have to set them. "Antibiotics should be heavily restricted." We don't know who is going to be doing the restricting here, and we don't know what "heavily" means in this context. I'll try to be fair about this. Health organizations would probably be the ones to implement this, restricting doctors to using a limited amount of antibiotics per patient, since the concern seems to be overuse rather than use. As for heavily, this means doctors could only provide short doses of antibiotics to patients, restricting duration to the minimum time required to kill the bacteria. Now that that's out of the way, I'll start with rebuttal. Pro starts with an anecdote. While I'm sure Mark's death was painful, I feel you've pegged the problem that led to it wrongly. In fact, as you get into statistics, it becomes quite clear that you have. The problem isn't that antibiotics are overused for bacterial pathogens - it's that they're prescribed incorrectly and misused by the patients. It's interesting that Pro talks about viruses, because you know what can't be cured by antibiotics? Viruses! And yet, doctors prescribe for them all the time, normally as a method to make patients feel like they're getting care for diseases that will go away on their own. This isn't about overuse by any single patient, it's about doctors prescribing to patients who overtly don't need them.[1] These patients are more likely to have disrupted gut flora and get dangerous infections like Clostridium difficile. Pro's mentality wouldn't prevent these.[2] Also, patients partially cause this. Not taking the medication as prescribed (i.e. stopping early) often leads to drug resistance.[3] And since Pro is likely going to stop them as early as possible, he's creating more, not less, resistance. Back to Pro. 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. www.mayoclinic.org/antibiotics/art-2004572