BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Ku Klux Klan was better than the Nazis

How about I put it this way. Neither were good. They Nazis were WORSE than the KKK. Did the KKK kill millions of Jews? Slaughter other innocents? Did they conduct experiment to change their eye, permanently blinding people? And other sick experiments?How can you say the Nazis were "nicer" than the KKK?? Blacks were more innocent than Hiter's regime? THEY ARE BOTH INNOCENT!Oppression is worse. You have to live with the abuse, humiliation and in some cases rape that you dealt with in the past.And yes, the Nazis did rape their people. Watch some history videos, and you shall see. I think.http://www.veteranstoday.com..."(Note. In German law the crime of rape even in war was expressly forbidden and carried the death penalty)"http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com...I see where you are heading though. Even if the Nazis had a reason to be angry, must they take it out on innocents? And kill millions by torturing them, burning them, and hanging them?Were Jews (who in some cases were Nordics) and Nordics (Lutheran) really innocent? You're talking about a people whose culture hated on tomboys who prefer guy friends and autistic people, and said that black people were cursed, a tradition started by pagans, carried on by Lutherans. That's not innocent. Black people were live and let live. Native Americans were live and let live.Don't confuse the people of Israel with the Jews. In fact, Judaism was actually a heretic religion that might have been started by neighboring countries (some Nordics). Judiasm was formed by those who disobeyed God's commandment. It was a punishment.The KKK uses slander and racist words to express themselves, today.The Nazis killed people. MILLIONS.Slander is the way of the coward. The Nazis and the Fascists weren't cowards. They said how they really felt about one to their FACE! So to say the Nazis are better, is actually for the worse. Neither were good and will never be good.As I said before refer to my quote which showed that rape during war in Nazi Germany resulted in the death penalty. But I have got to give it to you. You're not one of those Klan, Nordic supremacists who believe that the KKK was Christian and holy and that Hitler was evil, but to address you, my friend, they were not the same.If they believed in the same things, then how come, in 1933, Hitler banned a specifically pro-Nordic sect of the Ku Klux Klan that was operating in Germany, from 1921 to that time, founded by two Americans?http://www.ewkotbc.de...;(click on the question that allows you to translate if you're not good with German). Even this website says that the KKK was Nordic while the Nazis weren't.
The Ku Klux Klan was better than the Nazis

How about I put it this way. Neither were good. They Nazis were WORSE than the KKK. Did the KKK kill millions of Jews? Slaughter other innocents? Did they conduct experiment to change their eye, permanently blinding people? And other sick experiments? How can you say the Nazis were "nicer" than the KKK?? Blacks were more innocent than Hiter's regime? THEY ARE BOTH INNOCENT! And yes, the Nazis did rape their people. Watch some history videos, and you shall see. I think. I see where you are heading though. Even if the Nazis had a reason to be angry, must they take it out on innocents? And kill millions by torturing them, burning them, and hanging them? The KKK uses slander and racist words to express themselves, today. The Nazis killed people. MILLIONS. So to say the Nazis are better, is actually for the worse. Neither were good and will never be good. We shall give no support to either groups. Is that clear?
The Ku Klux Klan was better than the Nazis

Now, here's why I say the KKK was worse than the Nazis, and why they were not better.Here's some background: the Nazis (Germans in general) had reason to be angry. The other enemy country, Italy, also had a reason to be p*ssed as well. These are two countries that don't have the brutal history of imperialism that the Nordic countries and Britain have. In many ways we can blame the Nordic countries (especially Britain) for World War II.The KKK, having, perhaps not coincidently, descended from those very same Nordic nations (Britain, Denmark and Sweden) had no reason to do the horrid things they committed. They were arrogant from the core. Cruel and vicious. I will argue that black people and Native Americans were more innocent than the supposed "victims" of Hitler's regime. And Mussolini's too. What the KKK displayed was pure hatred that was out of arrogance. The KKK would use slander to get their way -- to keep the USA whites-only. Racists in America in general made up lies to keep their country purely white. They humiliated Italians, Germans, Austrians, Irish, Hispanics, blacks if they dared to speak out against the repressive society they lived in. It was not fair to them.Hitler (and Mussolini, though I'm focusing on Hitler) and his country had a right to be angry. What they faced after World War I was something of pure sheer horror. And no, the Nazis and the KKK were not the same, just as background. The Nazis followed Catholic beliefs (the Nazi party itself was started sometimes in the beginning of the 1920s in Bavaria, which is predominantly Catholic). The Allies, and some of the neutral countries which were anti-German, such as Denmark, imposed cruel and unneccesary punishment on the Germans, disenfranching the country brutally, leaving especially southern portions of Germany, and the eastern portions (which are now Poland) really badly. The Germans did not deserve for that happen. Italy was a bit more out of the scene, but they rightfully felt cheated as well. The KKK also participated in something more ahborrent, like stealing the Native American lands. So I think for these reasons not only was the KKK not better the Nazis, but also the Nazis were indeed better than the KKK. The KKK also raped their own civilians. The Nazis did not, and they never raped their enemies either.
Christianity is real

In order to continue what seems like a tradition of courteous and gracious introductions, thank you Solomon_Grim for giving me the opportunity to debate you. I must admit I was apprehensive to get into this because there are so many good posts on DDO.Let me extend you another thank you for allowing me to choose a topic of my own whim on a subject that I do enjoy mulling. Unfortunately, I do not accept your conditions (as they are) for me to choose a topic and then provide an argument or make any claims about the subjects you offered. As a skeptic, I'm conflicted about being burdened with making assertive statements in the affirmative. I would rather see you make a claim (you are the instigator after all) about one of the subjects you presented and then I will be the contender. That seems to be the way this is supposed to work.Also, after reviewing a few topics you had previously debated (which in the spirit of fairness, I read just the subject and not any text in the rounds of those debates) I noticed that on some of them you instigated by using a question. I think the instigator is in the position to make a statement or claim and that the contender should not be attempting to oppose a question. I urge you to make your claim clear.If you do not accept these conditions then let me know and you can show me how we both forfeit in such a way as to not damage our win-loss records.Note that at this point we would be unlikely to get voters with a topic heading that doesn't match the debate itself. If you are interested in ending this and rechallenging with a proper claim then I will probably accept.Either way, I appreciate your eagerness to challenge me.
Science joke battle

A mathematician and an engineer agree to take part in an experiment. They were both placed into a room and at the other end was a beautiful naked women. The experimenter said every 30 seconds they would be allowed to travel half the distance between themselves and the women. The mathematician say this is pointless and walks away to continue working. The engineer agrees to carry on away way. The mathematician looks up from his book and says don't you understand that this is pointless because you will never actually reach her? To which the engineer replys so what pretty soon all be close enough for all practical purposes! Get it :D ?
There is no such thing as god

I am already debating something similar, so I thought I would take this. I accept your challenge and look forward to this debate. RebuttalI will provide a rebuttal to both your suggestion that "to be a god, one must be omnipotent" and your claim that "if he cannot complete the task, then the 'god' is not omnipotent." Deities and OmnipotenceA god does not requrie omnipotence. From the first diverse Paleolothic religions to the organized views of the Vatican, there have been varying degrees of attributes given to deities. For example, the deities of the polytheistic Ancient Greeks were not omnipotent,[1] nor were the gods of Ancient Egyptian mythology, as they often died or exhibited limit in abilities.[2] Thus, god or gods are not necessarily omnipotent as they are not necessarily viewed as such -- in order for the stone argument to work, god or gods must be universally accepted as omnipotent by an authority on the religion associated with the deity in question.Regarding OmnipotenceHowever, let us say we are arguing about a god that IS regarded as omnipotent, such as the god of Abrahmic religions, regarded as omnipotent by Muslims,[3] Jews,[4] and Christians,[5] or Ik Onkar, regarded as omnipotent by Sikhs.[6] Let us assume for a moment we are speaking of what is viewed as a truly omnipotent god. If a god is all-powerful, then he is not bound by the same logic that the Universe he created runs on. If a god is omnipotent, it is within his ability to change Universal constants such as pi or exist outside of what we perceive as logic. Though this may sound like utter rubbish, you must remember that omnipotent is omnipotent by its very definition—an omnipotent god is limitless in ability. ConclusionI have provided you two completely different responses. In "Deities and Omnipotence," I have shown that a 'god,' in human perception, is not necessarily omnipotent as several religions have limited views on their deities' abilities. In "Regaring Omnipotence," I showed how a truly omnipotent god, if there was one, is not bound by the logic that you use in your argument.I look forward to your response, and good luck.Sources1. Meier, Christian. A Culture of Freedom: Ancient Greece and the Origins of Europe. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. Google Books. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://goo.gl...;. p. 92.2. Pinto, Paulo M. In Search of the Lost Phallus: On the Need for Isis to Mate. Lisboa: Instituto Oriental Da U. L., 2009. Academia.edu. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://goo.gl.... 469. 3. Rizvi, Sayyid. "Islam." Lecture. Makerere University College, Kampala. 1967. Al-Islam.org. World Organization for Islamic Services, 1 July 1977. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://goo.gl...;.4. Winston, Pinchas. "Parashas Vayaira / 5769." Torah.org. Project Genesis, 2008. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://goo.gl...;5. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Google Books. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://goo.gl...;. p. 415. 6. Arneja, Simran Kaur. Ik Onkar = One God. New Delhi: Simran Kaur Arneja, 2009. Google Books. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://goo.gl.... 111.
There is no such thing as god

Proof: To be a god, one must be omnipotent. Omnipotence requires the "god" to be able to complete any task. If said "god" could complete any task, then he would be able to create an object so heavy, that he would not be able to lift it. If he created an object so heavy that he could not lift it, then he would fail a task. If he cannot complete the task, then the "god" is not omnipotent. This leads to a contradiction. From this contradiction, we can logically derive that there is no god. Can you see any way to believe in a god now? Go ahead. Try and prove me wrong. Also I am Crypto
Should Schools Spy On Cyberbullies

But having restricted the access to social media doesn't stop the hackers of the school, who can find their way around blocked sites and sell that information. There are still kids out there that gain access to social media sites. Proxy Servers are another way that students can get around them. Cyber Bullying is one of the worst forms of bullying in my opinion because if something is posted it's there for the whole world to see.
Should Schools Spy On Cyberbullies

I agree with you about the detention not helping the situation but that's when higher forces of punishment come in to play such as suspension or expulsion. And the rule about teachers not coming into contact with students will not be broken. If I understand correctly there is a program where Upper Staff in schools can see the screens of students without actually coming into contact with the students. Thus allowing them to look at what the students are on and to see if anything is going on that shouldn't be
Should Schools Spy On Cyberbullies

I really do understand where you are coming from, but as someone who has personally experienced these things, I don't believe a school can properly handle the situation. For one they would have to forgo their no student contact policies to follow students on social media. Plus, detention does Not stop people from bullying. It pains me to say it, but when the Nationwide Rachel's Challenge came to my school, the program barely made a dent on bullies. Cyber bullies should be dealt with by police and law enforcers, due to the fact they have the ability to give harder punishment.
Should Schools Spy On Cyberbullies

Just to put this out; I'm not saying you have to give up your opinion. I feel That if the schools started spying on the bullies they will get caught and they will be punished for their actions. ("Teenage Suicide as a direct result of bullying is a very real threat. ... Also, suicide has been found to be the third leading cause of death for people in the age ... or a way to end abuse; cyber-bullying can provoke teens to commit suicide as well" -www.overcomebullying.org). I feel that if we start spying on cyberbullies it will cut back on the amount of teen suicides. I feel crappy enough having had friends kill themselves over bullying I can't begin to imagine how their parents feel.
The people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America.

While it seems this resolution is rather impossible to go against, it might not be completely. I'm always up for semantics, so here we go. I refute the resolution on the grounds that the people of Texas do not follow the legal context of secede my opponent uses. In the context my opponent uses 'secede' it is necessary for a government to withdraw for some other government. This could mean, for example, the state of Texas withdrawing from the United States of America, or a hypothetical government A withdrawing from a Union of government's A, B, and C. This is the definition of secede my opponent implies. Next, my opponent says the resolution applies to the subject 'people' belonging to Texas. The people are the individuals themselves, all 'of' Texas. People refers to the human species, and in this case, human beings that were born in/reside in Texas. My opponent violates the meaning of secede when he says that a people can possibly have the right to it. My opponent states that these people have the right to secede, but this simply can't be. People are not a government. People can be PART OF a government, but the people themselves are not governments at all. So a person will literally find it IMPOSSIBLE to secede by definition of both people and secede. Only the government of Texas can secede from the U.S. So my opponent does not meet his resolution as he shows only why the government can secede and not why the people can. VOTERS Vote for Neg because he adequately shows how the context in which the resolution is stated is impossible. Seeing as Pro made the resolution, it is only logical that he be punished [by not getting votes] for creating this inherent contradiction. Also, my opponent does not provide one shred of evidence even attempting to prove his side of the debate. While I have shown it would have been impossible, he could have at least tried. But instead, he decided to argue for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT resolution, and this is why the round flows to Neg. Thank you.
The people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America.

Full resolution: Assuming that the majority of Texans support secession, the people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America. Definitions shouldn't be necessary, as the context of this debate should be clear by my arguments. 1+. The United States of America's history is obviously in support of the right to secede. The United States of America was formed when thirteen colonies SECEDED from Britain. The Declaration of Independece, one of America's most important historical documents, establishes the right of the people to amend a government that becomes destructive of the rights to Life (legalized abortion), Liberty (PATRIOT act), and the pursuit of Happiness (EPA, FDA, AMA, etc.) [1]. The independent republic of Texas was formed when Texas seceded from Mexico. The United States did not consider this secession abusive at all, even inviting Texas into the United States. 2+. The United States Constitution establishes the right of Texas to secede. According to the 10th Amendment, all powers not reserved to the federal government or denied from the state governments by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people [2]. The Constitution makes absolutely no mention of secession, neither reserving it to the federal government nor forbidding it from the states [2]. Therefore, by the 10th amendment, the power to secede is reserved to the states or to the people. 3+. The Texas Constitution establishes the right of the people to secede. "Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient" [3]. If the people want to reform government so that it is not attached to the United States politically in any way, it is their inalienable right, clearly written. Conclusion+: In conclusion, America's history and important historical documents all clearly identifiable the right of the people of Texas to secede from the United States. Good luck to my future opponent. 1. http://www.ushistory.org... 2. http://www.ushistory.org... 3. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...
The people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America.

My opponent has brought in two new and rather creative arguments against the resolution; however, I shall demonstrate why they still fall flat. 1-. Some Texans don't believe that they have the right to secede. This is true; some Texans don't believe that they have the right to secede. However, there's nothing at all to imply that one must believe that he has the right to secede in order to have the right to secede. A "right" is defined by Merriam-Webster [1] as "something to which one has a just claim"; I have already made a justification as to why Texans may claim secession. Additionally, according to the Texas Constitution, the right to alter the government is "inalienable," which means that it cannot be surrendered on the basis of not believing in it. 2-. Rights aren't real. My opponent puts together a large paragraph of unfounded claims and non-sequiturs, which I shall now pick apart. "For someone to have the right to do something, the right must be CHOSEN by some agent." This does not follow from anything. Why must the right be chosen by some agent? There is nothing in the definition of "right" to indicate this. "[N]atural law of the universe shows everything has specific attributes in the way it acts." Everything? We haven't even discovered everything. There is no basis for claiming that because some observed phenomena follows natural laws, all phenomena must follow natural laws. "This means that nothing really has free will, or the ability to choose." Since when does "specific attributes" mean lack of free will? Non-sequitur. "Humans don't have some special ability to defy common physical laws..." My opponent assumes a physical law against free will based in "specific attributes," but can we really observe what happens to inanimate objects and conclude that animate people must act in similar ways? That's like saying that things that float in water must float in air: preposterous. "[U]nless my opponent proves we DO, then determinism (what I just described) stands." This is my opponent's contention; my opponent holds the burden of proving his contention valid. Just because I cannot disprove determinism, doesn't mean that my opponent has proven it. "If people can't choose, then they can't determine whether someone has a right." Non-sequitur. Even if I grant that people can't choose, that has no bearing on one's rights, especially one's natural rights. "This means there are no rights, just illusions of rights." This assumes that all rights come from people; my opponent would have to disprove both natural rights and divine rights for his contention to actually mean something. In conclusion, both of my opponent's arguments still just don't work, but I look forward to any new arguments or the strengthening of these arguments in the next round. Good luck. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America.

All right. My opponent has brought some new evidence into the round. So my opponent states that the people of Texas have the right to secede from the federation. But who would give them this right? Seeing it is people and not a government that we are talking about, it goes to reason that the people would be the ones granting the right. The word people used in my opponent's resolution, would refer to ALL people. In this case all people in Texas. I myself happen to be from and live in Texas. I say that we don't have the right to secede. So because my opponent didn't say "Some people of Texas" But rather "the people of Texas" it binds him the obligation of showing all people in Texas believing they have a right to secede. Seeing as I don't, then the people of Texas don't have the right to secede. Secondly, a right dictates choice. For someone to have the right to do something, the right must be CHOSEN by some agent. But natural law of the universe shows everything has specific attributes in the way it acts. This means that nothing really has free will, or the ability to choose. We just have the illusion of a choice because of our lack of omnicience. Humans don't have some special ability to defy common physical laws, and unless my opponent proves we DO, then determinism (what I just described) stands. If determinism is real then people cannot truly choose. If people can't choose, then they can't determine whether someone has a right. This means there are no rights, just illusions of rights. So the people of Texas have no right to secede, because rights aren't real. In summary, I have provided two solid reasons as to WHY the people of Texas don't have the right to secede from the U.S. I look forward to the next round, thank you.