BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany

Before you say my argument is fake, this is the link: http://www.ushmm.org... The website states that WWI was one of the most destructive wars in history. Millions of soldiers and civilians were killed by the end of the war. The Allied Powers, with the UK, France, USA, and Russia (until its internal revolution), and a lot more countries, went up against the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Versailles aimed Germany at being the chief instigator of this conflict, when to be truthful, it really wasn't. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia after a Serbian man assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Germany just did most of the work for the Central Powers, and having 2 million Germans die. However, like I said, the Treaty deemed Germany as responsible, thus imposing harsh punishments upon this particular country. Shouldn't the punishment be distributed among the Central Powers somehow in some way? Germany was forced to pay billions in reparations. Aware that Germany would probably not be able to pay their debts, French Prime Minister Clemenceau nevertheless still feared in Germany rising to power, thus imposing military restrictions, such as forbidding an air force and only allowing an army of 100,000 men. Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down there, Clemenceau! The Treaty is literally restricting Germany from competitions and not giving them a chance when really, the cause of war wasn't necessarily their full guilt. One main thing why the Treaty was unfair because the Germans had no say in the conference in Paris. Treaties are supposed to be agreed over, not to punish a particular nation. With no German say, the Treaty of Versailles was a planned document to crush German chances to compete in the modern world You still not convinced? Well, picture this. Imagine if you turned on your TV and tuned into the news, and the headlines said that your country had to pay billions of dollars after a war, give up most of its military, and 1/8 of your country's land, when not fully supported that your country was fully responsible for that war. How would you feel? That's what the Germans must've felt after news of the Treaty spread across Europe. This is my last argument. Please vote for me if you are convinced, and I am signing out Special thanks, Billy
The Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany

Did you read my arguments? I invalidated most of those points. As to Wilson's fourteen points, considering he advocated the creation of a League of Nations (which stills exists under the form of the UN), I'd say he was pretty successful. AS to the Germans losing territory, they had never truly owned it. Otto Von Bismarck, when founding Germany, got a few countries together unwillingly and blackmailed or went to war against them to make them join Germany.If you make a jenga tower with a piece thats broken, then the tower collapses. It's perfectly normal for Germany to lose territory that had a majority of people who didn't want to be part of Germany.
The Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany

Hi, Dagolas. Good luck, and let's have some fun. To start, I'll talk about the different viewpoints of the Treaty of Versailles. The Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau, wanted to punish Germany harshly, for revenge after the humiliation of the French loss in the Franco-Prussian War. American President Wilson had very different aims. He knew that if Germany was punished so harshly, At least somebody will be seeking revenge. He drew his Fourteen Point Plan for Peace, but he was overruled. Now that you know the different viewpoints, let's list the Treaty of Versailles' 4 main states (I'll describe them more specifically in this round). 1. Germany had to pay billions of British pounds called reparations. 2. Germany had to accept full blame of starting the war. 3. Germany was forbidden to have a submarine or air force. She can only have six battleships and a 100,000-man army. 4. Germany lost much of her land. 5. Germany was rejected from the newly created League of Nations. I hope that this shows you how harshly Germany was punished. While creating the Treaty, it is clear that it is aimed to punish and humiliate Germany, but not the rest of the Central Powers. Germans were horrified by the result. They lost 10% of its population, all their overseas colonies, 12.5% of the German population, 16% of their coalfields and almost half of their steel and iron industry. Germans were also disgraced with the fact that only their country had to disarm of any sort. Lastly, they got rejected from the League of Nations, and soon, Hitler and the Nazis tried to take their revenge; violently. Valuable Lesson: If you punish a country too harshly, people will come seek for revenge (Hitler....).
The Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany

Hello, I'm Billy. I'll show you guys that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany. First of all, I have to tell what the Treaty of Versailles is: The Treaty of Versailles was the treaty that ended World War I. It stated that Germany was completely responsible for this war that caused at least 17 million deaths. Germany lost a ton of its land, the government was forced to give up most of it's military, and it had to pay the equivalent of about 33 billion U.S. dollars! Why that much? Germany did not declare the war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire did (not to be oppressive to them). Germany had no say in the Treaty. They had to sign it, or else, the Allies would invade the weakened Germany. Now don't get me wrong. Germany was partly responsible for the war, but the country did nothing that would make them deserve that much of a punishment! The unfairness of the Treaty caused excuses to be made also. One of Hitler and the Nazis' top excuses while rising to power is that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany. That should be obvious. Hitler invaded Poland and started another world war. At that time, World War I was considered to be the "war to end all wars". The Treaty of Versailles was partly to blame for the provocation of WWII.
Satan and demons

This is just too bad. I suppose the voters will have to decide on the basis of the two rounds that were presented. I remind the voters that in this debate it is not my task to prove beyond any doubt that demons and the devil exist, but that their existence must be affirmed by a Christian viewpoint. That is, accepting the truth and infallibility of the bible and the beliefs of the early Christians as a guide to its interpretation. This being the case it is overwhelmingly evident that both the Scriptures and early Christians affirmed the existence of demons and the Devil in a very literal sense. I thank my opponent for proposing this debate and the readers for their time. I hope in the future, once he has more time to do so, we are able to carry out the debate to its completion.
Satan and demons

Full resolution: Satan/the Devil (Lucifer) and demons do not truly exist as personal beings.No trolling, no abusive definitions, assume a Christian viewpoint.BurdensCON would argue that Satan and demons exist in the same sense as God does, just like the angels and other divine beings: personal beings with thoughts (for lack of a better word) and are singular beings. (They exist in themselves.)PRO would argue that Satan and the demons, etc. do not exist in that sense.The debate will remain closed, I will choose someone from the comments to send a challenge to.
The two party system has let us down

My opponent has failed to cite any sources for their previous argument, Which was largely copied directly from Wikipedia (1). Searching through the article's sources, Evidence suggests that the D'Hondt/Jefferson method shows noticeable bias for larger parties (2). In the United States this method showed bias for larger states against smaller states, Resulting in states such as Virginia (coincidentally where Jefferson is from) receiving a disproportionally higher number of seats in contrast to smaller states, Such as Delaware (3). This bias is why the United States stopped using the method after 1842 (4). My opponent claims that this method works in a lot of "stable" nations but fails to provide specific examples or elaborate on what he considers "stable". One definition provided by Merriam-Webster defines "stable" as "not changing or fluctuating" (5). If we used this definition, The two-party system would be more stable, As third parties are not prominent by virtue of it being a two-party system and thus the system remains largely unchanging in the short term. This is in contrast to proportional representation in which new parties can quickly form and get a foothold in government, Including extremist parties as mentioned in my previous argument. Another possibility is political stability. The World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators show no correlation between political stability and voting system in regards to countries that use first-past-the-post (FPTP) versus countries that use the D'Hondt method (6)(7). For example, Canada (FPTP) is more politically stable than Venezuela (D'Hondt), And Aruba (D'Hondt) is more stable than India (FPTP). Therefore, There is no reason to believe that switching to the D'Hondt/Jefferson system would lead to an increase in political stability. Thank you for the debate. (1) https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/D'Hondt_method (2) https://www. Math. Uni-augsburg. De/htdocs/emeriti/pukelsheim/2003b. Pdf (3) https://www. Maa. Org/press/periodicals/convergence/apportioning-representatives-in-the-united-states-congress-the-quota-rule (4) https://www. Maa. Org/press/periodicals/convergence/apportioning-representatives-in-the-united-states-congress-jeffersons-method-of-apportionment (5) https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/stable (6) https://www. Theglobaleconomy. Com/rankings/wb_political_stability/ (7) https://databank. Worldbank. Org/data/reports. Aspx? Source=worldwide-governance-indicators
The two party system has let us down

The D'Hondt method[a] or the Jefferson method is a highest averages method for allocating seats, And is thus a type of party-list proportional representation. The method described is named in the United States after Thomas Jefferson, Who introduced the method for proportional allocation of seats in the United States House of Representatives in 1791, And in Europe after Belgian mathematician Victor D'Hondt, Who described it in 1878 for proportional allocation of parliamentary seats to the parties. There are two forms: closed list (a party selects the order of election of their candidates) and an open list (voters' choices determine the order). Works fine in a lot of stable nations
The two party system has let us down

I apologize if I misunderstood my opponent's argument. However, The issue is whether the two party system has let us down, And in my opponent's first argument, He didn't clearly explain what is wrong with the two party system, Or why he believes more parties or independent candidates would remedy said issue. My opponent suggests proportional representation without specifying the type of system (party list, Mixed member, Single transferable vote) or offering any evidence as to why it would be better than the current plurality system used in the United States. Because proportional representation systems require a lower percentage of votes in order to win seats, It's much easier for extreme parties to gain representation. Also, If no party can obtain a majority, Then parties typically must form coalitions and participate in vote trading to function or face gridlock, Making it so voters can't be sure what actions the party they vote for will take or rendering the government ineffective. Both problems plagued the Weimar Republic (1). These are not problems in the two-party system. Extremists are highly unlikely to obtain a simple majority, And the Democratic and Republican parties must compete for the votes of more moderate independents, Who make up the simple majority of voters (2). (1) https://www. Theholocaustexplained. Org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-weimar-republic/political-instability/ (2) https://news. Gallup. Com/poll/15370/party-affiliation. Aspx
The two party system has let us down

My opponent admits that neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party represent the majority, Which has been the case since at least 2004 according to Gallup (1). If the problem with the two party system is that no one party can represent the majority, Then how would the introduction of more parties remedy the issue? The problem isn't the two party system, But rather the first-past-the-post voting system that inevitably results in two parties. In the current system, District of Columbia and all states except Nebraska and Maine have a winner-takes-all rule in which the candidate with the majority of votes takes all of that state's electoral votes (2). This makes the the voting system susceptible to the spoiler effect, In which two or more parties with similar ideologies split the vote and cause a strong opponent to win. Because of this, In elections with two or more candidates, Voters are more likely to participate in strategic voting, In which they vote for a stronger candidate over another weaker candidate they prefer in order to prevent an undesirable candidate from winning. For these reasons, Any attempt of a third party to grow will hurt similar parties and eventually fail. It's also worth mentioning that while instant runoff voting is less susceptible to the spoiler effect early on, It begins to fail once candidates become more competitive (3). (1) https://news. Gallup. Com/poll/15370/party-affiliation. Aspx (2) https://www. Archives. Gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq. Html#wtapv (3) https://www. Electionscience. Org/library/the-spoiler-effect/#instant_runoff_voting_ranked_choice_voting
God is not real

Well my opponent essentially conceded the debate.However, I'll just keep the discussion going, because why not?1) Responding to the claim that God doesn't have any supporting evidence. Most of the evidence for God is philosophical or based on mathematical conjecture (argument from complexity). However, the arguments in themselves are fairly convincing.Plus, the documentation in the Bible is some of the most historically accurate information about ancient times. The only parts that aren't agreed upon are the parts that mention God's intervention.According to the Smithsonian Institution, "Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. "These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated."So whether you believe in God or not, a lot of the Bible is fairly accurate. You can tell authors paid attention to detail when they started out certain verses. For example, Nehemiah 1:1 says, "The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah: In the month of Kislev in the twelfth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa." So it's a documentation of when this verse was written.The Bible also references other historical sources to compare it too in several verses (very heavily used in 2 Kings).My point here is that because the Bible is taken seriously as a historical document, it puts a lot more weight on the fact that The Bible isn't just a book full of magic and religious ramblings about God. The people who wrote the Bible were fairly accurate, and most of them were historians to some degree.2) This is actually my opponent's first numbered point.The Hebrew Bible was written before the Greeks wrote their Bible, and it wasn't to explain natural phenomena. The Bible was written for several reasons. It was written as a historical document (as mentioned above), it contained books of laws (parts of Exodus and Numbers plus all of Leviticus), and it even included ancient versions of accounting balance sheets (the first part of Numbers).The Greeks did use mythology to explain natural phenomena, but the only example of that in the Bible is the creation of the world.3) The devil is actually a fallen angel who has not made it to Hell yet. However, I understand the common misconception. The idea of Satan has been misconstrued to a great degree.Satan's purpose is to provide the possibility of free will to humans. Humans would not have free will without him, because we would only know God. Because God is a God of love, he needs free will to exist in order for his creation to reciprocate love by choosing him over the opposite option.I hope I cleared some issues up.
God is not real

Yes, I cannot win this debate. No one can prove of anything as scientists mainly use theories. But the theory of the universe is backed up with so much scientific reasoning its hard not to believe it. There is as much evidence of god as there is santa clause. None. Thousands and thousands of documents and papers have been written about the universe's life and about out own planetary system a well. 1. The first bible was written by the greeks to fill in for things they didn't understand. For example: Poseidon, god of the sea. When he got made a caused many waves to crash over the land. This is a tsunami. A tsunami is a natural disaster caused by the movement of tectonic plates. 2. The "devil" was mentioned as the man of hell, and the same as poseidon, he wrecked havoc on the world. Thank you for joining.
God is not real

I'm going to try to explain as best I can how God did not "poof" into existence.God is eternal, meaning he exists outside of our boundaries of time and space. He cannot be within our boundaries of time and space, because if you make the universe eternal, you get the problem of infinite regression. However, the universe had a starting point. God is on a plane of existence not defined by science.In fact, science was created by God and given to humans as something to explore and use to our advantage.I'm just going to provide the Kalam Cosmological Argument as my solidified proof of God.(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists.Premise 4 is the big one that needs to be decided.Why does it have to be God? Well, it's not completely necessary, but in order to negate the debate, I at least need to cast doubt on the statement "God does not exist" in order to keep it from being affirmed.Now, the beginning of the universe in the scientific community is determined by theoretical physics. Theoretical physics can try to determine causes or reasons for natural phenomena, but it cannot prove anything.So essentially, God and theoretical physics have equal ground in the realm of proof.Because of this, the resolution cannot be affirmed because my opponent's BoP is not fulfilled.
genetic testing should be covered under ALL insurance plans

To mandatory include genetic testing in "ALL insurance plans," would be quite hilarious. I can conceive of no reason why my car would need genetic testing done. However I shall focus on the case presented, not the error in resolution...Genetic testing is a luxury item. If I pay for my employees to have health coverage, why should I particularly care what they might pass down to their kids? If they worry about that, let them do it on their own dime. To mandatory include genetic testing in all health insurance plans, would actually raise the rates, perhaps making it unaffordable for many lower income people."Can help stop spread of diseases."By denying some people the right to breed?"Just filed a patent that allows parents to hand-pick certain physical traits, such as eye-color." As much as Nazi Germany would be proud, genetic engineering and genetic testing are two different things. Genetic engineering even if currently possible, would be beyond expensive, and highly unpredictable in results.
genetic testing should be covered under ALL insurance plans

1. can help stop spread of diseases. the silicon valley start-up, 23andme. has just filed a patent that allows parents to hand-pick certain physical traits, such as eye-color. and if your family has a history of genetic diseases then you can have them alter your DNA so that the disese if almost impossible for your child to get. so if insurance companies pay for genetic testing then more people wil be willing to be tested, so if you find out that your family has a history of breast cancer and you have a high chance of getting it, then you can make sure your child has a VERY low risk of getting said disease.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Rebuttal My opponent has presented arguments completely irrelevant to the resolution, merely presenting *disadvantages* of global warming as opposed to actually creating a case that global warming is NOT caused by mankind. In addition, my opponent’s ‘case’ is plagiarized [1]. Furthermore, the only relevant argument presented by my opponent is “fossil fuels cause [global warming].” But these fossil fuels result in man-made emissions of CO2 that results in GW, thus this case is contrary to my opponent’s position and supports my position. The resolution remains resoundingly affirmed. Sources 1. http://geography.about.com...
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

sorry for the slowness, prom Mankind is not the main cause of global warming.• Ocean circulation disrupted, disrupting and having unknown effects on world climate. • Higher sea level leading to flooding of low-lying lands and deaths and disease from flood and evacuation. • Deserts get drier leaving to increased desertification. • Changes to agricultural production that can lead to food shortages. • Water shortages in already water-scarce areas. • Starvation, malnutrition, and increased deaths due to food and crop shortages. • More extreme weather and an increased frequency of severe and catastrophic storms. • Increased disease in humans and animals. • Increased deaths from heat waves. • Extinction of additional species of animals and plants. • Loss of animal and plant habitats. • Increased emigration of those from poorer or low-lying countries to wealthier or higher countries seeking better (or non-deadly) conditions. • Additional use of energy resources for cooling needs. • Increased air pollution. • Increased allergy and asthma rates due to earlier blooming of plants. • Melt of permafrost leads to destruction of structures, landslides, and avalanches. • Permanent loss of glaciers and ice sheets. • Cultural or heritage sites destroyed faster due to increased extremes. • Increased acidity of rainfall. • Earlier drying of forests leading to increased forest fires in size and intensity. • Increased cost of insurance as insurers pay out more claims resulting from increasingly large disasters.Here are disadvantages of it, and fossil fuels also cause itthanks for the debate