BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Nazis of the 1920s-40s were evil.

1. Ethnic Cleansing/Experiments Hitler did want to create a super race to help humanity. This isn't racist. All he wanted was a race of strong men who have amazing endurance and intellect to help everyone as a world. The misunderstandings come from the so called "Ethnic Cleansing" part. There's many counterexamples to this, as interbreeding with jews was encouraged[1]. Many weren't killed because they were a different race but they were elite rich who wanted to destroy the economy. There's no evidence to show they killed off because of inferior genes. The "Aryan" race didn't orignally mean white. The nazis did base this view of a superior race off of false understanding of genetics, but that doesn't make it evil. 2. Strength over Weakness - The Philosophy of the Nazi Party Hitler did not believe in evolution. Nor this philosophy. He said "races were created distinct by God"[2] that includes jews. There's many examples against the nazis using this philosophy. They had many doctors caring for the young and weak[3]. " The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." - Hitler. 3. The Secret Police - Fascism The USA does these things all the time. Hitler only killed those who were going to kill innocents. Germany is big. There would be executions, but all were justified even by the most stern anti-nazi 1. Gals, Doug. 1987. The Master Race. 2. Hitler, Adolf. "On the Jews and their Lies" 3. Weindling, Paul. 2005. Nazi Medicine and the Nuremberg Trials: From Medical War Crimes to Informed Consent
The Nazis of the 1920s-40s were evil.

I chose to debate this topic with this guy considering he's the first Nazi I've found on this site.First round is acceptance.Definitions: Evil: I'd like to define Evil as something that is causing harm to others, and morally reprehensible. Nazis: The fascist party governing Germany from Hitler's obtainment of emergency powers in Germany to his eventual death by suicide in 1945.
Hip Hop is DEAD!!!

It is apparent that hip hop is certainly not dead, in fact, it is alive and well. If you wish to discuss lyrical talent and value, then that is precisely what we will discuss. Firstly, hip hop is defined as the popular subculture of big-city teenagers, which includes rap music, break dancing, and graffiti art (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Now, if one simply watches a single rap music video, it will most certainly fit this criteria. If you could give specific examples of particular hip hop artists whom you feel posses the lyrical talent you feel is necessary for hip hop that would be superb. Though, I feel you will illustrate examples of hip hop artist such as Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. One must remember that although these men are figures of hip hop of a older school, the value of their lyrics is subjective. There are many hip hop artists that discuss issues going on in the world today. Is this what you mean by lyrical talent? Lastly: the value of hip hop. It it noticeable today that hip hop (rap) music is more main stream than it has ever been, thus, more people are inspired to start rapping and in turn, respect hip hop more. We must also keep in mind that music progresses. Hip hop is till alive today, but it has also paved the way for new genres of rap. In conclusion, hip hop is well and alive. There are more rappers than ever before, thus drawing a larger audience and mainstream following. Lyrical talent is subjective, so it can not be pin pointed down, but it is a fact that there are more award winning hip hop artist than ever before. As for the value of hip hop, this is also subjective. But we can infer that due to the large number or rappers today, the respect and value for hip hop has gone up, especially due to the large amounts of money record companies are paying rappers. Companies wouldn't pay mass amounts of money to rappers that didn't have talent or were not valued by fans.
ban islam

Pro presents in Round #2 the idea he wins a discussion by default when he presents an illogical set of conclusions without merit or factual basis, implying that if one cannot disprove illogical thought which has never been entertained previously, the illogical thought is proven true. Con disagrees with this reasoning. Con has presented a sound argument to counter Pro's fallacy. There is no documentation to refute his wild assertion. This does not help his case. He may as well have stated "Diesel engines disprove joy at witchcraft is an absolute good." The whole statement is disjointed, and as such there is no refutation on topic. That in no way represents a defense of a ridiculous assertion.Pro's statement is false, as it appears illogical on its face to the human mind, and he is unable to articulate a reason to follow the illogical.Position of Pro is refuted.
ban islam

Pro has made a proposition which they have not substantiated. Con holds all of Pro's argument to be false, other than the existence of nuclear bombs, which we admit to exist. For the rest of Pro's argument, it does not follow this fact is proof of anything outside itself; It does not follow that hate for Islam is a consequence of the existence of nuclear weapons; it does not follow that hate for Islam is necessary; it does not follow that hate for Islam is evil. I concede I cite no sources for my argument against Pro's unsubstantiated claim. Logical thinking necessarily leads to the refutation of Pro's argument, with one notable exception: The existence of nuclear bombs. Pro's case is refuted as devoid of all logic.
There are more elements on the periodic table

I apologize about my last post. I meant to say elements and not arguments but I updated the post from my phone and it was auto-corrected. In any case I'm 100% sure that Pro has no ground in this debate. Because of the way he worded his claim all I have to do is to prove that there are not more than 118 elements on the periodic table.[1] Wikipedia defines the periodic table as a tabular display of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their atomic numbers, electron configurations, and recurring chemical properties.[2] Similarly Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia definition says it is an organizedarray of all the chemical elements in approximately increasing order of their atomic weight.From these defintions we can see that the periodic table makes no suggestion that the elements it consists of represent a complete picture of the elements in the entire universe.The elements from 1 to 98have been found to exist naturally. The elements after 98 up to 118 have only been synthesized in laboratories. Production of elements beyond ununoctium is being pursued, with the question of how the periodic table may need to be modifiedto accommodate any such additions being a matter of ongoing debate.Please click the following like to observe an image of the periodic table:http://upload.wikimedia.org...As you can see, there are only 118 elements and none more than that.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
There are more elements on the periodic table

There will be more elements discovered on the periodic table, but it will take a while to confirm them. These new elements will exist for possibly fractions of seconds, but exist nonetheless. Also, if an element with a big enough atomic number is synthesized, then more will be created if the super heavy undergoes alpha decay. Also, our universe is seemingly infinite, odds are, there are perfect conditions for period 8 elements, or at least conditions suitable enough to create them in the first place.
You Just Lost The Game

"Concede" Is a very common debate word, and my opponent using half his argument to insult it is poor conduct I.M.O.----------"First you say: "Bottom line: As you can see, you don't have to follow rule 3 to lose. You only have to follow rule 2."Then you say: . "If you don't follow a rule, what are you? That's right: a cheater."Well, which is it?"Those phrases have two completely different implications that lead up to the same thing. Here are both phrases summarized:"It is possible to lose without following rule 3." ; "If you don't follow rule 3, you're cheating and you lose."One means if you don't follow rule three, you can still lose; one means that if you don't follow rule 3 you will lose. Combined, my opponent can lose, and has lost by cheating, but there is no contradiction here."A cheater would refuse entirely to acknowledge rule number three, and I have not yet done this for the sake of the argument."Not necessarily. One can acknowledge a rule, and still not follow it. Since my opponent has not followed it, he cheated and therefore lost."In my theory, your own loss of The Game is not yet counted because you have not publicly acknowledged it."Let's try this again in case my opponent missed this bit: YES IT IS.Rule 3 is not at all affiliated with how you can lose. It simply tells you what to do after you have already lost.Rule 2, and only rule 2, explains how one loses the game: if you think about it, you lose it. Bottom line."But if this rule plays no impact in someone losing, then why does it appear? It must be that it plays a part in solidifying one's loss."The purpose of rule 3 is for there to be a mechanism for getting other people to lose the game. I encourage voters to read rule number three word for word and see if it says anything about how to lose.----------Conclusion- My opponent has not denied that he thought about the game, and by rule 2, if he thought about it, he lost.- My opponent has disregarded a rule, and by doing so, has lost by penalty.My opponent lost the game on two different levels, and can only argue against it by making petty accusations (and apparently various synonyms for "concede").
You Just Lost The Game

First, some synonyms for "concede", because you've used that word multiple times in both debates we've had, and courtesy of thesaurus.com, I have some alternatives: accept, accord, admit, allow, avow, award, cave in, cede, confess, cry uncle, fess up, fold, give up, let on, own, own up, quit, relinquish, say uncle, surrender, throw in the towel, waive, yes one, yield First you say: "Bottom line: As you can see, you don't have to follow rule 3 to lose. You only have to follow rule 2."Then you say: . "If you don't follow a rule, what are you? That's right: a cheater."Well, which is it?"My opponent has nicely dug himself into a no-win situation. Either only rule number two decides whether you lose or not, and since he followed rule two he lost, or rule three does in fact apply, and by not following it, he's cheating and has lost as a penalty."There's leaps of logic and then there's this. A cheater would refuse entirely to acknowledge rule number three, and I have not yet done this for the sake of the argument.In my theory, your own loss of The Game is not yet counted because you have not publicly acknowledged it. Say it, I guess you could probably even write it.But if this rule plays no impact in someone losing, then why does it appear? It must be that it plays a part in solidifying one's loss.
You Just Lost The Game

I can honestly argue everything my opponent just said in a very short amount of characters. --------------First ContentionFor those of you too lazy to click on links, here's rule #3, word for word:"3. Losses must be announced to at least one person."Nowhere in rule number three does it state that "You don't lose unless you tell someone that you lost." Not on any of the sources my opponent listed, showing Con isn't even listening to his own sources.On the contrary, here is rule #2:"2. Whenever one thinks about The Game, one loses."That's all it takes. It doesn't matter whether you announce whether you lost or not if you already lost. And my opponent has not disagreed that he fell into the trap of rule two. Therefore, he concedes that he did in fact lose the game.Bottom line: As you can see, you don't have to follow rule 3 to lose. You only have to follow rule 2.Second ContentionMy opponent has, however, admitted that he did not follow rule three. If you don't follow a rule, what are you? That's right: a cheater. And as the saying goes, "cheaters never win". So, if he's not obeying rule number three, it is only fair that he loses the game because he cheated.--------------ConclusionMy opponent has nicely dug himself into a no-win situation. Either only rule number two decides whether you lose or not, and since he followed rule two he lost, or rule three does in fact apply, and by not following it, he's cheating and has lost as a penalty.Either way, my opponent just lost the game, and so did you.
You Just Lost The Game

My opponent clearly shows a misunderstanding of The Game, or perhaps a misunderstanding of what "rules" mean:According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionaryrules - c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Since more than three sources (Wikipedia, which was sourced in an article from The Metro, and http://www.losethegame.com... as well as http://www.ilostthegame.org...) list the additional rule of announcing loss verbally to others, this is not a random byline. By reading this, we can infer that when one thinks of the game, this loss is not yet official until the verbal announcment is made, and I have not yet done so. I would assume you're talking about official loss here.Furthermore, this shows your initial argument was poorly researched, due to the fact that you never mention said rule, when nearly all versions of The Game's rules contain it.
You Just Lost The Game

"I have not lost yet, there is criteria to officially lose, read rule 3:"Rule three states that when someone loses the game, they must announce it to at least one person in the phrase, "I lost the game," or the like. However, to go about following this rule, one must have already lost. As rule 2 states:"If one thinks about the game, one loses the game. "My resolution was not that my opponent followed all three steps of the game properly. My resolution was that my opponent lost the game by playing it and thinking about it. My opponent did not counter this, therefore he concedes.
You Just Lost The Game

I stand in affirmation that you, the contender, just lost the game.What is the game, you might ask?Rules of The Game:1. Everyone is playing the game.2. If someone thinks about the game, they lose the game.3. If someone loses the game, they restart and continue to play the game.Therefore, I instigate the following:1. My opponent is playing the game.2. My opponent has just thought about the game.3. My opponent must still be playing the game, because if he lost prior, he still continues to play.Therefore, my opponent just lost the game.Umad bro?
You Just Lost The Game

The whole synonyms thing has nothing to do with the debate; I'm not going to argue about it.----------Final RebuttalI'll open with this: one of the sources my opponent posted in Round 2 (specifically http://www.losethegame.com...) says that you don't have to follow rule three to lose. My opponent just killed his own case; I'm going back to bed.But if that's not enough..."First off, question, where did you base these rules that you posted in Round One? They don't feature the rule we have been arguing over all day." That rule also comes from the sources my opponent posted. While it is not Rule #3, it is part of the game. Notice that I took it back as being rule 3 because I acknowledged the mistake and wish to continue debating the main issue, and not knit-picky stuff my opponent is bringing up."While it doesn't say anything about how to lose, it shows what to do once you've thought about the game to legitimize a loss,"Nope. Never once does rule three say that announcing it legitimizes a loss. My opponent is making that up. Don't believe me? I wrote rule three verbatim in Round 3^."I have indeed thought of The Game,"There you go. He has proven me right."Simply not yet enacting a step in procedure does not automatically equal complete disregard of a rule,"What is does equal is that my opponent did not follow this rule. Therefore he's cheating, therefore he loses. If I have to say that one more time, I can't be held responsible for what I'm gonna do to this guy.----------Now let's look at my opponent's "conclusion"."Considered an actual note and statement I made to be an insult"Has nothing to do with the actual debate."Used two phrases in his Round 4 argument ("My opponent disregarded a rule", and "lost the game on two different levels" that appear in previous arguments, and are not true either time."Did he follow rule three? No. So he disregarded it. Did he lose by both thinking of the game and by cheating? Yes. So he lost on two levels. Both statements are true.---------- So it's up to you: Does rule three have to be followed to legitimize a loss?Not in any way whatsoever. Rule three says that you have to announce it to one person. It never,ever says that doing so will legitimize the loss. This was a part of the game my opponent invented to save his own skin.In the end, rule two is the only rule that decides whether one has lost the game or not. So we now must look to rule two: Bottom LineP1: If you think about the game, you lose the game. (Rule 2)P2: "I have indeed thought of The Game," (My opponent's statement)C: My opponent lost the game.And They All Lived Happily Ever After.
You Just Lost The Game

RE: "Concede" synonyms: You calling them an "insult" is simply not true -- it is a legitimate idea. Calling it an insult, in fact, just comes off as paranoia.-----------Now, to this debate.First off, question, where did you base these rules that you posted in Round One? They don't feature the rule we have been arguing over all day."The purpose of rule 3 is for there to be a mechanism for getting other people to lose the game. I encourage voters to read rule number three word for word and see if it says anything about how to lose."While it doesn't say anything about how to lose, it shows what to do once you've thought about the game to legitimize a loss, and also serves the second purpose of spreading the loss to others, which in turn then will have a loss to legitimize."- My opponent has disregarded a rule, and by doing so, has lost by penalty."Repeating the same phrase twice, nearly word for word, doesn't make it true. If I have done so in this debate, I apologize. Now, with the point above cleared up, it becomes clear I have not disregarded a rule -- I have indeed thought of The Game, but my loss is not legitimized because I have not yet used Rule #3 (not your Rule #3), whether in voice or in writing. Simply not yet enacting a step in procedure does not automatically equal complete disregard of a rule, unless the content of the rule explicitly states this.In conclusion, as we head into the final round of debate, I request that voters note the fact that my opponent... Considered an actual note and statement I made to be an insult, in a petty attempt for me to lose conduct points. Used two phrases in his Round 4 argument ("My opponent disregarded a rule", and "lost the game on two different levels" that appear in previous arguments, and are not true either time.
Rap Battle Round 1 of Tourney

Why do you already quit? Do you fear what I spit? Can't believe this is already done, it wasn't even any fun! I feel as if it was all a waste, all the words I wrote in haste... You are an incredible disappointment, couldn't even show up to this appointment, didn't write a single rhyme, making me waste my time, minutes of my life that I'll never get back, just because Truth_Seeker was off track. TheRussian does not thank you for this debate, for the bars you didn't manage to create. Why in the world did you join this tourney? If you couldn't complete this epic journey? Be more determined in the things you do, don't just give up half-way through, you will be betraying yourself, and gathering dust on the shelf. That is all that I will write, no point in fighting someone that won't bite, who cowers in fright, and will never reach my height.
Rap Battle Round 1 of Tourney

I come from the land of the ice and snow, bringing with me unprecedented flow. I can already hear your teeth chattering before I have even started this battering. Watch all your self-confidence scattering, your demeanor...not very flattering. In my chest is a heart of ice, don't try to run, you've rolled the dice, so now it's time to pay the price, and your rhymes will not suffice. Frozen where you stand, things are not going as planned, too cold to move your hand, I've activated your tear gland. As the waterfall rolls down your face, you cannot help but feel disgraced, wanting nothing but to leave this place, unable to keep up with my pace. Call me Caesar, for I've created a rhyming empire, Destroy you like a barbarian in my pit of fire, Torch you up in a mile-high blazing pyre, fueled purely by my unquenchable desire. Desire for what? You might ask, to complete the given task. To run this filth into the ground, and deep in the dirt you will drown, leaving no tombstone, only a mound.
blacks probably = lower intelligece, at least as measured by IQ & brain size, than whites and asians

Pro drops my resolutional analysis that to prove that blacks ARE low intelligence, she must prove that this is an inherent (genetic) trait. The resolution does not say "possess. " In addition, if you wanted to say that charter schools are better than public schools, you need an apples-to-apples comparison, and thus you must hold constant socioeconomic status. The same holds true from saying that whites are more intelligent than blacks. You must hold constant other factors. This is especially pernicious because if you conclude that whites ARE more intelligent, then every black person you see on the street would be likely to be less intelligent than any white person you see on the street. But this doesn't hold true for many areas of the country because there black populations are wealthier. And it doesn't hold true for OTHER countries, like the UK. My opponent did not make the resolution US specific, so she will lose unless she proves that low intelligence is caused by race because other countries have wealthier black populations. In addition, I now advance a new argument from parliamentary debate. It's a theory argument: if a resolution is a tautology, meaning it is inherently true, then pro should lose for making an undebatable resolution. If the resolution is that on average, blacks in the US possess lower IQ's, then this is an indisputable fact and an undebatable resolution. Pro should be penalized on theory. == Rebuttal == Smaller brain size is a result of poor nutrition. This is hardly a concession to pro. I'll drop my argument about practical intelligence, since pro did specify "as measured by IQ," but she should need to prove that in an apples-to-apples comparison, whites are more intelligent than blacks. She cannot do this. She also cannot prove the resolution true for the UK. Since all of my arguments are dropped, Pro concedes that the IQ gap is caused entirely by income disparities. Pro also drops that the way the tests are normed to the white middle class is what causes the IQ gap. Studies that norm the IQ test to a group of black test takers show that blacks have higher IQ's than whites. The norming argument wins me this debate even if you don't buy my resolutional analysis because it shows that the black-white IQ gap is 100% created by unfair norming practices and racism in deciding which are "good" questions and which are "bad" questions. Remember, if black people get a question disproportionately correct and whites miss it too often, it is thrown out as a bad question. Thus, IQ tests just become a self-fulfilling prophecy - that because we believe blacks are lower IQ, we norm the test so that they score below average.