BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

Well, I think it's disrespectful to generalize people as stupid zealous fanatics and to assume that you giving me evidence won't change my point of view, but if you want to believe I'm uninformed, hey, then so be it. I will agree with your point about me-not-knowing-much-about-WW1; that's why we're having this debate. Interestingly enough however, I'm able to give reasoning behind my every point. Hitler: I agree that the ending of WW1 gave him his big chance but again, that does not mean that the window of oppurtunity would be THE reason he got elected. You have not proven any reason why Hitler wouldn't have been elected anyways. To my knowledge, Russia was part of the Big 3 so WW2 could not have started due to the Big 3. Also, according to your just-made post, Germany started WW2 in order to get its land back, also cancelling out your argument about hatred towards the Big 3. You are incorrect about not having a rise of nuclear weapons. It was already being researched anyways by both sides. You still aren't proving or telling me WHERE or HOW I contradicted myself. My argument is that even if you win all your impacts, then I can just turn them all by saying that we as a society learned a huge amount of moral lessons. This is AFTER WW2, AFTER the atomic bomb, AFTER Japanese-American imprisonment, and AFTER the Holocaust. This is how the debate is breaking down. At the first level, you must first prove that all your arguments are true, AND that they have a significant impact. At this point it seems like you're choosing to drop your "Depression" and "Terror" arguments and just go for "Hitler" and "Follow Up". Second level. On my very first post I gave a situation of what would happen in that alternate world, and EVEN IF you win the point that there would've been no nuclear cold war, you must outweigh the alternative cold war between the Central Powers and the Allied Powers. OR, you just go and prove my first argument, the Industrial-Military Complex false. You've dropped that argument since R2, and even chose to agree with the premises of my contention. Third level. Outweighing moral benefits. And just as a side note, I still don't see any posts by you telling me why I'm contradicting myself. There's a claim for sure, but where's your warrant?
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

First off, I personally find it disrespectful that you call 9/11 a setup. There's no arguments to use against you fanatics because you'll always be conspiracy theorists. Did you not see the planes hit the towers? Plus, there were a lot more places that could have been hit if our own government wanted to make a statement? The Islamic Fundamentalists attacked us, we went into Iraq because of bad intelligence BUT the people there have been nothing less of happy to see us overthrow their dictator. Who's fighting us in Iraq right now? Iranian insurgents, not "the people over there." Moving from current affairs, which you obviously don't know about, to WW1, which again, you really don't know about. Hitler: Would Germany winning solve the hatred of Jews? No, but the thing is, like I've said, WW1 was his tool to getting elected. Because Germany was so badly shafted punishment wise, he was able to talk to a crippled people about "rebuilding the motherhood, getting respect back, blah blah blah." That was the reason he was elected, that was the reason he was given so much power. He was a good orator, but a better moment seizer. That was the perfect opportunity for him to BS his way into the Holocaust. Even if he would be elected, he wouldn't have been given the absolute strength that he had in the real world. "I am correct with my history and my interpretation of it, WW2 did not begin due to Germany's hate of the Big 3." Yes it did. Look at the punishments that were handed out to Germany, and Russia. Germany: Had to pay large sums of reparations, had to have a limited army, among other things. They had to take sole responsibility of the war, because they were the biggest country on the losing side. Not only did they have to pay things, they also lost some of there land. Russia: Lost a lot of their land in Europe, which would then lead to that land becoming new countries. How did this lead to WW1: Not only for paybacks sake, but Germany also wanted to get land back. THAT'S why they invaded Poland, to get some of there original land back. How it led to the Cold War: Well, with the dawn of nuclear weapons never happening in my alternate world, then if the Cold war happened, it would be a lot smaller scale, but, nonetheless, WW1 punishments led to it, because Russia wanted it's original land back. Of course, they got it, and became the USSR. None of this would have happened if Germany had won, and yes, you contradicted yourself, saying that had WW2 happened, it would help with morals, and things like that. Well, WW1 was a pretty large scale conflict, all countries noticed how bad it was, Germany just wanted payback. Had we lost, we'd be just another country, which is a good thing. Not to mention that we wouldn't be looked down upon, because we wouldn't have the power to invade Vietnam, and in today's world, the Middle East.
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

If you have any real arguments against ZeitGeist, I'd like to hear them. Unless you can prove that WW1 led to Hitler's hate of the Jews, then i don't see why your point stands. Alright, so all evidence right now points to 9/11 being a setup, and I can go on that tangent if you want. The only other place (outside of London, which also has all evidence pointing towards SETUP) there are Islamic Fundamentalists are in their homeland. And umm, I think they're justified in killing our troops, because we aren't supposed to be over there in the first place. If we're over there marching around with guns, I think they have a right to self defense. I said that the after-effects of WW2 led to a better society; it led to the illumination of many social problems from racism to morality. I do not see the contradiction. Germany attacked Poland first and not Britain or someone else. Italy attacked parts of Africa first, and if I am correct with my history and my interpretation of it, WW2 did not begin due to Germany's hate of the Big 3. The Cold War in the your alternate world would have been the Central Powers versus the Allied Powers. Refer to my previous post. Little to nothing would have resolved if Germany had won. You are still not giving any valid or sound reasoning for why the rest of the things that came after WW1 were a DIRECT LINK, except for possibly the Great Depression argument, which you have not given any impact for. However, my argument of the enlightenment for humanity's morality still stands. Due to the things that happened in WW2, the rest of the world learned that such things could not be happening again and many things, from literature to civil and equal rights movements have their motives significantly influenced from WW2. If WW2 never happened, then many of our ideas would not exist today. So far, that is standing strong in this debate. I do not see where I contradict myself. You also agreed to my point about nationalism, so are you saying that the whole situation presented in my R1 is true?
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

so says the person who believes in the zeitgeist movie. Not like I can change your opinion about anything. Hitler might not even felt compelled to run for election because he wouldn't have been angry against a large group of people. And yeah, we wouldn't constantly be a target for Islamic Fundamentalists that don't like our Christian ways. You contradicted yourself when you talked about the Holocaust leading people to being better morally, because when a war of this scale would end, whoever won, would see the damage that imperialism caused, and would not want it to happen again. The only reason there was a second world war, was because Germany was angry at the Big 3. I still don't believe the Cold War would have happened, because there was no need for it to happen, it stemmed from anger, again, at the Big 3. WW1 was like a cliffhanger, because Germany was punished. Everything would have been resolved had they won.
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

For your first and last argument, I don't think they would have been respective of their own neighbors, as nationalism + imperialism + the military-industrial complex would've probably driven them to invade their neighboring countries. You're not really giving a reason why Hitler wouldn't have shown in Germany's political arena anyways. Although it is true that it gave him his big chance, it does not mean that the window of oppurtunity was THE reason he got elected. The Cold War probably WOULD have happened, and it would've been a lot worse, because the Allied Powers of WW1 and the Central Powers of WW2 would've been in the Cold War also. It would've been basically half the world powers against the other half, with plenty more people, instead of just US vs Russia. "Age of Terror". Let me tell you about terror. Terror is an emotion. It isn't an enemy. Terrorism has been around since the beginning of mankind, it isn't a "recent problem" that arose today. Today it's suicide bombers, back then it was assassins and ninjas. Just because the Central Powers wins WW1 doesn't mean we wouldn't have the "Age of Terror" today. All in all, you aren't getting very many impacts.
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

Thank you for replying. I can see where you are coming from, and your point about nationalism is correct, but I feel that The central powers would have stopped, because they would have been content with being where they were, plus they would be respectful of they're own neighbors, IMO. With the Hitler thing. He was a great orator, but Germany paying for pretty much everything was what opened up Adolf's big chance to shine. I don't believe he would have been elected, and if he had, he wouldn't have the absolute power he did in the real word. The cold war still might have happened, but I don't believe it would be as dangerous as it was in real life, because Russia would probably be either happy with us, or have no anger with us at all. And even if the Central Powers took over Europe, it still may be better than the age of terror we are in today. By Germany winning the world war, it would keep us from being the easy target we are today. I also don't believe that The Central Powers would move on and take over Europe, because they would realize just how bad the war was on all fronts.
The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

Ah, the waking of a sleeping giant. The Zimmerman Note, for those of you that don't know, was what brought us into WWI. Had we not intercepted it, we would have most likely been attacked by Mexico, and possibly by Germany, or we would have to fight Germany in Europe when we would have figured out they sent the note. What it basically said was that Germany proposed a plan to Mexico "help me help you." Because Mexico was so close, it would be easy for them to attack us, and they would want to, to gain back territories we took from them. It sounds bad right? Us losing in Man's Greatest Conflict? Not really though. Sure, we'd have to do some rebuilding, but ultimately, it would be better for us. If we lost, we'd focus on rebuilding, and wouldn't produce an overzealous economy, thus avoiding the Great Depression. And, us losing, meant Germany came off better. Now, I urge you to remember, WW1 was not Germany's fault, it was because of an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the leader of a small country. But though, when Serbian rebels went to war with Austria-Hungary, Alliance systems caused Germany, France, Russia, Italy, and Great Britain to enter the fray. Of course, Germany needed help, and they sought to take down the US as well (because we were allies of their enemies). That's when they sent the Zimmerman Note. Well, since it was intercepted, we attacked first, and they eventually lost. While we tried to punish them fairly, our suggestions were voided by the Great Britain, France, and Italy, because they were the ones that were the most damaged by the war. Well, they made Germany pay. Germany's downfall was the perfect opportunity for Adolf Hitler to come to power. Ask yourself, had Germany still been a world power after winning the way, would they really want Hitler? No, for one, Kaiser Wilhelm would have chosen an heir, and two, he didn't offer anything but the chance to pay back the enemies that did them damage. Had Germany won; no enemies. No Hitler, no Holocaust. Moving on to Russia; they bowed out when they collapsed from the Russian Revolution, and the Communist party was infuriated when they got punished and lost land when the Big Three had the power to control war repearations, which led to animosity toward the Allies. This could possibly take care of the Cold War, as well, because WWII may not have happened, and who knows, there might not be anymore conflicts, because it wasn't a thirst for power from a big nation that sparked WW1, it was one gun shot in a small country.
The Gospel According to Carrier

See? That's why you are a teeny bopper, clearly without an edumacation and an intelligence. TIME STAMPING for the final time does not matter. And had you watched the video, in which case you clearly hadn't, your micron brain would have figured that one out. Should you post another argument/ post, it will rightly and justly be ignored. Why do I get all the idiots who cannot AT ALL come up with any convincing arguments to counter what is originally stated? Bye.
The Gospel According to Carrier

I'm sorry, I should've given a definition to get rid of semantics. Time stamping: record the time or date of. To be specific, I wanted the times of him specifically proving "the total idiocies of the gospels, christianity, christ, Mark, Paul etc. and how stunningly ridiculous they are" As for you notating me as a teeny bopper Ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. For one, you took the form of attacking me and refused to actually give specific time stamps. "Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument" [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [2] https://www.google.com...
The Gospel According to Carrier

Figures that a teeny bopper like you who wants to add something to this WELL DEFINED debate and can't even figure out something that is so ridiculously simple. Also you did not watch the video to see that "timestamping" (which is not even considered to be a word according to dictionary.com) does not matter and wow does it prove that your debate to be most juvenile and inadequate at best and does not even show what you are talking about. The term "timestamp" as wikipedia puts it is... "A timestamp is a sequence of characters or encoded information identifying when a certain event occurred, usually giving date and time of day, sometimes accurate to a small fraction of a second. The term derives from rubber stamps used in offices to stamp the current date, and sometimes time, in ink on paper documents, to record when the document was received. Common examples of this type of timestamp are a postmark on a letter or the "in" and "out" times on a time card." Indeed that most certainly DID NOT take place at the time of YOUR unproved christ achoo. " rubber stamps used in offices to stamp the current date, and sometimes time, in ink on paper documents, to record when the document was received" Clearly that had NOTHING to do with the time period because "rubber stamps" um nope and all who were in the presence of your so-called messiah could not read nor write either. Also you should have not accepted this debate for something in which you clearly know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about. Sheesh! I'm really tired of those who enter my debates and they have no idea, none, as to what they are squawking about.
The Gospel According to Carrier

;- The Gospel According to CarrierPublished on Nov 24, 2017Was Jesus an author's literary invention and not a real person? In this 30 minute documentary interview, Historian and Author, Dr. Richard Carrier posits that the anonymous gospel writer (Mark) borrowed themes from Jewish scripture, Homer and the Jewish-Roman war to create a fictitious character in order to promote a new message. Carrier explains that the origin of Christianity was a version of Jewish Hellenism and a later evolution of the common mystery religions of the Mediterranean in the early first century.Produced by 11th Story (Lora Nigro, Kevin Rutkowski and Vincent Gaudes)Music by Rob McWilliam"Flesh and Blood" written and performed by Lora NigroRichard Carrier is a philosopher, historian, and author specializing in the contemporary philosophy of naturalism and secular humanism, Greco-Roman philosophy, science, religion and particularly the origins of Christianity. He blogs and lectures worldwide, teaches courses online at Partners for Secular Activism.Books:Science Education in the Early Roman Empire (Oct 2017)On the Historicity of Jesus (2014)Hitler Homer Bible Christ (2014)Proving History (2012)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Richard Carrier more than proves the total idiocies of the gospels, christianity, christ, Mark, Paul etc. and how stunningly ridiculous they are. RULES: Prove that christ is divine and worthy of worship and that you as a christian can follow his every word according to the bible.dsjpk5 will not be allowed to participate in the voting process
Free market economics are redundant

Secondly, I would like to accept that President Sarkozy may not be considered an overt capitalist by American standards - European politics tend to be generally more liberal than those in the US. I also accept that, there has always been an element of regulation in banking, which has traditionally been fiercely resisted by the finance industry, right-wing politicians and Libertarians, as a consequence of which it has been light, and as we have seen, ineffective. They have argued, as my opponent has, that market forces should prevail in all cases. The successful will prosper and the devil will take the hindmost. On the face of it, it is difficult to see fault with this proposal. However, if the latest financial crisis were allowed to develop without any government intervention, chaos would have ensued. The banks would have collapsed, leaving not just private depositors and savers out of pocket, but also corporate investors such as pension funds and insurance companies. This would leave pensioners penniless, and render private pensions and medical care policies worthless. The banks' administrators would call in the home loans in order to liquidize their assets, which would lead to mass repossessions of homes, as almost all mortgages would then become sub-prime. The huge rise in unemployment that we are currently witnessing would be dwarfed as industry collapsed due to lack of liquidity. At this stage foreign investors, most likely from cash-rich Asian and Middle Eastern countries, would step in and take advantage of a practically worthless dollar, to buy up private and corporate assets at rock bottom prices. In short, the entire country would be brought to its knees. At that stage, people would take to the streets and demand to know why the government didn't intervene to prevent this disaster. If you don't believe me, why else would a Republican administration nationalise private organisations at the cost of trillions of taxpayer's dollars? They knew the writing was on the wall and they had no choice. That is why no Western government can afford, politically or economically, to allow this situation to develop again and which is why they will insist on introducing legislation to regulate the banking industry far more tightly. Thank you.
Free market economics are redundant

Referring to Sarkozy as a "devout capitalist" is laughable. For one thing, whether he is "right wing" has little to do with whether he is capitalist, in fact, capitalism as a consistent political position is only meaningful on a two-axis scale of politics, not the "left right" one axis scale. For another, he backed a partial nationalization of an engineering company (Alstom) in 2003. He backs a maximum taxation rate of FIFTY PERCENT, this is capitalist? His so called"laissez faire" reputation is derived mostly from the fact that in France they want more taxes than that, along with his backing the reduction of deficit (i.e., he doesn't want to pass the buck to the next generation), and his denial of unemployment benefits to those who refuse work, which, I here, even YOU back. This makes your main argument a straw man in essence. He is not and never was a laissez faire capitalist, and so he is incapable of "Admitting" anything for the laissez faire position. The "investment bankers" argument ignores the fact that the behavior of modern bankers has not occurred in a regulatory vacuum. It has occurred IN THE PRESENCE of strict regulation, along with subsidies, in the US coming from the Federal Reserve and FDIC. Indeed, "financial skinny-dipping" in the form of lending to people who could not afford it was LEGALLY MANDATED in the United States of all places. A free market would not have any bailouts to encourage banking behavior like that by our present set of bankers, nor any FDIC, nor any Federal Reserve, which decides who gets to be the bankers, for all intents and purposes, by loaning money to them. In a free market, idiots like the present set of bankers would fail, and so would their investors, leaving a place to step in for non-idiots. This is the most effective form of regulation, indeed the only form of regulation, possible-- regulation by those who stand to lose money if a bank screws up, by refusing to offer capital if it's going to screw up. Also known as a free market. No regulator has ever been able to surpass this mechanism, only to shut it down by way of subsidies. No regulator ever can, no regulator can ever catch up. Regulation leads to nothing more than lazy investing, and crises like these. Controlled markets, not free markets, are what is disproved by the present crises. " Given the enormous cost of their ineptitude to the ordinary taxpayer" The costs to the ordinary taxpayer come 100% from the regulators who are bailing out the inept. That's a problem squarely on the regulator's hands, for doing so.
Free market economics are redundant

President Sarkozy of France, a staunch right-wing capitalist, recently said of the free market economy: ï¿½ L'autorï¿½gulation pour rï¿½gler tous les problï¿½mes, c'est fini. Le laissez-faire, c'est fini. Le marchï¿½ qui a toujours raison, c'est fini. ï¿½ http://www.lefigaro.fr... Which transliterates into English as: "Self-regulation of all problems is finished. The free-market economy is finished. The markets are always right philosophy is finished." You only find out who has been swimming naked when the tide goes out. Given level of incompetence, corruption and greed that the current economic crisis has exposed, it has become apparent that most investment bankers have been financially skinny-dipping for years. Given the enormous cost of their ineptitude to the ordinary taxpayer, the markets should be much more tightly regulated in order to prevent any future reputation of the current fiasco. Even devout capitalists such as President Sarkozy realise that, and governments around the world will, rightly, introduce legislation to put an end to deregulated free markets. Thank you.