BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
[SHARED BOP] Hitler's philosophy is superior in morality and reasoning to Stalin's

The first time I saw this debate, I immediately clicked "join" on the pro side. First of all, the Soviet communist era was only good when Lenin, the first leader, was still in charge. During Lenin's era, Communism was in its purest form. People were viewed equal, the economy recovered the damage caused by WW1 and the Russian civil war and prospered with the two 5 year plans. Okay let me comment on your version of Stalin's philosophy My comment on philosophy #1: Murdering and torturing are both equally cruel, especially when you murder hundreds of thousands of people as committed by Stalin's government and the NKVD (Soviet's sort of secret service). The Soviets massacred millions of people during the course of World War 2, for example. How can you consider that less cruel just because the Soviets chose to kill instead of "torture then kill". My comment on philosophy #2: This is again not true because the Soviets didn't kill their political enemies in a merciful manner. Many were killed by shooting. Sometimes shooting didn't kill everyone instantly, as the soviets didn't bother to shoot everyone at the head, especially in mass executions. Some victims would suffer from non lethal gun shot wounds and they would be left to suffer and die "much" later from their wounds. Do you think that's merciful? My comment on philosophy #3: Actually segregation was common in the Soviet Union. Religious people especially suffered from this as the Soviet Union was against religion. My comment on philosophy #5: The education system in the Soviet Union "brainwashed" children to grow up believing in the Soviet system a supreme being. For example They were taught the "soviet version of history" in which every historical fact which was against Soviet interests was censored. Hitler's moral code #1 didn't aim to torture any enemy or make them useful. In fact Hitler was trying to make the method of killing as efficient as possible, this included the minimizing of suffering in the victims' part. That was because he feared that his victims' suffering would attract sympathy from the Germans. For example: the construction of gas chambers for killing political oppositions and jews. Hitler never used religion as part of his regime, as you claim in moral code #2. In fact he was ignorant of Christianity and he even mistreated it sometimes. His regime was strong because Hitler was clever enough to use the issue of German post WW1 suffering to aid his cause. He never mistreated other religions apart from Jews. Moral code #3 is correct. Conclusion: You argument is wrong
[SHARED BOP] Hitler's philosophy is superior in morality and reasoning to Stalin's

The drugs Hitler used made people scream is pain and agony. Froth at the mouth and tear up at the eyes. Both were super evil. Both were turranists. Both should go to hell if there is one.However Stalin's philosophy is superior in morality and reasoning because the way he treats people is unaffected by his 'emotional state' at the time whereas Hitler would often alter between a nice shot to the head and/or a torturous operation to extract information from a jew including killing their children right before their eyes.Stalin used far less dirty tactics than Hitler and stuck to a philosophy (communism) instead of an incessant hatred (to a certain race) towards something people couldn't help for it was genetics.
[SHARED BOP] Hitler's philosophy is superior in morality and reasoning to Stalin's

p#1: The problem is that death in the Hitler/Stalin context means cruel death by cruel methods such as shooting, hanging etc, and the killings were carried out en masse. Therefore I can safely say that, in this context, murder and torture are equally cruel. p#2: How is shooting merciful compared to gassing? Gassing uses gases like Carbon Monoxide etc. Death by such gases doesn't involve pain at all. You inhale the gas, you lose consciousness, then you die. That's it. Meanwhile death by shooting is always gruesome, bloody and painful. Even if you shoot at the head, you never know if your victim feels pain or not before dying "instantly". Yes Hitler shot Jews that way, but it doesn't mean that Stalin did not. During Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the Soviets killed their prisoners who were in the path of the advancing Germans. They were in such hurry, so couldn't have bothered to shoot at the head etc. Some didn't even die quickly. Just look up "prisoner massacres by the NKVD" on Google. p#3: He did harm the religious by closing down religious buildings. You can search that on Google. p#5: I don't have much knowledge concerning point 5 so I will leave that out. mc#1: Yes I have watched that movie before. And the Jews in the movie are killed by gassing. That goes in line with Hitler's moral code which I have mentioned before, which is to make the killings as painless as possible for the purpose of efficiency. PS: We all know he was against the Jews. What we are talking about right now is which guy's moral codes are better. So it's very useless to bring that quote from Mein Kampf up. Both Stalin and Hitler were evil and killed people.
animal testing should be banned

I feel that Animal Testing, when done humanely, can provide scientists with a number of results that can ultimately affect the lives of countless people. I agree that cruelly testing superfluous products such as cosmetics (not saying cosmetics aren't important, just when it comes to testing on animals) but life-altering medications and products need subjects. However, if human subjects can be found and tested on legally, then by all means, use them. But, no, I do not believe animal testing should be banned.
Penis size doesn't mater

Penis's cum in all shapes and sizes some are long while others are not. But in this society women in genral and sum men two seem to think that its okay to laugh obout something thats out of a persons control. You could be with a girl youve talken out to dinner spended $30 dollars on her when you get to her house and get ready to make love she just laughs. You didn't choose it it never happened to you and you can cum just fine but because its small you are shmaed. While this has never happened to be as women cant seem to get enough off my sizable pump action yougurt rifle I sympathise with my fellow men. Penis size doesnt mater.
Human cloning should be allowed.

Infertile family rebutInfertile families with one child might be able to create another child, but again the failure rate is 0.1% to 3%. You have claimed that technology is improving, but it does not have to. Just because it improved since now doesn't mean it will continue to improve. Even if cloning technology does increase, it will increase very slowly, until it reaches a safe 99% success rate. "The following issues dealing with cloning and its ethical and moral implications will be addressed: cloning of human beings would result in severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human species such as animals subjects them to unethical or moral treatment for human needs. The amount of physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of severe abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Fact: Adler 1996). If those nuclei were human, "the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage" ."(2)(1) http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...(2)http://www.studymode.com...Human clone farm rebutThe concept of multiplying defect is very obvious. No clone is exactly identical to another physically and psychologically. The natural and moral argument has already been addressed above.
Human cloning should be allowed.

Due to the character limit, I will mainly focus on my animal clone farm in this round.Infertile family argumentMy opponent seems to have misunderstood what I meant when I said children can be provided to families with only one child. The clone would not be of the mother or the father - it would be a clone of the child itself, thus producing twins. This will have both mother and father genes, and clones still have to be put into a woman's womb for nine months, so there is nothing too artificial about this process. Con's artificial argument is null; artificial by definition is man made, and humans come from other humans, therefore humans are artificial. Natural or not does not make something more or less ethical, moral, or illegal. Human clone farmAlthough clones would replicate the defects in a person, not every aspect of the clone will be defected. There will be plenty of parts that can be used - heart, kidney, liver, etc. The failure rate cannot be taken into account; technology can only improve and the resolution itself obviously implies that human cloning will have reached a high enough level in the future to be possible, or this whole debate would be pointless. There is no such thing as 'multiplying defect', you simply continue cloning one person, not make clones of the clones, so how can the defects multiply? They can only be replicated from the person at best. Furthermore, you could only choose to clone very healthy people and make a whole factory line production of them, so that you simply take out the organ you need when someone requires a transplant. This is incredibly efficient and saving lives is a good thing therefore moral and ethical. Neither does it break any laws as these clones would be in a vegetative state to the equivalent of a plant. Eating vegetables does not break any laws, ethics or morals.Thank you for your indulgence in my argument and I await my opponent's response.
Human cloning should be allowed.

Since my definition of "allowed" is "ethically, morally and by law" my opponent has ONLY argued that cloning should be allowed by law. He has explained the scientific benefit (law) which I will rebut later. I need only prove that it shouldn't be right in one of the three "laws".ARGUMENT Human cloning should not be allowed as ethically and morally as it would destroy the concept of "mother" and "father" and it is not at all natural. If offspring were to be cloned from mothers or fathers, the clone would not have genetic traits from both parents, which is not natural at all.REBUTTAL 1) has already been rebutted. "I propose a human clone farm, where the clones are put in a semi-vegetative state so they are nothing more than biological matter. These clones can then be safely harvested for organs and save millions of lives - people who are waiting for their organs do not have to wait any more, they can simply take it from their clones. These organs will also be completely compatible as the body they are taken from are complete clones of their hosts. " Unfortunately, as described in the previous round, one defect leads to another and another. And, the failure rate is very high, which combined with the multiplying defect problem leads to a very risky business, where a transplant may do the opposite of helping.Thank you.
Human cloning should be allowed.

I can imagine what would've happened if my opponent was debating whether guns should be banned. Guns kill people. Killing people is bad. This is not good for mankind, one killing sparks another until we're like wild animals, killing each other. We also weaken our population, and in the end there will only be one person left because we would've killed each other. Without guns, people won't kill each other, helping each other instead.That is basically my opponent's argument, just substitute 'human cloning' where it says 'gun'. Just because human cloning exists doesn't mean we just endlessly create 'test tube babies' for the sake of creating test tube babies. If we want to create babies, you would just have sex, as sex adds pleasure to the act as well. Con's diversity argument is also invalid, humans are a combination of nature and nurture. Clones start as babies too and they will grow differently due to their environment and thus have different ideas. That argument is totally illogical. So we now reach my argument.Cloning should not be banned, it should simply be limited to certain things:1) Allowing families with only one child and suffering from infertility to create another child through the process of cloning, creating a twin to their first child and allowing more children.2) I propose a human clone farm, where the clones are put in a semi-vegetative state so they are nothing more than biological matter. These clones can then be safely harvested for organs and save millions of lives - people who are waiting for their organs do not have to wait any more, they can simply take it from their clones. These organs will also be completely compatible as the body they are taken from are complete clones of their hosts. I have provided two very good ways to use human cloning while my opponent's arguments have effectively been nulled. Due to the 2000 character limit I will conclude my round 2 here, but there are many more positives to be listed in future rounds.
Human cloning should be allowed.

Human cloning creates identical genes. These genes will have the same defects, and thus reproducing and reproducing more and more defects instead of evolutionizing. This is not good for mankind, one defect sparks another and another until we're like wild animals, fighting for meat. We also weaken our diversity, causing less adaptation skills. Again, this also causes humans to clone and clone defects in adaptation skills. Have you heard of the saying "everyone is different"? Well, with cloning that's not true at all, and no one is unique anymore with cloning. No one can collaborate with one another, as that would be, well, nearly useless. Everyone knows exactly the SAME skills. Without human cloning, everyone will stay unique, with their own strengths and weaknesses, each being able to help another. Thank you.
Is diversity a proper objective

Lookingattheissues response to KarolusMagnus1, subject...."Is diversity a proper objective" May 30Th. 2015 on Debate.org Thanks for entering into the debate on the topic of diversity. The term," diversity," is really a handy catch-all term that is a conglomeration of such terms as multiculturalism, political correctness,Affirmative Action,racial preferences etc, etc, that is used by the elite leftist at Universities and in the government to confuse the general public. Robert H. Bork in his book, " SLOUTCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH," wrote "...of late educators have begun to speak of "diversity," instead of " multiculturalism,"but it is the same thing." "...University presidents and faculties, secondary and primary school principles and teachers, all chant the "diversity" mantra...." Diversity is touted by the leftist elite professors and other leftist intellectuals as a way to unite the different races together and promote a better appreciation of other races, and to bring the different ethnic groups together as one under the banner of all being Americans. The elite, by pushing diversity as a common good, have been able to put the policy of "diversity" in place, but diversity, and their other oratorical pontifications haven't proven to be the panacea promised by the learned leftist elites dwelling in their ivery towers. Notwithstanding all the grandiose claims about diversity and multiculuralism being the solution as to how to bring the different races together and promoting a better appreciation for each other, the opposite from what had been promised has resulted and divisiveness between the ethnic races has been the results of this grand experiment. ".... The student who immerses himself in multicultural studies, who lives in a dormitory where admission is defined by ethnicity, who socializes only with members of his ethnic group, does not acquire the knowledge and discipline that he might have and does not learn how to deal comfortably with those of other ethnicities ." Diversity hasn't brought about a blending of the races but has cause an even greater divide among them. When one ethnic group of Americans are taught to expect and deserve special considerations over other races, that they have been oppressed by the other race living together in a nation which the two of them occupy there can be nothing but disharmony between them and all of the fancy words won't solve the problems of that nation.
Is diversity a proper objective

....Diversity ,in my opinion is just a method of diversion from the real objectives of Statism...... which is, in the end, to control every facet of people's lives. The elite, both of the leftist intelligentsia at universities and the political Elite use the subterfuge provided by their skills with semantics to advance their real goals of domination over the citizens lives. No avenue that might further the statist's objectives of complete domination by government bureaucrats is overlooked from indoctrinating America's youth in "political correct" attitudes, as determined by statists, to imposing their doctrinaire of diversity upon all citizens. But in a article that appeared in the Boston Globe titled, " The downside of diversity " ...By Michael Jonas | August 5, 2007... diversity proved to not be so beneficial as was claimed by statist elites. In the article<" A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?" "IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger. But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. ] Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for ["Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, [neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. ] The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. "The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist. "The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools..." The claims as to the benefits of diversity upon the American citizens has proven to be a detriment to unifying them and causing them instead to separate from each other. The effects of diversity, as reported by this Harvard professor, has brought about a disunited, United States, and a citizenry that distrusts each other, hardly a worthy benefit of enforced diversity.
Christians on abortion

The question is, is it moral to have an abortion if your father got you pregnant. Of course abortion would seem attractive in those circumstances and it is and should be legally available. The moral question remains though as a private problem for the woman, and these sorts of private moral dilemmas are the province of religion. Religion helps interpret the moral universe for its followers and even non-religious people who are interested in moral philosophy. If the woman is Christian, she may see her foetus as a living child. She may see it as her duty to protect it despite the obvious disadvantages to her personal circumstances and she may choose against abortion for those reasons.
Death penalty

I'll concede the point that having the death penalty decreases the crime rate alittle bit. But as for your third point I would say this. God told him to. It was gods decision thus we knew it was a correct one for all the reasons you said and more. Now I will state my "issues" with the death penalty. 1)In all too frequent cases people are put to death and then were later proved to be innocent. Once it was discovered they were innocent their was no way to undo their penalty. Had they been put in jail they could have at least been released and perhaps even compensated. 2)Who are we as imperfect human beings to judge whether someone should die? No matter the crime how can we justify a penalty that involves ending the life of a human being? 3)By killing a person you end any ability he or she has to develop while on this planet. It is very possible for someone to repent or if they don't repent to at least change somewhat if not significantly for the better. If we end there life then we deny them this opportunity to end there life in a somewhat better state then where they were before. 4)Lets say that what I have said could happen is the minority f the cases which I think it is. Even if this is the case, would you deny those few life for the sake of those who "MIGHT" actually desire that penalty?
Death penalty

I suppose that I will go straight into argument since I have accepted this debate. The reasons that I support the death penalty are as follows: 1. The threat of the death penalty decreases crime rates. 2. The criminals knew what the consequences of their actions would be and yet they still committed the crime. They chose to accept that consequence when they chose to commit the crime. If the government does not administer those consequences, then the result would be a higher number of crimes that are punishable by death. 3. My religious reason for supporting the death penalty is this: The Lord told Nephi in the Book of Mormon to kill Laban because it was better for one wicked man to die than for an entire nation to dwindle in unbelief. I compare this to how the death penalty, or the death of one wicked man, keeps this nation from finding murder, rape, and other crimes punishable by death morally acceptable.