BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history

In all fairness let's talk about evil being in history. And when I said about slavery being fun, I said that slaveowners thought it was fun to oppress others, but that's besides the point, thus making it more evil than Hitler. William Pitt the Elder -- evil man who boasted about England's greatness and caused misery for those who tried to conquer. Wartime general during the French-Indian conflict, he raped Native women. Rape is worse than death. William Pitt the Younger -- his son, conquered Ireland, changed a relatively peaceful trading relationship with outright conquest Abraham Lincoln -- led war against the Sioux Al Gore Sr -- caused misery for many blacks with Jim Crow laws Nathan Bedford Forrest -- founder of the Ku Klux Klan Lyndon Johnson -- created welfare to destroy blacks
Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history

First of all you can't have action taken against me because I have an opinion you don't like. Second, about the colonialists who didn't deserve what was to come to them, I wasn't talking about colonialist. I was talking about places which were invaded specifically for empire: basically for looting, stealing, oppressing, like Greenland by the Danish, and India, Scotland and Ireland by the English. As for the Treaty of Versailles, it was the English and Danish who wanted to impose harsh and unfair reparations against Germany. Italy, while an Allied Power in WWI, was not vindictive against the Germans, and even didn't agree with the terms, so they became an enemy of the Allies, as a result. The whole tomboys and autistic people thing, yes, Germany was more accepting of them than England or Denmark, at that time, and even today. English atrocities? Here. The French-Indian War, atrocities against German and Italian civilians in WWII, the Raj in India, Denmark's oppression of Greenland, Denmark's slave colony in the West Indies, the brutal slave revolt that got Denmark to give up its bulls--t and finally free the slaves, not because Denmark did it out of compassion, dividing Germany into West and East was an English idea. "Right. Because slavery was not integral to the Southern economy. Because it's fun to have to rely upon a large population you fear may revolt and kill you at any time. Because it's fun to keep a gun at arm's length in case a slave tries to kill you." Oh you gotta be kidding me, you mean to tell me if you were a slave, and a f--king slavemaster was oppressing you, you wouldn't want to rebel and fight for your freedom? No offense, but that sounded pro-slavery. I think slavemasters deserved any violence they got. Good for the slaves who wanted to revolt. The only thing I do agree with you is that slaves were chosen not because of their race, but because they, and other darker skinned people, were more resistant against the sun, and there was no sunscreen yet, so obviously white people couldn't do that work. That doesn't make it right.
Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history

Forgive me for not responding to your posts the way I should have. When I said England, Denmark and Sweden were snooty and arrogant, in comparison to Nazi Germany, I meant that the invasions they initiated were completely unprovoked. The Native Americans, the Indians, the Irish, the Scottish, the Inuits did not deserve to go through what they went through. There was no reason for them to England, Denmark or Sweden, other than an arrogant and inflated sense of imperial and moral superiority. Neither did the Germans deserve to go through what they went through in Versailles, which is why I say that the vindictive nature of Germany was pretty justified. And yes, hating on tomboys and autistic people is not okay, which is what many English, Danes and Swedes still do -- hating them. Anyways, English, Danish and Swedish atrocities were unprovoked and uncalled for. The English version of slavery was extremely messed up. So was the Danish. Now in a way, it depends on the country. In the case of England and Denmark, it seems that there was no slave trade. They just ruthlessly went to Africa, and kidnapped as many black people as they could. In the case of Spain, it was a trade, so blacks only have themselves to blame for selling their own people to slavery. Now, having said that. Elitism is evil. As far as Nazi experiments are concerned, you think the English and Danish weren't worse even in that. English and Danish slaveowners thought it was fun to torture their slaves. Here's the thing, when I said Jim Crow came from the English, btw, I said the founders of the Klan were predominantly English in ancestry. They had no reason to treat black people like that. None whatsoever. None. They just killed and tortured people for fun. For fun. That makes it more evil than the Nazis. Hitler, from what it seems, had a bad experience with a Jew. That doesn't excuse the Holocaust. But I can see how it got his heart cold. His Jew doctor apparently neglected his mother, causing her to die. Losing a mother is a horrible thing. In the case of the KKK, it wasn't bad experiences. Again, it was arrogance, a feeling that it was OK to oppress black people and belittle them. Same with the imperialistic countries. No reason. That's why I said it. They were purely evil. In 1951, Danish authorities in an attempt to steal more from Greenland, engaged in divide and conquer. They seperated Inuit families by force. It was the subject of a film called "Experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hitler was one of, if not, the most evil being in history

I respect your constructive criticisms of my arguments, but what I'm trying to argue about here is a few things: (1) oppression is more dehumanizing that death. Here's the thing, you bring up the death toll. True, the death toll of the Nazis was bigger, and it was because it was deliberate death, but here's the thing England and Denmark, plus Sweden (with Finland and parts of Asia, assuming they did conquer Asia), enjoyed torturing their subjects and inflicting pain. In the case of slavery, Danish slavery was said to be the most brutal. True the Nazis murdered, but the English and Danish tortured, oppressed anyone they conquered. I believe that oppression is worse than death. Being chained up, separated from your family and friends, being forced to work for free, and watch your own girl be raped by the master is worse than being sent to the camps to die. Plus the reasons England, Denmark and Sweden did what they did is way more abhorrent than Nazi Germany. There I said it. England and Denmark and Sweden were completely arrogant and snooty in their invasion. They used Christianity to justify taking over another country and subjugating the people against their own will. They also had a lot of hatred towards tomboys and autistic people. Now don't confuse this with Catholicism, as the countries I'm mentioned were Protestant. Nazi Germany was officially Catholic, btw. The Protestants didn't believe in sending missionaries to the countries. They just believed in total elitism. You can say the empires of those countries just oppressed others for the hell of it. Some because of sadism. At least with Nazi Germany, being that England, and you can say Denmark, since they fought against Germany in WWI, screwed them at Versailles in 1919, had a reason to be angry. They just took it out on the wrong group. England, Denmark and Sweden just thought it was fun to oppress and steal from others.
God, the Father of Jesus is not the god of the Jew/Old Testament

Since the name "Jesus" is not found in the Old Testament, it is impossible to categorically prove that God, the Father of Jesus, is in the Old Testament as He is described/portrayed in the New Testament. However, I find the challenge to be an admirable one, and will accept it. I will endeavor to show through hermeneutics that God, the Father of Jesus, is the God (among the Godhead) of the Old Testament.
You Should Follow Stoic Principles

Stoics claim that their way of looking at the world and nature is "rational" but the world is not rational by nature. People believe in faith and God and are superstitious. Stoics also feel that people should disconnect themselves from emotion. What are humans if not emotional? what makes us who we are if we do not show how we feel to others. I think humans live by emotion, those emotions shape what desicions we make each day and how we impact other people. Our decisions may quite possibly become some one else's circumstamce and that within itself makes it not possible to disconnect from emotions, pain, and pleasure.
You Should Follow Stoic Principles

It is impossible to control the things in which are out of your control. You can not control certain things and pain is one of them. You have to stay clear of things that cause you pain because if you start to feel pain you can not control it. you can help yourself by trying to alleviate the pain by distraction, but you can not ultimately rid your mind of the pain that it once felt. you should stay clear of anything that will cause direct or eventual pain
You Should Follow Stoic Principles

By not enjoying your life to begin with your life can be considered a waste. People naturally gravitate towards things that make them feel pleasure. Pain, allthough a negative feeling, can help a person to grow and overcome different obstacles in their life. Stoics accept and circumstances that nature put before them and do not attempt to control them. By not taking control you may loose control of your own life, and in term become secluded from others.
Minecraft is better then LOL

LOL is a fun yet helpful game. You will for sure have to do things very fast on your computer to play well. That will make your hand eye coronation much better. LOL is a very big online game so its the best when you have time to kill and want to play with lots of your friends together. Minecraft does have multiplayer but really is just stupid. All you do in Minecraft is place blocks down, make a house, or craft some tools. Their is really nothing to it. Its just a boring and stupid game.
Minecraft is better then LOL

Yet Minecraft has a lot of players and servers. Plus Minecraft's company sponsors Mojang and Microsoft can produce a lot of items that fund minecraft and sponsor its updates. Mojang and Microsoft employ a lot of people and can help you do a lot of things. Servers can help fund peoples shopping for food and Minecraft is fun. Even though League of Legends might be fun, Minecraft can help you learn because you can build structures and you use blocks to build. While in L.O.L you just fight people. Minecraft is a quite educational yet fun app and its academic.
Joseph Stalin was a better dictator than Adolf Hitler.

I will be arguing 1) That of the two dictators, Hitler's Dictatorship placed the people of his country in better conditions than Stalin's; 2) that Hitler's dictatorship implemented more sound economic practices, although the differences between the two are few; 3) that Hitler's policies regarding the Final Solution, while no doubt horrifying, inhumane, and beyond reprehensible, pailed in comparison to Stalin's Great Purge and the Holdomor, which the USA recognizes as Genocide; 4) that Hitler's regime had superior military tactics and technology; and 5) that Hitler's political regime was more cohesive and supported by the populace than Stalin's. In the process, I will show that of the two terrible and evil Dictators, Hitler's regime was the better.
Joseph Stalin was a better dictator than Adolf Hitler.

As the Pro, I will be taking the idea into my own hands that Joseph Stalin was better than Adolf Hitler. The first round is only for acceptance. The person that accepts the challenge accepts that their position is that Hitler was better a dictator than was Stalin. They cannot say that he wasn't when their position says they are. You must have concrete evidence [no opinions / bias and NO BLOGS!]. All website links must be from trusted / reputable sites, others will be considered void. Do not implement personal beliefs ["I liked Hitler because, from personal experience, I think Jews are bad."]!
There are not enough positive role models in today's society

I hope that this debate can be done in an appropriate and professional manner. This is also my first debate, so I would like to apologize in advance if I do something wrong. The topic for this debate is, "That there are not enough positive role models in today's society. " Since Pro did not give a definition of this topic I will go ahead and put forward a definition which will be used for the entirety of this debate. I define "Role Model" as a person looked up to by others as an example to be imitated. Due to this definition, the role model does not have to be publicly famous or have a high reputation in the media which is what Pro seems to believe with their first argument. I do believe that there are more than enough positive role models in today's society. In a report done by "Highlights State of the Kid", studies found that kids aged from 6 - 12 years old put forward their friends, followed by their teachers and parents when asked who they admire and look up upon. Celebrities barely even registered! I do agree with Pro that in this current age, some of the television shows are highly ridiculous and are not setting good examples on kids. However these kids don't even look at this people as role models in the first place. Yes, a small percentage may, but it is important to debate for the majority and not the minority. The programs that Pro mentioned above are shows which ARE VERY UNLIKELY to be screening when you watch television as a family, usually in the later hours of the night. This is something Pro has clearly not understood and I do not believe it is a strong point to be put forward. Due to this, I do believe there are more then enough positive role models in today's society, with only a small percentage of people like celebrities influencing poor behavior.
There are not enough positive role models in today's society

In today's society, whenever we turn on the TV and sit down with our kids, there are at least four channels we have to skip and ignore. The first channel might include a reality show that is very open about drinking around the house. The second channel might be a movie about people in an urban city, snorting and exchanging drugs. The next channel could be 'new' series, Dating Naked. So in the matter of the five minutes you took to change the channel, your kids would have had time to look at drug snorting, people being drunk of their butts and women parading around in their birthday suit. Your kids have now got these three pictures stuck in their brains for at least a week, before they decide to go and check them out themselves on the internet. One thing can lead to the other, and then, boom! Your children aren't so innocent as you'd thought. So I believe, that in today's society, that there are limited amount of positive role models. And most of them have been outshined by pop stars who go to rehab and prance around in their underwear.
There are not enough positive role models in today's society

I will spend this round by refuting the oppositions arguments, and concluding the debate. Pro stated that "Most kids smoke due to the fact that their friends smoke" and therefore it is a negative influence, making them a poor role model. According to a study undertaken by tobacco free kids (an organisation that researchers into the ages of smokers as well as many other causes of smoking,) found that 5 percent of children smoke. I don't wish to touch on this point for too long as I believe it is going a bit off-topic, but i clearly stated in my first argument that "It is important to debate for the majority and not the minority. " This means that only 5% of all children experience this situation or dilemma meaning that it happens in rare and isolated situations. Pro also stated that "Most kids don't look up to their teachers" and that, "They don't really think of their teacher as anything but a man or woman who are telling them of the world. " I'd like to highly oppose this point. To better illustrate this I'd like you to think about the following scenario. Think of at least 5 winners of America's Top Model. Name all the Kardashian Sisters? Chances are you struggled to name any of these people (maybe apart from Kim Kardashian) Now think of at least 5 teachers you had back in your schooling. You probably could think of even more than 5. My point here is that teachers DO have a profound impact on our lives. We are in the same environment as them for around 12-13 years so how could they not have an impact on us? As a result of this, many people in today's society DO see these people as role models, aiming to be just like them or share some of the same morals they have. Finally, Pro mentioned that "Parents can send the wrong messages to kids" by abuse. Once again this is a problem seen in the minority of cases. Also they mentioned that "Kid's don't look at their parents after they pass the age of 12. " By saying this, Pro is referring that we don't see our parents as role models for the rest of our lives after the age of 12 years. This is highly untrue. VAST STUDIES AND SURVEYS illustrate that young adults aspire to be like their parents throughout life. I believe that this argument put forward by Pro is a highly inaccurate source. So in conclusion, due to all of this I think it is evident that in today's society there are more than enough positive role models. I hope I have helped crystallize this in your minds throughout this debate. Thank you to Pro for setting up and writing two very good sets of arguments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Thank you for being apart of my first debate, Pro. ;)
There are not enough positive role models in today's society

( This is my first debate too, so I don't specifically know the correct format. Please ignore layout mistakes.) Before I continue on to my next point, I would like to rebut Con. Con said that most kids look up to their friends, teachers and parents. Firstly, according to OxyGen.com, most kids smoke due to the fact that their friends smoke. They count friends as role models, hence finding smoking something cool and good. And when they ask their role models for a ciggy, their role models don't care at all about the kids; they give them either a drag or the whole cigarette which increases their chance of getting ill. Next, teachers. Most kids don't look up to their teachers when they are going through life changing moments. They don't really think of their teacher as anything but a man or woman who are telling them of the world. It's usually through the time of the kids' early-mid teens when they look up for guidance and support and therefore look up to the people that are deemed 'cool' and 'popular'; despite how they act or behave. Lastly, about parents. Patents can send the wrong message to kids in a couple of ways. The obvious, does the parent abuse? There have been many scenarios when children have been misused and not told the right way to go. They might think that it is ok to get away with this kind of thing, and would portray emotion through actions. Another point, kids don't look at their parents after they pass the age of 12. Kids still find parent good and on the right path, but don't consider them as role models or people who they want to be like in life. Stating these facts, I believe that our society doesn't have enough positive role models for kids to chose from. I believe that there is only a handful of truly good souls for kids to aspire to be like. There is too many bad role models that outweigh the amount of positive role models
Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap. Size/pain is not mentioned in your post. Further - what you start with is not where you stay. You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans for splitting chihuahuas and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking. Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly. Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot. So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course. You seem to be a bit light on the difference between choice and reflex. The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse, it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual.
Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

I am pretty grossed out that you find this to be important enough for such a detailed debate. Murder and cannibalism are not the same thing. There are laws against murder in most places but no laws against cannibalism in many places but it was so repugnant to so many people that it was felt that laws weren't needed. Mostly, the hunger for sex will not leave humans alone. So, when they can't find an interface, they have turned to animals forgetting that the smell lingers. The immorality in question would be if it hurt the animal but not if it hurt the human, if the human got hurt constantly and wanted us to pay for it or, the inability to control the sexual urge. In most cultures, some form or sexual control is taught, sometimes too drastically, but no culture encourages human to copy the bonobos. If it isn't immoral, legality is a secondary question. In that light, the only question is morality unless you, like me, are just grossed out and want to be SURE that no animals are harmed
Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

I kind of feel like you're phoning it in at this point Dawn."Like cannibalism, so many people find it repugnant that no or few laws are needed."There are laws against murder.... I have no idea what point you are trying to make."You seem pretty desperate to have sex with animals."Lol, then you seem pretty desperate for me not to have sex with animals."I hope that you realize that a condom will only protect the skin that it covers and not the skin around it"Yea, I get that...
Should we change the electoral college from Population to number of actual voters

I believe so, our political system seems to be crumbling from the lack of voters that is plaguing our nation. When we look at an average person and the person who votes, usually the person who votes is the one who wants the change the most. The majority of young people have no interest in politics, they would not care if anything has changed. Why is it though we have all the time in the world to complain and protest but no time at all to actually cast in a small piece of paper. For myself, I live in a state and city, Los Angeles California, which has a horrific voter turn out each and every election. Here in Los Angeles, people are more interested in smoking marijuana and surfing the internet.Don't believe me, believe the actual numbers. The Los Angeles Municipal elections for this year alone were only 8.6%, http://www.latimes.com..., and according to the article it also says that Los Angeles voter turn out has been declining rapidly over the last few decades. And as for the whole state for the 2014 election it was a total of 30%, http://ww2.kqed.org.... How come the most powerful state when it comes to the electoral college is also the most apathetic state in the country. According to the article the highest turn out came from high income elderly white people.