BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
History: Allied countries are just as much to blame for the outbreak of WWII (1939-1945) as Germany

Continuing from my above points, the allied countries forced the Treaty of Versailles upon Germany which essentially destroyed the nation in terms of its economy, employment rates, social divisions and poverty. After hyperinflation (1923) a man named Gustav Stresseman was able to repair the country by creating a new form of currency, the rentenmark, and borrowing a series of short term loans from the US (the allied country least affected by Germany during WWI and so was most lenient) through the Dawes plans. This led to the "Golden Years" of the Weimar republic (1924-1929) in which conditions in Germany greatly improved and were in fact better than in many other places. However, in 1929 the wall street market crashed and America demanded Germany repay all of the money it owed America. This was vital, and while not caused by the allies it relates back to hyperinflation in 1923 as the people were very worried about a return to the problems they had once faced they almost immediately turned to the extremists. One who stood out was Hitler for he had lost almost all support during the golden years but did state that Germany should "not tie her economy to that of another country". Because he later turned out to be right people saw him as an economic guru of sorts and, along with all of his policies which he promised to implement (such as tearing up the treaty of Versailles and giving the people a scapegoat -- the Jews), he gained a lot of support by the masses. Some historians have commented on which event was more important when it comes to Hitler gaining power. Historian Snyder has commented saying that "hyperinflation was the scar that never healed" suggesting that the people had faced such hardship in 1923 they would never forget it and, as such, would do anything to prevent a return to such conditions. Historian AJP Taylor takes an opposing view stating that it "was the great depression that put the wind in Hitlers sails" suggesting that this was the event that pushed Hitler into power and allowed him to gain the chancellorship, while this is debatable (personally I believe it was the backstairs political intrigue between Von Pappen and Paul Von Hindenberg but I digress). We can clearly see how the allies harsh treatment towards Germany after the first world war led to such socioeconomic issues that people became desperate and turned to the man who would be pivotal in the second world war: Adolf Hitler. Indeed, other factors did heavily affect Hitlers rise to power, it was not simply these economic issues, however, it would be ignorant to say that they never had a major impact upon the events that transpired and so we can say that, because the allies caused many of Germanys' issues, they were indirectly involved in causing WWII and should be considered to be partly at fault. In fact, it can be argued that it could have been avoided as, in the past, Germany had been lenient in their treaties so as to prevent future problems (see Austria during German Unification 1871).
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

The act in its self of not making a decision, this would be a consequence, not acting to a previous behavior is still a consequence of the previous human behavior. Though one may not see a moral consequence as result of a behavior does not mean that the consequence did not occur. In sum, there are obvious reasons to why all human behaviors have moral consequence, it is the essence of our criminal justice system. It has been proven time and time again that if their is enough pain as a consequence human behavior would be curved. Parenting requires moral consequence, restraining children from pleasure when their behavior is inappropriate it is a consequence. Most people live their lives avoiding displeasurable moral consequences, by seeking to do what society deems as right, since they fear being outcasted, or punished. Yes science used facts and research to prove something true or false and I do not support the notion that moral consequences can be proven through science. Nonetheless, if we look at it as a science although each consequence may not be identical, we would see every human action has some sort of consequence whether positive or negative. To reinstate my points I will close with the following arguments, which I believe I made clear. Firstly, human behavior is always followed by a consequence. Secondly humans act expecting a consequence whether good or bad, but we generally know what consequence we are anticipating(this does not mean that we will receive the consequence we want).Moral consequences are also what drive human behaviors, everyone who acts on anything will receive a consequence it enables people within a given society to assess their present actions and decide whether or not do follow through with them. Thus, without moral consequences it would be difficult to have a functional and progressive society.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

There are many actions made by us that are not necessarily followed by a consequence, even though one may not be capable of observing it. The example of a person waking up early will clearly have to result in an outcome because in action cases like those there are decisions that need to be made. These decisions may or may not lead to a moral consequence. In any action where there has to be a decision made there will be a consequence. However, not every action made by us deals with us having to make a decision right then and there. It is possible that one can commit an action just because. Since you argue morality is not a science, which I agree, then why try to prove that in every single human action there will be a some moral consequence involved afterwards. Science is proven by facts that have been gathered trough research, so what facts can one obtain that proves that there just has to e a consequence that HAS to follow their action. There is no fact that can possibly prove that. If your curious that does not mean that there will be a consequence to what your curious about. If you are curious about a culture, you pick up a book and read. After that what is the consequence there? None. Therefore, human actions do not always need to be followed by a moral consequence.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Yes, this is true it is not always the case that you will wake up early and get to work on time, because the moral consequence is not always an anticipated one. Nonetheless as previously stated there will always be a consequence. One can hope that if one wakes up on time, they will arrive to work on time, but the train may be late their maybe traffic. The point is that the human behavior of waking up on time was because of the anticipation of getting to work on time, but lets say one got to work late. Whatever the consequence was whether arriving to work on time or arriving to work late, there was still a consequence. Also as stated previously we cannot predict what our moral consequences will be, morality is not a science, and we cannot predict that each behavior if practiced the same will produce the same outcome, but we can predict there will be an outcome. Secondly human behavior may in fact as you say be based on curiosity, but doesn't curiosity itself trigger a moral consequence. When we act on curiosity we do not expect any particular outcome, but we do receive an outcome. Babies who have very little sense of moral consequence if any at all act based on curiosity most of their infant to toddler life, yet their actions still produce consequences.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

It is not always the case that one will wake up early in the morning to go to work to have the consequence result in one getting to work on time. I say this because NOT EVERYONE is like that. What might be a desire for you, can result in something totally different from someone else. Therefore, not everyone will be driven by past consequences to make an act and have it result in a satisfactory consequence. It is merely impossible that a person is looking forward to tomorrow because they are driven by their past or present consequences. No one acts because they are curious on what the outcome of their action might turn out to be. People act because they want to and because they feel like it. This is why I argue that those who assume that ever time they act upon something, automatically some type of consequence will follow afterwards. These people are the type that worry too much, therefore they are 90 percent of the time wrong. An action resulting in a moral consequence will not always stop a person from trying to make the same actions occur again, leaving aside weather their previous consequence was good or bad.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I actually say that moral consequences are in a sense what DRIVE human behaviors. Reason being when we act we normally do not act unless t having an idea of what the consequence will be(when we act generally we are seeking a specific outcome, now whether we get the desired outcome or not a different story). For example we wake up early, because the consequence is we will get to work on time, we eat because we expect the consequence will be feeling of satisfaction, we leave to work because we expect the consequence to be get paid. Let us just say that we do not receive these outcomes from out actions, we will still receive a consequence, this is because we are drived by consequences. Can we predict what will be the moral consequence?No it would be impossible to be correct every time, but we act because of them. People behind bars are there as a result of a moral consequence, they were deemed insane for one reason or another and now are behind bars as result of their behavior. The reason why these bars are there as result of a moral consequence of previous experiences that made the facilitators of these facilities come to realization that these bard are necessary to control human behaviors. As a result the moral consequence of human action are the placement of bars in these institutions. I agree with you we should not assume that we know what the moral consequence will be, it is impossible to assume that we will know each time what the consequence will be. Nonetheless it is important to realize that moral consequence is what drives humans in a sense, therefore there cannot exist a human behavior without a moral consequence.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

You say that moral consequences make humans accept or not accept certain behaviors. So I'll go back to what I stated with pain and pleasure. If an action is followed by pleasure it can be accepted as moral consequence. But if an action has a painful outcome how can someone accept pain. To everyone anything that relates to pain is unacceptable. Our society today cannot be molded or change for the better exactly because of the fact that many live off the assumption that every every action will result in some sort of consequence. Well, can it ever occur to you or anyone that some actions made will not always be followed by a consequence. Everything we do is not always based on our consequences. It is completely absurd to believe that every single action made by every single person will have some moral consequence. If that is the case, then how do you explain those people that are behind bars or in mental clinics due to bad actions. The actions made by these people certainly did NOT result in a moral consequence. It can be agreed, that at times, yes we do base some, only some, of our actions on our previous consequences but that does not mean that one should have the assumption that one there will be a consequence, and two that it will be similar to past consequences. We need to take into consideration that these consequences can not only affect the one who caused it, but also those that surround this person.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Consequences help condition humans into understanding unacceptable and acceptable behaviors. We spend our entire lives watching action and reactions as we learn right from wrong. Moral consequences are perhaps the most significant form of consequences, that help mold human civilization. Though, it is true every society has their own standard of what which moral behaviors are acceptable, there is likely an overall agreement that moral consequences is the result of human behaviors. 1)Consequences are what humans live by, when we act there will be a reaction. In fact everything we do is because we expect their to be a reaction if we didn"t expect any reaction then we would not do it. 2)It is true, some actions will have positive results, and some will have negative. Nonetheless, it cannot definitely be said that every human will definitely have a consequence. Unless you were to actually record every human action ever made. 3)Human behavioral studies are generally based in reaction and consequences. From the beginning of time to present anthropologist, philosopher and sociologist is base their study on moral consequences. It is difficult to say that there is a single human behavior that does not have moral consequence, because consequences are what we base our actions on. Things we do are based on what the consequence will be whether it be could or bad.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Actions will have some type of consequence by the end of the day. That is the belief that many people live by. These people have the idea that every action made is necessarily followed by a moral consequence. Since these people believe that every action is followed by a moral consequence they also believe one can learn from such outcome. But what they do not realize is that one cannot assume such outcome. If one's action is followed by a pleasurable outcome then one is able to enjoy and learn from it. On the other hand, if the outcome is pain, one will not have the chance to learn from it. (1) Even though it may be quite difficult to see,not every action made has to result in a moral consequence. (2) One can make a bad action and have it result in a pleasurable consequence. Or one can make a good action and have a painful consequence as an outcome. (3) There are many famous philosophers that agree that there are human actions that can go without a moral consequence. For example, Bentham which we covered in class. I cannot see how every action made by every human will always result in a truthful and righteous consequence. Weather one may believe it or not, many times our actions will be judged by others. Therefore, good or bad, honest or not, our consequences will be judged by those who may witness it. It is absurd that there is an assumption that something you do will have a loving desirable effect.
why is Confucianism not a better policy

Let's be clear what Confucianism is first. According to dictionary.com Confucianism is the system of ethics, education, and statesmanship taught by Confucius and his disciples, stressing love for humanity, ancestor worship, reverence for parents, and harmony in thought and conduct. Con has not stated a clear argument. Con has not given more information to reinforce his "argument". However, for the sake of a rebuttal I'll work with what he has given me. Con says : It is bad. This is wrong because Confucianism has five virtues. The first virtue is Ren, which is humaneness; Humaneness can be defined as the quality of compassion for others, which can include both people and animals. Three of the key concepts of Ren are love, mercy, and humanity. The second virtue is Yi. Yi means honesty and righteousness. The third virtue is Li, which means propriety and correct behavior. The fourth virtue is Zhi, which stands for wisdom or knowledge. The fifth virtue is Xin, which stands for fidelity and sincerity. Con says : people take advantages of you How can this be? You are taught compassion for others. Ren is a key concept of love, mercy and humanity. Con says : no rules Confucius himself is credited as saying that the two main principles of his philosophy were r"n 仁 "selflessness" and y" 義 "righteousness." Zi Gong asked: "Is there a single concept that we can take as a guide for the actions of our whole life?" Confucius said, "What about "fairness (yielding)"? What you don't like done to yourself, don't do to others." These are guidelines which one are instructed to live by. Sources : The Analects
Guns rights are the most common denominators in shooting massacres/mas violence

"I am stating that all the shooting massacres are mainly caused by the selling of guns in the U.S.A in the first place, and that they deserve to be banned." I want the voters to understand what this means, he is arguing that ALL SHOOTING massacres are mainly caused by the selling of guns, AND should be banned. So what my opponent has to prove is that every single shooting massacre is MAINLY caused by the selling of guns IN THE U.S. Now, to clarify i am going to provide some definitions. Shoot- kill or wound (a person or animal) with a bullet or arrow. Therefore meaning that bow and arrow massacres count as shooting massacres. Also, massacres meaning- the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or ANIMALS, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. Not only this but my opponent would have to prove that the selling of guns is the MOST common denominator, in that he will have to prove it"s more than what I think is the most common denominator, which is the want of shooting. Regarding the Orlando example, I see no evidence to back up the assertion that the gun was gotten from a seller, and it took place in the U.S. Also one instance does not warrant your claim that it's the most common in massacres.
Guns rights are the most common denominators in shooting massacres/mas violence

Firstly, I apologize for the typo on the title I would like to begin by arguing that gun rights are the main cause of mass killings by handheld weapons because none of this (Orlando shooting) would have occurred if the gun was not present at the killers hand. His parents explained to the media that he was not a terrorist, just a homophobe, meaning if the guns were not an easy get-to he probably would have never gotten his hands on it to begin with. You have the option of keeping this debate in a more broad and general subject, meaning a general statement that "guns should not be banned" rather than mentioning it all based off the events of the Orlando shooting.
Guns rights are the most common denominators in shooting massacres/mas violence

Open debate, please let me know before you introduce your statement that you have accepted. This is my first time so I'll leave the format a lot more broad. After this, I will introduce my argument and you may introduce yours along with some points. If you do not fully understand the topic, allow me to clarify. I am stating that all the shooting massacres are mainly caused by the selling of guns in the U.S.A in the first place, and that they deserve to be banned.
Guns rights are the most common denominators in shooting massacres/mas violence

Now my opponent thinks that I need a stance in order to win this debate but all I need to do is stop you from proving the resolution. Meaning even if I don"t make any points, and if you still haven"t proved the resolution I still win. My opponent has the burden of proof and I don"t and if my opponent tries to switch it, it would be a fallacy. To make it easier, what I am standing for is whatever that stops my opponent from proving his claim. Next, here my opponent"s counter argument is that people only get the desire to shoot when they know they are able to obtain a gun, but let"s all remember the desire to shoot includes bows and arrows and so the shooting massacres including arrows did not have anything to do with selling of guns, but did have to do with the desire to shoot.
Guns rights are the most common denominators in shooting massacres/mas violence

There is a bit of misunderstanding clearly. What my opponent has failed to mention is his GENERAL statement/argument on the issue. What I am failing to understand (maybe it is my mistake) is what you are standing for. To one of the point CON has mentioned; "I would say before most people buy guns to shoot, they would have a desire to shoot the gun." I would like to state that originally what the desirer felt in the beginning was caused because he/she KNEW that they themselves were able to obtain the guns to begin with, people in countries with no guns never feel the desire, they are only driven by media. So maybe something the U.S.A could work on is what mentality is put onto people that can potentially cause harm?
Guns rights are the most common denominators in shooting massacres/mas violence

Ok, first I will summarize what my opponent has done, which is he started by explaining what he thought was going to happen but didn"t happen however what I am saying is still valid. My opponent then asks what is my stance on the gun issue however there is no need for me to provide it and it has no need to be in the debate as long as I successfully attack the resolution. My personal beliefs have no matter in a debate, I may have no stance and still win against the resolution. The only thing that my stance would bring to the table is vulnerability to ad homs by my opponent. Now to his points, his first argument is "let"s not lie to ourselves, by shooting, many of us recognize it as a gun shooting." EVEN if we all knew what was meant by it that does not change the fact that bow and arrows take part in the resolution. My opponent is essentially trying to defend himself by saying "you know what I mean" even though by definition bow and arrows do count as shooting, thus what I say is still valid. And I also when accepting the challenge, I was not a mind reader and did not know that he meant that, but that shouldn"t have been a problem if he had limited the resolution enough to what he was aiming for. Next, my opponent misunderstood and it may be my fault so I will clarify. What I mean by " want of shooting" is not shooting, the desire to shoot. For example, before I eat something I would have to have the desire to eat it, and you"re essentially saying the most common debater is utensils. So, I would say before most people buy guns to shoot, they would have a desire to shoot the gun. Lastly, my opponent claims to read my mind by saying I know many other instances, but I do not know of other instances and he would have accept that. My opponent has still yet to prove that the selling of guns is the MOST common denominator of shooting massacres, and that they deserve to be banned, keep in mind you have to prove both not just one in order to win the debate. The only thing he did to back this up was state one incident in which the shooter bought a gun.