BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

My friend, thank you for this debate, and a wonderful learning experience. As a conservative and a Republican personally it is always tough to assume the position of the Democrat Party, and I hope that I have done an adequate job in doing so. I would like to say at the outset that geographically I can not fight with you, and I agree with your arguments on the people liking someone more on what they bring to the table, not their origins or state of residence. Like I have said, it is very difficult to take the position of a Democrat when I consider myself Republican so I hope my last argument will be persuasive and adequate. I'm going to use for my last argument, the argument of accomplishments during that tenure in their respective positions, and I hope the voters will find it adequate. Governor Bullock has accomplished some significant things during his time as the Governor of the State of Montana. He has signed a conservation executive order, in order to protect the endangered sage grouse. This shows he is environmentally friendly, something I know Democrats care a lot about. Source: Wikipedia. He has also increased funding for education, and like Republicans, has increased resources available for energy access to make America more energy independent, something that I'm sure a bi-partisan agreement can be reached on it. Governor Bullock has also ensured that thorough vetting is done of any Syrian refugees admitted to the state of Montana, something that is common sense, and needs to be done. Not only that, Governor Bullock has preserved public lands for hunting and fishing for people in his state, and worked with a Republican dominated legislature to expand Medicaid and insure the poor of his state with federal money, and that infrastructure projects hire only residents from his state, a Montana first policy if you will. He also has wanted health care coverage expanded for his entire state, and has granted unemployment benefits to people who have been affected by domestic violence. Most Democrats support abortion and marriage equality, and Governor Bullock has taken steps to ensure they remain on the books in Montana. He has kept the state from defunding Planned Parenthood, and protected the rights of couples to marry those whom they love, even if it is a gay relationship. He is on a side note, the first Governor to officiate a same-sex wedding, which could boost his credentials for the LGBT vote in the 2020 election. Governor Bullock has in addition worked hard to close the gap of wages between men and women, something that has been a problem for many years. All this I hope, suffices to make a worthy case that Governor Stephen Clark Bullock of Montana would make a better choice for the Democrat nominee for President of the United States in 2020 than Senator Cory Anthony Booker of New Jersey. I thank my good friend Nd2400 for his time, and for a truly wonderful debate, you have almost persuaded me with your arguments. This has been a lot of fun, and I hope to do another debate with you in the future. Sources: wikepedia.org, and ontheissues.org
Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

Thank you for the kinds words. I just wanted to mention since you haven't answered my question on why it matter on" geographically. I'm assuming you have no way of fighting thing, so to the voter please take note of this. The person matter way more than where he or she is from. People elect the person they like more and what there bring to the table. Not what part of the country they work for. The second part you went ahead and started talking about religion. Which is fine i guess. Just talking about religion really isn't the best category for me. I do understand why and how it is important to voters to pick there candidates because of religion. So i won't dismissed the importance of religion. It just even trump himself not really a religious person. Sure he claimed his church is Marble Collegiate Church and being part of Presbyterians he just not actively involved. (5.) https://m.huffpost.com... but it kinda weird because he rarely mentioned religion ever during his campaign trail to even now as President. I mentioned trump because "Religious Americans more likely to be Republican, poll shows". (6.) https://www.cbsnews.com... so with Republicans actually more religious, why did they voted trump in office? If he wasn't very religious himself. So i don't think people care as much on what religious groups a potential candidates have these days like back in the old days. So with Cory Booker and Bullock i don't think religion will make any difference between them. This next Democratic election and the Presidential election will make history but not for a certain religious group. So far everything you and i have mentioned it still favor Cory Booker over Bullock. People going to vote for Booker because they heard of him or because they like him or because they think he would have a better chance of winning against trump. This is your last round to impress or convinced me and the votes on why your choice would be the better pick......
Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

Thank you my friend, once again, for your insightful and compelling arguments. I have enjoyed this debate considerably and look forward to this round. I acknowledge the population lack in Montana, a state that rarely plays much of a national role and the diversity side of things-Booker is of course, African-American, so this would be in fact true. I will now post my Round 4 arguments, and it centers around religious beliefs this time around, and also takes into account your mention of Democrats wanting a change when Obama was elected in 2008 as their nominee. Senator Cory A. Booker of New Jersey is a Baptist, and I do not think this is a bad thing. I am saying this, according to wikepedia.org we have had four Baptist Presidents in our history. I would respectfully think in terms of diversity and change, we might also want to see a change in the religious category. The best I can figure out, Governor Bullock of Montana is a United Church of Christ member. I do not think that we have had any United Church of Christ Presidents. Obama was a member of a UCC church for a while, but broke away before he took office, and thus can not be considered our first UCC President, I don't think. Therefore Bullock would be our first in history. If the Democrat Party is looking for change, and diversity again in the 2020 race, why not nominate someone with an interesting, little known Christian denomination to make some more history? It is therefore reasonable to play the card of history, and nominate Governor Steve Bullock for our first United Church of Christ President in American History. I respectfully turn the floor back over to my opponent and thank him for what has been an incredibly excellent, civil, and insightful debate. I look forward to your arguments for round 4, my friend.
Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

"Diversity also include geographically speaking?" Diversity does include geographically in general speaking, but i will ask you why does it matter? Because i just don't think it matter all that much. The only thing that really matter is the person not geographically, If you could give me some reason why it matter i might be open to them. But just asking me without anything solid i would have to say no it doesn't matter. So you give me another good point without me having to mention it. Booker would lead the Diversity over your candidate Bullock. And this probably won't even be close. This would also help Booker in the national race not just the Democratic race. Senator Cory Booker has a 52% approved rating. (4.) https://morningconsult.com... It by far not great but it not bad either. It better to have a positive outlook than a negative outlook. So having this positive outlook only strength Senator Cory Booker case for the Democratic nomination. Sure Bullock has an 61% approving rating for being a Governor in a Republican state. Which is good I'm not going to knock it. It just, it's only Montana, and the population is just barely over a million, so i would be more comfortable with his rating if the population in his state was higher. Would he get this rating if he was in Oklahoma or Texas? I don't think so.... So senator Cory Booker has many advantages over Bullock. He has the popular vote So far, he has the Diversity vote, he has a solid approving rating, he is also view a solid pick over Stephen Bullock. So before you say Obama came out of nowhere to beat Clinton, and try to make the same comparables. Let me point out the country wanted a new change and wanted a new face and the Democratic got that with Obama, and obama was black so he really had the country support with diversity. And because he was a great leader and vocalize leader. Oh yeah and Obama didn't just came out in a small state he came out of Illinois which has over 12 million people in that state. So Obama had some pull, unlike your guy Stephen Bullock. Another thing is the Democratic leader want change and a real challenger against trump so they will not support some one who doesn't have much of a chance in the national poll. So Cory Booker would be the better pick. Looking forward to hear your next argument....
Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

Thank you to my friend once again for this debate and for your arguments. I will now post my further arguments regarding my case for Governor Steve Bullock, and possibly refute your statements on the case for Senator Cory Booker. If the Democrat Party would like to be about diversity, shouldn't diversity also include geographically speaking? I do concede that racially, Booker would lend diversity to the 2020 ticket, but we should also factor in geography. According to http://www.ozy.com..., it seems the Democrat party has never nominated someone from the west coast in their history. The furthest west they have gone is with Governor George S. McGovern from South Dakota in 1972, and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, from Texas. It is here that we can make a case for Bullock, in that it expands the Democrat's geographic diversity by putting someone from Montana on the ticket. However, I am willing to yield myself to your statements and acknowledge the truth of them to a point. Bullock is not as widely known, that is true. As far as your statements go regarding Bullock doing an amazing job as governor in order for voters to go for him in Montana when they also voted Trump, I can say this much. According to https://morningconsult.com... he has a 61% approval rating as of May 12th 2016, a little outdated sure, but this is pretty high for a Democrat governor in a red state. He must be doing something right to score that high in a GOP-dominated state like Montana. In summary, I rest my Round III arguments on these simple statements-Bullock would expand geographic diversity for the Democrat Party, and plus, he seems to have a high approval rating, which would help Democrats in searching for a popular candidate. I agree with you though on your statement that he isn't widely known though, we can agree on that one. I thank you for a compelling debate so far, and turn the floor back over to you, my friend.
Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

Thank you again Kylar... Okay this round i will give out a little why Cory Booker is the right choice for the Democratic nominee and why Governor Stephen Clark Bullock is not. Okay you mention Stephen Clark Bullock won the governor job in a red state of Montana. This is true and a valid point. But i will question how much of a chance he has against Trump if he did go that far? Since trump won Montana pretty easily, i don't think people would turn on trump just to vote in their governor. Stephen Bullock would have to do amazing job of being governor. He would also have to change most of Montana mindset to change their party to even have a chance at the national level. So for this reason he actually has his work cut out for him. And the Democratic leaders know this, so for this reason they would push for someone else like a senator Cory Booker to represent their party. According to the Washington Post they name 15 names as possible 2020 Democratic nominees, and ranked them according. Cory Booker was ranked 8th on this list and Stephen Bullock wasn't even mentioned, never mind being on a list. Cory Booker "Certainly among the biggest political talents on this list and would quickly garner attention." (1.) https://www.washingtonpost.com... this would be true Cory Booker people would had hard of not many people would know who Stephen Bullock is. Montana population is only at 1,042,520 (2016 est.) ranked 44th in the US. (2.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... As for New Jersey they have 9,005,644 (2017 est.) and ranked 11th for population (3.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... So just for a popular vote Cory Booker would have a big edge over Stephen Bullock. So for this reason Cory Booker should be name the Democratic nominee over Stephen Bullock. You can't send someone out there and run if people never heard of you. You have to work that much harder just to try to get noticed. Okay i will true it over to you Kylar....
Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

Thank you once again to my friend Nd2400 for lending his time to debate with me over this interesting topic. I will now commence with my opening argument-and it is rather simple. I believe that Governor Stephen Clark Bullock would be the better of the two choices before us for the Democrat Presidential Nomination for President of the United States. Bullock is the Governor of Montana, which as we both know I'm sure, is a red state, and is very conservative. According to Politico, Bullock won as a Democrat candidate for Governor by 4 points over Greg Gianforte in the 2016 Gubernatorial election, while Donald Trump, the Republican Candidate for President last year won the state of Montana by 21 points. This shows that Bullock can have bi-partisan appeal in a traditionally conservative state. According to Politico again, "He does have some good progressive views but comes across as a Montana good ol" boy," says a Republican operative. "He would be a really good general election candidate." This makes the case in my opening argument that Bullock would be better than Booker-he is a Democrat Governor in a red state, and thus would be able to appeal across party lines. I turn the floor over to my friend Nd2400 now, and look forward to your arguments, friend :)
Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

This is a challenge to my friend Nd2400 to debate me over who should be the Democrat Presidential nominee in 2020-Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, or Governor Steve Bullock of Montana. I will be taking the con position in arguing that Bullock would be a better Democrat nominee for Presidential nominee. I ask my friend to take the position of Booker being a better candidate. First round-acceptance. Good luck my friend :)
Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides

Hitler's policy was directed to unity. It united all Germans, trying to keep all national values including language, culture and traditions. He considered family values as a basemant of the society, supported maternity and evolved a feeling of patriotism among the youth. Also Hitler actively developed Germany's economics. During his rule there were founded the largest German autobanns which still exist, German production had very high quality. He provided people with work, they could easily increase their qualification and expand their abilities. However, nazism is totalitarian regime, rules at that time weren't so strict and cruel comparing with USSR or China. Well-known that Hitler's arrangements were financed by American maecenas, he had pretty warm relations with members of English parliament, for example, sir Sidney Ridsdayl and his daughter Unity and granddaughter of Rihard Vagner also was in his close encirclement. He kept in touch with representatives of many countries and from different layers of society and tried to set German relations with other states. Now, according to " The Times" every 4th German can find a positive side of Hitler's government.
Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides

Hello, and thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. "Hitler Debates" are often seen as comical, and are not often treated with a great deal of seriousness. However, I am often concerned that this trend is causing a collective atrophication of our ability to skillfully condemn the worldview that created the Monster of Hitler, and the conditions that gave rise to what he was able to convince the World to do. With this in mind, I have decided to treat this debate with whatever level of respect that my meagre skills as a debater can manage. The title of this debate, the "Topic," is "Adolf Hitler's Government Didn't Have Only Negative Sides." However, the "Resolution," meaning the portion of the debate that will be contested, is outlined in the Round One Instigation. Restated, this resolution contends the following:"Although Adolf Hitler started a destructive war, he was otherwise a good national leader, with many accomplishments. These include; education and economic improvement; minimal levels of "offences;" the proliferation of youth clubs; taking care of every layer of society; and international prestige. Hitler, therefore, should be respected as a good national leader, even in light of the horrors of WWII." This can be expressed in a single sentence, as:"Hitler should be respected as a great patriot and leader, despite the horrors of WWII." Clearly, Pro is making a claim that goes against conventional wisdom, and has made an affirmative case. Most people do not respect Adolf Hitler's "accomplishments," and never will. Therefore, she carries the entire Burden of Proof, and I need to challenge the argument that she will present. Moreover, it is an incredible statement to suggest that Hitler's policies improved Germany, when common historical understanding holds that these policies brought Germany into absolute ruin. Hitler was not a coin with two sides. He was a man. It is not ad homen to say that Adolf Hitler was a dangerous lunatic who never should have been allowed in office, and that this fact taints irreparably his positive actions as leader of the short lived nation that he founded. Further, even if Hitler's Reich had "positive sides" these were used to generate the political power necessary to develop the ability to war, and cannot be considered "positive." They were stepping stones for what came later. This is a debate over whether or not Hitler deserves to be remembered as a good and wise ruler, in a manner that asks us to ignore the estimated eighty million times that he ended the world.I await the first supporting argument. http://www.debate.org...(Above) A mother shelters her baby a few seconds before she and her child are murdered by German soldiers outside of Ivangorod in 1942. The temporary political successes of the Hitler regime made this atrocity and many others possible, and therefore, can not be considered "positive" accomplishments that deserve respect.
Adolf Hitler's government didn't have only negative sides

Adolf Hitler left a huge step in the wold history. People get used to consider him only like a despot and murderer who started the most murderous war. It's hard to be tolerant to such actions as holokaust but let's take a look from the other side. While Hitler's ruling the level of education and economics rapidly increased. Germany became one of the strongest and powerful countries on the world arena. Hitler achieved such a success during a few years however it was almost impossible after the terrible crysis of 30's. Amount of offenses was dicreased to the minimum, there were created a lot of organizations for youth, the government took care of every layer of society. Germany had many international arrangements such as Olympic games, different forums, etc. Much money was allocated for country's and people's need. Hitler did his best trying to help his nation, he was loyal to Germany like nobody else. During one of the interview when he was asked why he wasn't married he answered: "I'm married, my wife is Germany". Such a patriotic spirit has to be respected. I can't strike out all horrors of war, all lives Hitler took away, but there are two sides of the coin and we should consider both.
DSAJSIPDJAOSIdjaosidjaoijoaisdjoaisdjoiasdjoisjdoaijd

HEY HOOOHOOOHOOOhOOO PEEPEE POOOPOOOOOOO I WANT TO SHREK ON YOUR MOMMMMMMM EEEEEE MOM ON YOU MOM DAD SHREK LAD HOOOHEEEEHOOOHAAAAAAA"sDASODAOSDJAPSD
cause and effect is plus and minus, plus is minus, and mins is plus

lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one any cause and effect example is sufficient, so complication is unnecessary there are many causes and effects in the man who climbs a ladder example, and plus can not happen without minus, there are no causes without effects the man adds his weight to the latter where as moving forward and subtracting from where he was in going forward up the latter and so on.. a simple example, I hold my finger up in front of me, and move it slightly, there, plus and minus is equal, you moved the finger and remember where you moved it to as you look at your finger