BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
was hitler a good guy after all

And to bring down the final blow to this troller. "1; his arguement didnt answer mine in the last round i said that the US is no better and he conisides this what he is saying is that the US is just as bad as hitler by considing this" Why are you bringing US in this? The resolution is "was hitler a good guy after all" It has nothing to do with US, but u accepted that Hitler was a bad guy after all and thats fine for me ^^ "2; he misunderstood my arguement if germany wasnt happy then they should have overthrown there leader right? " The reason that hes not overthrown was fear. He spreaded fear across the country and everyone that dares to oppose him goes to concentration camps. He had the power to do so too hence its called dictature. "3; ok his btw is wrong if the treaty of versi wasnt passed hitler would never gotten power and he still consided my turn so vote pro on this arguement" The point is that hitler was a bad guy, u get no points for having arguments that has nothing to do with the resolution. "4; ok so all people who made killings out of selfdefense are bad by my opponets logic and he consided my arguement that he stuck to his beliefs thats what good guys do :P" You readed it wrong, an act of self defense is always allowed. If you were about to kill me, and i accidently shot you with you dying in the end, its self defense because if i didnt protected myself, i would be the one dying. Hitler was never attacked by jews, but he killed them off anyway. In other words, hes a mass murderer and a bad guy :P "5; ok about his arguement all he says that it destroys charater but ill conside to this hitler thought he was doing good to the children honest mistake not a bad guy move" You gotta be kidding me. Any sane person will know what happens if you send someone into war. And it seems Hitler was clearly sane so, in other words, he was sending those childrens into war on purpose, not on mistake. "then shouldnt i be dead cause of hitler ok he tried to go back and answer the arguements he dropped them 4 rounds ago he has no juristiction to bring them across now also presenting new arguements this late is a move pulled byh horrid move and total BS vote pro he just called me retard thats un called for and not what real debaters do vote pro there are way to many dropped arguements to vote con even if i lost all five arguements of his he dropped my entire case off the bat dont allow him to bring them up now i out weigh him with case pros dont let beliefs fule your decision vote on who presented there case the best and thats me (im not a nazi and it really wasnt cool to say im a retard i have two mentally disabled brothers and what you said makes me pissed its not cool and i really dont want to hear that horse sh#t in the future please you might be a cool dude but using those insults is horrible)" Was too long, didnt read it. You cant deny the fact that you're a neo nazi. You've contradicted yourself numberous times and you've got the mind of a nazi. Also, if you make weird arguments like "hitler taugh the jews hide and seek" or "he send jews to god free for charge", you deserve to be called a mental retard.
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII.

My opponent does not seem to understand the difference between [cause] and [effect]. Yes, in 1942 the Japanese were expanding in South East Asia. Yes, the Germans were still advancing in some sections of the Eastern Front and yes, the British were still heavily engaged in North Africa. But the simple fact remains, that even though their advances continued, even with brilliant strategic manoeuvres, they would never win the war; the window of opportunity had simply closed by december 1941. The winter of '41 did not 'catch the Germans by surprise', they simply had not expected to still be fighting at that point. The Battle of Moscow warded off the German offensive; that is to say, the first and largest blow. It was a boon for Soviet (and British) morale. German battles would now all be pyrrhic victories, with Stalingrad being perhaps the most obvious of these. The German declaration of war against the USA (and the USA's 'Germany First' policy that followed, secured the deal for the Allies. The full (not limited as previously) industrial might of the USA meant that the Axis were totally out produced by the Allies. For example: yes, Pearl Harbor was a defeat for the Americans, but while the US navy's size was 478 ships in total (including 6 aircraft carriers) already by 1943, the Navy's size was larger than the combined fleets of all the other combatant nations in World War II. By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had a total of 6,768 ships, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships. You cannot and must not underestimate the industrial might of the USA, even though they first landed troops in Europe in 1942. World War II was not a Napoleonic War in which strategy in pitched battles is the main deciding factor for a wars outcome. World War II was a total war, and in a total war the nations which can produce the most tanks, aircraft, ships and men ... wins. In 1941, that balance of men and arms shifted in the Allied favor and never shifted back. That's why this moment is the deciding moment of World War II.
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII.

December 1941 decided the war. That month made sure that the Axis would not end the war victoriously. The importance of events or battles doesn't have to relate to the amount of casualties sustained. So even though the Battle of Moscow destroyed relatively few German divisions and even though the attack on Pearl Harbor destroyed 4 of the 8 battleships present there, the overall conclusion of that month saw that the war waged by Germany became unwinnable. In other words the geopolitical and strategic results are more important if you really want to determine the most important event(s) or pivotal moment during World War II. Strategically; The Battle of Moscow / December '41 is of great importance because it ended the Blitzkrieg tactics that had allowed the Germans to overtake much of western Europe and the western USSR. It was at this point that they ran out of steam and where the Red Army reorganized and reformed itself. Imagine a bull, chasing a man. The man runs away with the enraged bull right behind him. Then, the man suddenly turns and grips the bull by the horns and forces him to a standstill. They stand still, each looking eachother in the eye. Geopolitically; In december '41, the war became a global war, with the joining of the European and Pacific theatre. The entry of the US not only meant that the industrial might (which at the time constituted more than that of the USSR and Germany combined) would now reside in the Allied camp, it also meant that the US (through lend & lease) would deliver over $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles, 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food to the Soviet Union. Without that assistance (and the constant bombing of German industry) the German and Soviet production capacity would have remained relatively equal, meaning the war's end was unforeseeable. Back to the bull and the man. The man at this point regains his strength and starts to slowly push back the bull. The Battle of Stalingrad in this analogy is a push, just like Kursk and Bagration were pushes. However, what was the turning point? The moment the man stopped the bull in his tracks and regained his strength to push back: the Battle of Moscow and the US joining the Allied camp.
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII.

"Deciding meaning that Germany and its allies would not be able to win the war." And the Battle of Stalingrad decided that. "This is not, or at least doesn't have to be, the same as the battle with the most casualties." Well the Battle of Stalingrad was the bloodiest battle in history and also the part where Hitler would lose, step by step. "Personally I do not think that single battles decided World War II, which is why I chose December 1941 rather than a single battle." In December the Germans were pushed back from Moscow however no significant German forces were encircled. Germany was in no way shape or form defeated. Also, on December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor was bombed and the entire US Pacific fleet, with the exception of a few aircraft carriers, was destroyed. The situation looked pretty grim for the allies. Germany lost a few hundred thousand soldiers at Moscow, however they had destroyed over a million Soviets. And the USA, although in the war now, had an army smaller than the army Poland had in 1939 and a fleet that had just been destroyed. In 1941 the allies were just barely holding out. http://en.wikipedia.org... In December 1941, Japan was conquering the Pacific winning victory after victory. Britain was being pushed back in Africa. The Soviets had been able to hold out, not win a decisive victory. So the outcome of the war was in no way shape or form, decided in December 1941. http://www.youtube.com...
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII.

As I see it, the 'most important battle' refers to the battle that effectively decided World War II. Deciding meaning that Germany and its allies would not be able to win the war. This is not, or at least doesn't have to be, the same as the battle with the most casualties. Personally I do not think that single battles decided World War II, which is why I chose December 1941 rather than a single battle. In December 1941 the Germans experience their first major setback with the beginning of the Soviet counteroffensive in front of Moscow. In effect, this meant that the war was going to be prolonged indefinitely: the German advance had stopped and that"s a crucial moment; the 'Blitz' was taken out of the 'Blitzkrieg' allowing the Soviet Union to recover from total chaos. More importantly: at the same time as the Battle of Moscow the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and that meant that the Americans came into the war against Japan. Four days later (11th of December 1941) Hitler declares war against the USA " a war he has no idea how they can win. So within a few days then, you"ve got the German attack on the Soviet Union stopped and the war going into the indefinite future in the Soviet Union when only a blitzkrieg war had been planned for, and you"ve got the Japanese in the war, and you"ve got the Americans in the war, and you"ve got the Germans now fighting against the USA. Of course the war had still a long way to go and so on, and the Germans did actually recover to some extent in "42, but if you actually look for one point which is the turning point I think that was it.
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII.

By "December 1941" I assume that you are talking about the Battle of Moscow. The Battle of Moscow was definitely a significant battle, especially considering the fact that it was Hitler's first real defeat. This was the first time when a German Blitzkrieg came to a stop in the cold Russian winter. Moscow was saved and the myth of German invincibility was shattered. Historians generally agree that there were three turning points in WWII (talks/proves this in video): http://www.youtube.com... 1. The Battle of Moscow ensured that Hitler would not win the war on his own terms. He would be forced to fight a long war. 2. The Battle of Stalingrad made sure that Germany would lose the war, the only question is how badly Germany would lose. Would it be a negotiated peace or total destruction? 3. The Battle of Kursk answered this question. After this defeat Germany lost all chances of winning WWII. I will now write about the importance of the Battle of Stalingrad. Then I will write about the importance of the Battle of Moscow. Importance of the Battle of Stalingrad: http://en.wikipedia.org... -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis Importance of the Battle of Moscow: http://en.wikipedia.org... -Saved Moscow (the center of all Soviet rail-roads and the most important city in the USSR) -Germany suffered between 174,000 and 400,000 casualties -This battle was the first real defeat for Germany. I would agree that the Battle of Moscow was an important battle and I would rank it in the top three. However the lists above that I composed prove that the Battle of Stalingrad was much more significant than the Battle of Moscow. http://www.historynet.com... I look forward to hearing from you.
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII.

I'll keep it very simple and limit myself to two major arguments: Argument of Strategy & Tactics The Blitzkrieg ended in front of Moscow. The battle warded off the German offensive and German battles would from now on all be pyrrhic victories, with Stalingrad being perhaps the most obvious of these. Stalingrad itself was afterall taken by the Germans only to be destroyed by Soviet counterattacks. The blitzkrieg tactics would be tried again to some extent in '42, but never again would they have the effects they had from '39 to '41. The advantage of Soviet inexperience, chaos and panic was now gone and would never return and the incentive was on the Russian side now. Argument of Production & Industry The production capacity of the USA cannot and must not be underestimated. I've already demonstrated that even despite the defeat of Pearl Harbor the US navy increased its size from a total of 478 ships in 1941 to a total of 6,768 ships at the wars end. In terms of total production (as expressed in billions of dollars) is even more compelling. In 1941 Germany's expenses were $412 billion, those of the USSR $359 billion. The USA, by comparison, in 1941 had an expenditure of $1596 billion, more than double that of Germany and Russia combined. Without the USA, the total Allied expenses would have been about $600 billion in 1941, the Axis total was $900 billion. With the addition of the USA, the ratio was 1860 billion vs 900 billion. Simply put; without the USA's productive and monetary strength, the Allies could not have won World War II. Therefore, the joining of the conflict by the USA, because of Pearl Harbour and the German declaration of war, was a pivotal moment in which it was made sure that the Axis would never be able to outproduce the Allies and that therefore, from a production point of view, the war was lost. These two great moments together (in the matter of a few days) in december '41, decided the war and were therefore the most important moment in the course World War II. Without the Battle of Moscow the Soviets might have never properly regrouped and reorganized and without the entry of the USA, Russia would have (without US aid and bomber attacks on German industry) probably lost the production side of the war. I remain solidly convinced: THE EVENTS OF DECEMBER 1941 DECIDED WORLD WAR II.
The public has a right to see the mueller report asap

You make an appel to motive argument, You assume my only motive is to make trump look bad. . . You assume the report will make trump look bad. ? You assume my motive without the slightest evidence, You can't possile know my motives unless you can read my mind. . Can you read my mind? Can you? No you can't so shut up. . What i want is the truth. . And i am not sure it can even be found in this report. But i have the right to see it. . Can you site the rules that prevent its release? Can you.
Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James.

Kobe is a great player. Lebron is better. While Kobe has five rings compared to Lebron's two, Lebron is still young and on a great team that shows no signs of stopping. While yes, Lebron has Wade and Bosh to help, Kobe had Shaq, the most physically dominant player to ever play the game. Kobe's first two rings are more Shaq's than his. Just how Lebron's two are more Lebron's than Wades. Kobe was the second man to Shaq when they played together. So while Lebron has help in Miami, Kobe was the help in LA with Shaq. When evaluating each player, you have to look at the PER. Lebron's Career PER smashes Kobe's. Lebron assists more, rebounds more, and in some seasons scores more. Lebron is a great overall player,rather than just a great scorer.
Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James.

First of all he has 5 rings compared to 2. Some might say that Lebron is younger than Kobe but that doesn't mean anything. Kobe had to go through way more than Lebron. Lebron is on a great team, MIAMI HEAT he has Wade, Bosh and Allen, Kobe worked super hard, he was on a currently bad team Los Angeles Lakers with no other good players but Shaq. People might say that Lebron gets way more assists than Kobe but Kobe is a Shooting Guard and Lebron is a forward so it's good that kobe is getting some assists Lebron needs to get assists. Kobe is good Lebron is good, they're both amazing players but I think that Kobe Bryant is a better player than Lebron James.
Im cooler than you

I disagree by the meaning of cool from Websters dictionary. somewhat cold : not warm or hot : made of a light, thin material that helps you stay cool : able to think and act in a calm way : not affected by strong feelings :Fashionable I am pretty darn cool. I'm not warm or hot, I weld a lot of cool things, I swim in cool water, I drive a cool truck. I wear a lot of cool clothes. I listen to cool music. I know a lot of cool people. Now that's cool to me. What do you mean by cool? I drive an 87 manual two wheel drive rusty ford ranger with enough horsepower to outrace your horse. I once welded up a fancy dancy welding deck for a welder! I welded up a 69 mustang all the floorboards the frame everything! Then we put a inline four twin turbo Cummins diesel engine with 700 horses that could outrace all of your horses. I made a skidoo dirtbike with a skidoo conveyor and dirtbike front end! I wear fashionable button up shirts with the collars! With worn out jeans! I listen to Johnny Cash and every cool singer that I know! How About you?
The Prince

The Question: Is Niccolo Machiavelli's idea that it is better to be feared than loved correct? This argument shall take place under the assumption that you have to choose between one of the two. This argument should also take place with both sides making their determination of Machiavelli's statement, viewing the situation like Machiavelli would: looking at a leader's effectiveness, the ability to hold his office and his throne/leadership position. Not based on morality. Round 1 should consist of either side's opening arguments. Round 2 shall consist of either side's rebuttals. Round 3 shall consist of rebuttals to Round 2's rebuttals and closing arguments. My Argument: Niccolo Machiavelli was correct in saying that fear is the better tool to control one's state. 1) Fear is a controlling agent. Applied liberally it can paralyze a person into inaction. It can keep people down, and keep you in control. 2) As long as you remain un-hated while being feared, your people are less likely to attempt conspiracies to overthrow you. This is because a lack of hate for you removes motivation for your potential overthrowers to do so, and it adds incentive to refrain from trying to overthrow you, because they fear you and know there is considerable risk in attempting to overthrow you. 3) Example for Consideration: Think of a teacher you have or had that legitimately scared you for whatever reason. Now think of a teacher you have or had that you love(I assume not in the romantic fashion). Certainly there is an aspect of maturity in play here, but in whose classroom would you feel more comfortable talking out of turn in? From my personal experience, it's been the teacher that was easy going and more fun, whom me and my classmates 'love'.
The Prince

Hopefully my opponent can respond for this round. I'd ask that any voters consider his forfeiture of the previous round when deciding who had better conduct. Since there are no rebuttals in Round 2 for me to counter, I will just continue on with my closing statement. Closing Statement: The argument is whether ruling completely with fear or completely with love is more effective, in regards to maintaining one's state. Both me and my opponent have been logical in conceding that neither option is truly ideal. We have made many arguments and counter arguments, and I believe mine justify the use of fear. This can be said when choosing between all love or all fear: All love promotes obligation through positive feelings toward a person, which are (thanks to the unfortunate nature of man) often easily overlooked or cast aside. This casting aside of loyalty can occur if the leader has to do something unpopular for the sake of the greater good, and if the leader is unwilling to do this (as would be the case in the all love style) then disorder and disorganization arises, from a lack of boundaries and allowing problems to grow to unstoppable sizes. All fear promotes obligation through fear of punishments. These are much easier to maintain, and the loyalty begot by these is not forfeited if a leader must make an unpopular yet necessary decision. Many would ask how fear cannot lead to hate, and since I have already gone through this in my arguments and briefly in the comments section, I won't waste words over it. I will only say that it can be done, and that if fear is applied in a smart fashion, order and boundaries will be maintained much longer than if a leader were ruling through all love. Thanks to Dan4Reason for the debate! It was awesome!
Atheism is Directly Responsible for an Atrocity

"Con is special pleading for atheism being literally defined , no-one claims that other words should be literally defined according to their etymological roots.No-one can prove this type of "atheism" held by no-one, ever, caused an atrocity. I am quitting this debate. OP is being unreasonable."I am in no way being unreasonable. You are absolutely at fault for accepting this debate, wherein rules and definitions were clearly provided, seemingly without actually taking the time to read them. I even made my definition EXTRA clear, by adding an additional line at the endAtheism - the lack of belief in the proposition that god(s) exist, (derived from 'a', meaning 'without', and theism, meaning the belief that god(s) exist), as opposed to and distinct from the positive belief that god(s) do not exist.Next time, read the rules and actually take a moment to consider the definitions before you accept a debate.I will rest my case unless you'd like to present further arguments.