BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is likely that a God or gods exist

This is my first debate on debate. org. I am not interested in a semantic debate. By God or gods, I do not refer to a specific monotheistic Judeo-Christian conception of God. Rather, I use a more general, commonplace definition in which gods are either supernatural creators of the universe or even simply supernatural entities that are responsible for a specific aspect of the universe (for example, Poseidon is the god of the ocean, or Mars is the god of war). That is not to say that God cannot possess attributes such as being omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. Rather, Pro does not necessarily need to establish both that the creator of the universe exists and that he possesses characteristics ascribed to him by Judeo-Christian theologians and philosophers. Both Pro and Con share the burden of proof.
World War 2 needed to happen

First off i did not know that the evidence I used was the evidence that the affirmative side used. So sorry on that, second off I want to attack my opponent by saying WWII did not have to happen, think of all of those innocent lives taken in the war, that is irrelevent. because people died from the decision of one foolish man by the name of Adolf Hitler. But I hope that you vote for Neg.
World War 2 needed to happen

Before the Second World War began, Adolf Hitler began annexing countries who had only just received their peace twenty years before. The countries of Austria and Czechoslovakia were annexed in 1938, twenty years after the First World War. Immediately, people all across the world declared peace history: this new Hitler guy was here to stay, and he was wanting war: the Allies agreed, "Let's give him war". In the Soviet Union (communist Russia) Joseph Stalin, then Russian dictator, received a visit from Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim Avon Ribbentrop, who came to create a peace treaty between the two countries. This would ensure two things for the both of them: 1. The safety and security of Eastern Europe from both point of views. 2. Their abilities to focus on other aspects of the war. For the latter reason, Adolf Hitler started planning Fall Gelb, the invasion of Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Holland and above all, France. For Joseph Stalin, there was the invasion of Finland (a further swathe of territory as a "buffer zone" for possible Nazi attack) Hitler crushed France and its allies, leaving Britain isolated. Stalin also became victorious against Finland, but lost 125,000 soldiers and the Red Army's best generals. I could go on, but events that followed reinforce my point: World War 2 had to happen. Both for the time itself (to remove Nazism, Fascism and Imperialism from the world) and in a futuristic point of view (creating/possibly destroying Communism, and above all the UN, equality for all people and peace for all countries in Europe, especial Poland, of whom had been occupied in almost all of its history) There is the point that the UN could've been established, and I would therefore like to refer to the Geneva Convention, of which Germany and Japan refused. This showed their arrogance and clear devotion to further their "causes" via war and empire.
World War 2 needed to happen

As many historians know, World War 2 happened in the 1930-40's, in a period which mankind thought to be one of long peace. Adolf Hitler and his collaborators, however, made sure this would never happen. My point in summoning a challenger is to prove that World War 2 needed to happen. First round acceptance only, no arguments. To accept (as I have made this debate "impossible" to accept) comment in comments. Thank you.
Hitler was worse than Stalin

"However, you argue that Stalin killed at a slower rate, which is simply not true. Stalin wanted to build up his industry, he became obsessed with building new factories as part of his promise to make the USSR a industrial power. He willingly neglected to to build armaments in appropriate quantities until it was far too late to save the devastating loses. In 1940, a year before the war with Germany invaded, Stalin finally had put his factories to build armaments, tanks and planes." Hitler killed around 30 million people in 4 years. Stalin killed around 40 million people in 28 years. Hitler killed people because he did not like them and considered them to be inferior. Stalin killed people because he was paranoid about them being a threat and because he believed that he was doing the right thing with building his industries. Also, Stalin put his factories to building armaments long before 1940. The reason the Soviets lost so much during WWII was because they were unprepared and had bad leadership. Had it not been for the collapse of Nazi Germany, Hitler would have killed millions more Poles, Jews, Soviets, etc in his extermination camps all because he did not like those people. It is clear who is the greater of two evils. Hitler killed people at a much faster rate which proves that he was much worse. Concentration camps were death camps. Gulag camps were work camps. "The subsequent invasion and war reached the very suburbs of Moscow and cost the USSR 10 million millitary dead and an estimated 14-17 million civilian dead, amassing to 24-27 million dead, making stalin responisble for 50% of all casualties in ww2 because he neglected the millitary and civilian needs just to make his industrial dream real. This is not even mentioning the german civilian deaths and rapes when the USSR invaded Germany and Poland in 1944-45. Hitler is far from responible for all the soviet deaths, had the soviet union been armed and preared with a competent general corp, the war could have ended far sooner." Hitler was responsible for all of these deaths, not Stalin. Stalin was not the one who killed 17 million civilians. And also, about 3 million Red Army soldiers died in Hitler's POW camps. You simply do not have enough evidence to prove that Stalin was worse than Hitler. I agree that both dictators killed millions of people and that Stalin killed more than Hitler, but Hitler was ready to kill the entire population of eastern Europe simply because he did not like those people and considered them inferior. Sources: http://www.nybooks.com... http://www.rense.com... http://www.cyberussr.com...
Hitler was worse than Stalin

It is true that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, that you concede in your arguement. However, you argue that Stalin killed at a slower rate, which is simply not true. Stalin wanted to build up his industry, he became obbsessed with building new factories as part of his promise to make the USSR a industrial power. He willingly neglected to to build arnaments in appropiate quantities until it was far too late to save the devastating loses. In 1940, a year before the war with Germany invaded, Stalin finally had put his factories to build arnaments, tanks and planes. Part of the third five year plan which focused only heavy industry and arnaments, which caused a lack in consumer goods. As a result, combinded with my previous arguements, in 1941, when Hitler invaded, the USSR had a disorganized economy, laughable general corps save from a few who escaped the purge. The USSR outdated arnaments and tanks, outdated war and logistical plans, with Red Army troops only had a quater of their supply and arnaments demand. Due to Stalin's purges and his unsucessful five year plans, the red army got caugth with their pants down( Wikipedia: "soviet five-year plans"). He even refused to believe that Germany would attack until weeks before the invasion. The subsequent invasion and war reached the very suburbs of Moscow and cost the USSR 10 million millitary dead and an estimated 14-17 million civilian dead, amassing to 24-27 million dead, making stalin responisble for 50% of all casualties in ww2 because he neglected the millitary and civilian needs just to make his industrial dream real. This is not even mentioning the german civilian deaths and rapes when the USSR invaded Germany and Poland in 1944-45. Hitler is far from responible for all the soviet deaths, had the soviet union been armed and preared with a competent general corp, the war could have ended far sooner.
Hitler was worse than Stalin

You talk about Stalin's purges of political and military leaders and about how he killed 660,000 people. However this is not millions of people. Stalin killed over 40 million people throughout his 28 year regime. Hitler killed over 30 million people in about half the time. I will argue that the reason Hitler was worse was because of his reasons for killing. Hitler killed people simply because he did not like them. He killed Jews, the disabled, and homosexuals. Stalin killed people because he was either paranoid about them being a threat, or they actually were a threat (such as the Ukrainians who rose up against Stalin's collectivization) in the 30s. Most of the people who Hitler killed, he killed between the years 1941 and 1945. This includes 17 million Soviets civilians, 6 million Poles, and 1 million Yugoslavians. And those countries only include part of the eastern front. In 4 years Hitler killed around 30 million people. Stalin killed over 40 million people but he did this over a period of 28 years. If you compare Hitler's concentration camps and Stalin's gulag, you will notice a huge difference. When prisoners arrived to the concentration camp, 70% of them were killed immediately. This included women and children and even babies. In the gulag, people were worked to death. There were no children since a child could not be a threat. All the people who arrived at the gulag were people who could work. The fact that Hitler was killing people at a much faster rate proves that he was the worse of two evils. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hitler was worse than Stalin

Before posting my arguements, i'd like to make a few things clear. Firstly, this is my first debate on this site, so i will do my best to respect my opponent and not let this devovle into mean arguement like kids calling each other foul names. Secondly, while ww2 history is my passion and i am especially interested in germany's exspansion and the Holocaust, i must say that Stalin outclassed Hitler in being "worse" and here is my first arguemnt. Before the second world war had even started, Stalin was notorious for his "great purge" during the the late 1930's. This great purge ocurred due to Stalin being paranoid of other political leaders and even millitary leaders. During the purge, approx 1.5 million people got arrested and accused of "conspiring against the people" or being an "enemy of the people". Of those 1 500 000 people, more than 660 000 people were executed (see Communism: A History by Richard Pipes, page 67 forsource). These executions paralyzed the Red Army. A lot of generals got tried and shot, zhukov narrowly escaped the trials by being tied up with the battle of Khalkhin Gol on the Manchurian front, in the Siberian far east. Others generals in Europe weren't so lucky. The purge had a profound effect on the Red Army in europe, There were no generals to develope new millitary tactics or even war plans. When the Soviet Union invaded poland, the inexperienced generals grew over-confident due to the low casualties. This proved disasterous when the "green" generals used the same invasion tactics against Finland during the Winter War. They won the war at a heavy price. In general casualties, the Red Army suffered a devastating 5:1 loss in manpower, tanks and airplanes. The Red Army also suffered a gruesome 6 soldiers killed for each Finish soldier death, amassing to approx 125,000 Russian KIA's vs. the finnish 26 000, and that's not even going into the German-Russian war, which i will save for after i have recieved pro's response.
Hitler was worse than Stalin

I do believe that if the USSR controlled as many people as the Third Reich did at it's peak, Stalin would execute ANYONE who wasn't socialist. HItler executed people because of racial profiles, stalin executed people based on what they believed. Now, at it's peak in november 1942, the Third Reich had direct hegemony over the following occupied countries Norway, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Belgia, The Netherlands, France, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, estonia and parts of greece and yugoslavia. Not to mention the puppet states of Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria. Italy controlled their own people until 1943 (invasion of sicily) and the african colonies do not have proper census information, so i didnt take those to factors into account. But all those terriotories, pluss germany's, 1939 census amasses to a whopping approx 255 million people. HItler had controll over more people than stalin, who had at his heigth of power about 200 million people under his control, and thats mostly his own country. If the Soviet Union had not stopped at by Postdam and the allies had never invaded normandy. Stalin would have controlled alot of freedom loving people waiting to be executed for being "enemies of the people" Now i'm probably going to lose the vote on this since i didn't answer Pro on two rounds and didn't give him the chance to respond the arguements in this round and that i do apologize, greatly, for Source: www.wikipedia.org for census information
On Balance, Barack Obama's presidency has been much more beneficial than harmful.

First of all Thanks to my opposition for wanting to discuss this topic, because it's a topic that needs the upmost light shead upon it. I have not come to prove that barack is a bad presedent; or that he is wrong for the country. I only have to prove that he is not beneficial, which is the proposition my opposition proposes. I'm sitting on the side of the people who have been changed by the promised Hope. I'm sitting on the side of the people that were left underwhelmed by one man's weakness that act's as strength, and his violence that disguises itself as love. I beleive the hardest job in the world is being a criminal defense lawyer and that is what my opponet is planning on being, although his job is much more difficult since he has to not only prove that his client is innocent, but actually was on the side of those who currently accuse him of very immoral acts.
politics in the US and Israel -- Trump and Netanyahu

Total reactionary none sense. The US Congress more than 2 decades ago voted to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Take over the world?! Beyond idiotic. Israel its one of the smallest countries on the planet earth. Every country other than Israel has a right to determine the location of their Capital. But when Jews determine Jerusalem, this shows that Jews seek to control the world? What overt anti-semitic racism! Bunk on you and your blind silly ignorance.
Regular Show: Supreme Court Case: Cloudy Jane (Pro) VS. The CEO of Couple's Corral's Family (Con)

We are going off the episode "real date" For that, your case is invalid.*shows video proof.**crowd gasps*And I think I know why Mordecai said those things.*Pulls a hundred thousand dollar check out of Mordecai's pocket*Aha!Please stick to the actual story. Not one you made up.*Rigby and Eileen back up C.J's story.*Your honor, two eyewitnesses back up C.J's story while the only one to back up the CEO was Mordecai who was bribed.
Regular Show: Supreme Court Case: Cloudy Jane (Pro) VS. The CEO of Couple's Corral's Family (Con)

Ah I see how it is... your Honor as my second witness I would like to call one of my most trusted men and one who happens to be one of C.J.'s best friends. Your Honor i would like to call Mordecai to the stand. So Mordecai, is it? Did Miss. Jane tell you about her promotion? Well of course she did, and I took her out to the local bar as a celebration. And did anybody else come, with you? Ya actually i saw the CEO himself there, I would say about 20 minutes before he was shot. *Crowd Gasps And did the CEO happen to have the said "rocket", that he supposedly shot you with? No the only thing that i can remember is that C.J. order some odd drink called a Smirnoff Rocket. And did you get shot? Oh course not I took a few shot's! Your Honor, I rest my case.
Regular Show: Supreme Court Case: Cloudy Jane (Pro) VS. The CEO of Couple's Corral's Family (Con)

I would like to call C.J to the stand.C.J, did he offer you a job as Co-CEO?"No." What did he do?"His site was low on subscribers, so he wanted more people to join. He wanted Mordecai to re-join the site. He refused. Since he did, our CEO here tried to shoot me with a rocket! Mordecai took the blow, which almost killed him. He still had the rocket in his hand, so I had to defend myself."Thank you C.J.
Regular Show: Supreme Court Case: Cloudy Jane (Pro) VS. The CEO of Couple's Corral's Family (Con)

Your honor as my first witness I would like to call CEO's Ghost to the stand ( CEO's Ghost gets sworn in) Was their any reason at all for you to be shot and murdered by what I hear one of your best employees Cloudy Jane? Well no not at all, she was in fact one of my best ad just recently, well actually the day before I was murdered I told her that I was going to promote her to a co-CEO, as I was becoming old with age and felt that she was the best fit for my position, and most learn the ropes. Did you fell that you "threatened" her at all? Why of course not, if anything helped her with the raise that would almost double her salary. Your honor as you can see Cloudy Jane wasn't even threatened by our beloved CEO of Sanelectrics.
Regular Show: Supreme Court Case: Cloudy Jane (Pro) VS. The CEO of Couple's Corral's Family (Con)

This is supreme court case number three deciding whether or not Cloudy Jane should be held responsible for the CEO of couple corall's death, and charged with murder. Attorneys, opening statements."Your honor, my client did not do anything wrong. She was trying to protect Mordecai and her own life from the CEO. I will defend Cloudy Jane.- cooldudebro"Your honor, my client's family wants justice for the murder of their beloved CEO. We will prove that Cloudy Jane should be charged with murder. -My opponent.Witnesses for cooldudebro:MordecaiRigbyEileenCloudy JaneWitnesses for con:CEO's ghostHis menHis familyThank you for whoever takes this debate!
The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Full Resolution - Resolved: The United States should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.Rules:Do not trollNo semanticsKritiks of the topic are unaccepableVulgarity is unacceptableRefrain from utilizing a counterplan - debate the resolution as it isMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphere throughout the course of the debateIf necesssary/applicable, sources may be provided via an external linkFailure to comply with any of the above mentioned rules results in an automatic lossRound Structure:Round 1: - Con: Rules- Pro: Acceptance and Initial Arguments/CaseRound 2:- Con: Opening Arguments/Case- Pro: RebuttalsRound 3:- Con: Rebuttals- Pro: Defense and RebuttalsRound 4:- Con: Defense and Rebuttals- Pro: Waive RoundDefinitions:The resolution should be self-explanatory. To avoid dispute or ambiguity:Ought: refers to obligation or logical consequence/necessity [1]I look forward to an engaging and stimulating debate!Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......
is gun controled legal?... plz plz plz need a lotta responces...

I didn't say all guns are bad or we should get rid of all guns I said some restrictions (GC) are necessary. These restrictions fit my definition of GC. Fully automatic guns shouldn't be banned per se but restrictions should be strict with them because of their devastating ability. Note my lack opponents lack of response to felons and children having guns argument. If I win the felons/children argument I win the round by proving that in at least 1 way gun control is good.
is gun controled legal?... plz plz plz need a lotta responces...

GC: is tha liek MC? Cause that is HELLA dope... regulatin' is liek discrimination... if we get rid of da gun, wha next? the plane? train? walking? being smart? you wanna get away from da guns... go to Francï¿½a or Canada or Haiway... anyways, what wrong with 'matic weapons? i killed an attacka in my house with my glock like two years ago did U want me 2 dye (like my best freind 2Pac 8'-). if we get rid of guns, we gonna being having driveby stabbings and we ain't gonna be able 2 shoot back
is gun controled legal?... plz plz plz need a lotta responces...

*500 char. limit;sources can be made available if need be Gun control (GC)will be defined as: regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns GC is important because- it keeps guns out of the wrong hands ie GC is what keeps certain felons from owning guns and people under a certain age from buying guns, GC keeps certain guns off the streets ie the bans imposed on weapons such as fully automatics etc are gun control Although 100% GC is unconstitutional guns law should have some control
is gun controled legal?... plz plz plz need a lotta responces...

so i think that you gotta get guns for everyboy... b/c when you go to da store and it say "no guns in restaurante" I think "POR FAVOR i need my guns..." i mean... read the constitution... it say: "free guns"... IT'S IN THE PRAMBLE!!! anyways if you got a gun and you got america, it great but not now b/c we need ot have guns in case of fire or whatnot... in conclu: * guns in constitution (PRAMBLE) * no guns in restaurante (bad) etc.