BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it morally acceptable to hit a woman if she hits you first

First of all, I believe that a man should not assault a woman, no matter what. I define assault as any physical violence towards another human being. Why is there a point to do so? Imagine a fight between two people. (Their genders are irrelivant for the moment). The instigator of the fight will be referred to as the attacker, while the person who was originally attacked will be referred to as the defender. In this situation, a verbal argument escalates into a physical fight, and the attacker attempts to punch the defender. In this situation, the defender has five options. He/she can A) fight back, attempting to punch the attacker B) attempt to neutralize the attacker's punch C) if possible, flee D) call for help E) allow the attack to land, without fighting back Going back to the situation where a woman is the attacker. In any situation, unless the attacker is substantially stronger, options B and E are perfectly reasonable. As my opponent stated, "men are the majority of time stronger than [women]". Therefore, either of these options become more reasonable since the defender is commonly the stronger in a situation. However, one might assert that since the woman attacked first, the man is justified in fighting back. Yet this reasoning is only valid if the defender is in danger of being seriously injured. Evidence supporting this can be found in the civil rights movement. African Americans had tried for decades to achieve equality through violence, and it simply never worked. Even though they were the ones being oppressed, their viewpoints were ignored because, as the attackers, they were in the wrong. And that's where it relates to the debate at hand. In a fight situation, there is not always someone in the right. If the defender decides to fight back, they will be seen as in the wrong, as well as the attacker, due to the fact that they did not remain levelheaded enough to asses the situation and determine whether fighting back was necessary. However, if one were to either neutralize or simply accept the attacker's blows, they recieve respect. They knew that fighting back was not worth it, and instead used their refusal to fight as a message to their attacker. The easiest way to quell one's anger is by either accepting their anger, and/or responding with love. By doing this, the attacker is left with no anger from their opponent to fuel their own. Without a mutual response, anger quickly dies because the rationalle is allowed time to process the situation and realize how stupid it is. So if a woman attacks a man, they do not deserve the same treatment back. This simply fuels the situation. Instead, the man should show his levelheadedness and simply wait for the anger to die down. It is the simplest and most effective way to quell a fight.
Is it morally acceptable to hit a woman if she hits you first

As we debate we are assuming that it is acceptable for a man to hit another man back if he hits you first. Ok so, a week ago I was at school and a guy and a girl were arguing about some break-up and the girl slapped the guy in the face. If I was in his position I would have taken a swing upwards but after confronting the guy afterward he said he didn't react because "she is a girl". This is honestly stupid. Yes, I am aware that men are the majority of the time stronger than girls, not being sexist but it is just that men are built that way, with testosterone. But if women want equal rights then they should be able to accept the fact that it is not morally acceptable to hit a man without him hitting her back and if he does, she does not have the right to complain about it.
home work should be banned

School without homework is not an image I can fathom. There are many reasons homework should not be abolished as it is beneficial towards the student, allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weaknesses; in turn giving them an opportunity to improve and acquire new skills. Also, taking time each night to do homework is a chance for students to catch up on missed class and further reinforces the day's lessons so it is permanently etched in the student's mind where the information is stored and used when called upon. Several studies have proven that homework, in fact, does improve the stability of the student in school; this strengthens the statement that time spent completing homework is time well spent. Rather than giving students another hour of leisure time, doing homework entitles the student to an hour of enriched education; this can greatly benefit the student, as consistently finishing homework...
home work should be banned

The subject of homework being banned has been discussed and debated for years by students, teachers and parents. Both sides of the argument have numerous reasons for their decision, but here are some of the reasons why homework should not be banned from schools. First of all, homework encourages students to undertake independent learning which they will be required to do when they get to University. Many people argue that schools spoon-feed their students, which makes them completely unprepared for what awaits them at higher education when all research and further reading must be done on the student"s own time. By setting homework in the form of projects, students will be able to learn on their own and develop skills that will serve them well in later life. It also helps to teach the students responsibility and time management skills, seeing as the teacher is not there to make them learn. Secondly, a lot of students prefer to learn on their own and teach themselves, rather than having a teacher lecture them. Homework encourages children to do this and may also help them to revise it more thoroughly. Whatever students have learnt in the classroom can then be reinforced and solidified by completing homework tasks. Homework can also be beneficial for the teacher as when they collect homework in to mark it, it gives them a good idea of how much their students understand what is being taught. Practice makes perfect as the saying goes. So the only way to get better at algebra is to practice it, which is why teachers set homework. It help to encourage a great number of skills that students will find extremely useful not only in school and any further education that they may go on to, but also in jobs that they will have.
home work should be banned

Reason why homework shouldn't banned is that it helps you learn some stuff. Don't you want to become a doctor or a pilot? If you don't have homework, and play 24/7 or so called play all day, you might become a hobo or even homeless when you grow up. Homework also helps you improve your life. How?? Well here is some reasons: 1) Teaches about nature (science) 2) Learn from other peoples mistakes instead of doing it over again 3) Calculate easily when shopping (reccommended for girls :p) 4) Not become a hobo 5) Get married happily (some people dont want to get married :p) Also homework doesn't take like 5 hours. Normal school periods are about 5 and homeworks are 5 different types. They should be done within 2 1/2 hours. Without homework you wouldn't become smart, or if you are already smart you will become dumber, you will not know how to heal yourself (science), you will not know why you died, you will not know what the price with the tax is (mathematics), you will not know why moon fell onto earth (that might happen someday), you will not know when the heck is your birthday which is really embarassing. I thank my opponent for following the directions. As I have said earlier, if one of the debaters forfeit, the round is cancelled if it is a good reason.
home work should be banned

I firmly believe that homework should not be banned in Primary school. It serves a very worthwhile purpose for Primary aged children. Firstly, I believe when children grow up they won"t get a good job and that means they will not have any money to live on. If you don"t get a good job you will not be able to buy anything that you want. Secondly, I believe if there was no homework there would be less smart people. There would be no one to invent new things and we would be using the same old things. And someone needs to invent something to be used instead of plastic. Thirdly, I believe homework is better than being lazy. It is better doing homework than watching television because your eyes will be sore and you will be square eyed. And I think it would be better to use your brain to do homework than to eat junk food. Fourthly, I believe you will get ahead for high school. If you do a lot of homework .In high school there is a lot of homework and it will make you be ready for exams and tests
Everyone Should be Allowed to Say Racial Slurs

Of COURSE racial slurs offend people! What type of answer is that?! I felt offended when you declared 'Gingers are soulless.' I felt offended when you said 'Sout Asians are stinky.' And everyone else does too. How are you supposed to know if its offensive or not anyway? Nobody has ever said anything racist about you. That is even more clear PROOF of how stupid you are. 'you stupid troll.' Excuse me, maybe you go look up the definition of 'internet troll' before you make yourself sound even dumber publicly? Racism is NOT perfectly fine, and you are definitely, 100% stupid if you think that does not cause trouble between people. Switch on your brain for the first time in your miserable life. The slavery? The stolen generations? For example. But I already know what you'd think of these. You are Pro for these horrible events. Why? Because you are horrible. 'Everybody on Earth wants to feel good and declare themselves supreme.' Wrong, as usual. You're very different from most people sadly, thanks to your mental disability, (That you clearly need to get some help with.) Don't think you are clever because you are clearly NOT. Closing statement: Pro has miserably failed again to bring any relevant, real evidence that racism shouldn't be banned. What he has said is wrong and every sentence he has written is amazingly stupid.
Everyone Should be Allowed to Say Racial Slurs

1. Racial slurs do not offend anyone. They are not horrible, because racism is perfectly acceptable in religion. If you think I am horrible, you must be horrible, you stupid troll. 2. Also, racism does not cause any trouble between people Racism is simply defining your own race to be relatively superior to other races. So what's wrong with that? Everybody on Earth wants to feel good and declare themselves supreme. Racism cannot and should not be banned; thus, everyone should be allowed to say racial slurs, and also sexist, homophobic, etc. slurs to anyone they want.
Everyone Should be Allowed to Say Racial Slurs

I don't know why i'm stating these reasons because your to dumb to understand them: 1. Racial slurs offend people. They are not nice, they are horrible. If you like them then your 'amazing reputation' to yourself crumbles. This proves your not a nice person. You are horrible. 2. They cause trouble between people. (But so what? You LOVE causing trouble. You are a troll after all.) I suggest you should give up troll-debating, because you will never truly win. No matter what. Everyone hates you. I hope you know that you sicko.
Everyone Should be Allowed to Say Racial Slurs

Is there anything wrong with saying racial slurs? Of course not. Calling somebody something derogatory, such as soulless, violent, or stinky is perfectly okay. That is why everyone should be allowed to say racial slurs about anything. Here are a few example of racial slurs: "You chink. Why aren't you working in the mines?" "Oh no, it's niggers here." "Let's send Jews to concentration camps." "Gingers have no souls. All they do is worship the devil." "One nigger family per neighborhood in every non-African country." Or you can say this: "Ice Bear, Orange Dinosaur, what50, and masterful are white supremacists and members of the KKK."
Nazi Germany could have won

Where the blazes do I begin? First of all, you so eloquently say, and I quote " he has made assumptions with no sources used, so we don't know how many resources the Nazis lost due to Barborossa. You my friend, are a hypocrite. You state that much of the superior german tanks were engaged in combat on the eastern front. Sources please? And not Wikipedia. Sure, much armour was allocated to the eastern front for the beginning blitzkrieg, but after that tanks began to be diverted around Europe, and north Africa. But your most ludicrous statement is you claiming that the majority of German armour in north Africa consisted of obsolete panzer 1,2,3 tanks. They were developed in the 30's when Germany was re-arming, and when tank superiority was a unimportant priority. You comparing the Heavy Churchill tank to some obsolete light tanks, is like me comparing a 5 star French restaurant to some greasy american diner, and calling the diner "superior". Rommel had under his command panthers, tigers, panzer Iv's, which in fact are much better then you give them credit for, and much anti-tank guns, including the famed 88mm flak gun. My sources? British intelligence during ww2, encyclopaedia of ww2, and the times atlas of ww2. You claim a multitude of "researched" and "relevant ideas" when It comes to your view of the luftwaffe. During the Battle of Britain, you claim that the British airmen were much more braver and experienced. three words for you, NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE. Besides a few campaigns in North Africa, British airmen did close to jack squat over the Europe, The only exception being the bombers who had priority objectives over France. So, in spite of this, you claim that the British airmen were "braver". How? given no prior experience. training only prepares you for so much. You were completely correct, stating that Italy only priority's were border expansion. If you look at Italian campaigns, they were badly thought out, and ill-coordinated. You can assume that most were failures. But what you say about Japan's involvement during ww2 makes me facepalm. From 1939 to 1942, the Japanese were figuratively handing the Americans their asses on silver platters. You will make the assumption that I am not well versed, so I will explain early war Japanese supremacy. Many of the islands under american and British control, were captured quickly and effectively, until 1942 however when the battle of Midway tipped the scales in the Americans favour. In short, the Japanese lost Naval and air superiority. But Even then, the Japanese fought to the death on every island, regardless of weather, regardless of if they had weapons or not, regardless of sure annihilation. The Japanese government revolutionized Japan in the 20's, by bringing back the principles of Bushido. You fight for the emperor, or be disgraced and disgrace your family. The tenacity of the Japanese during ww2 is comparable to the Spartans last stand during the Battle of Thermoplyae. Wow, I am sure a windbag. I commend you If you've read through all of this ranting, and I'm looking forward to your response.
Nazi Germany could have won

I would like to point out two things about Con's argument: 1. He has made assumptions, with no sources used, so we don't know how many resources the Nazis lost due to Barbarossa. 2. Overrating the "Superior" German forces, such as when Con said how if the Soviets would have invaded Germany, they would've been smashed. There's no evidence, also, to suggest that Britain would have lost: Goering had lost once already, the British used radar, a fact the Germans never realised. The convoys were supplying Britain enough and the RAF pilots were much braver and experienced than the Luftwaffe's. Montgomery flails Rommel, the Churchills are WELL better than the Panzers, I to IV. The Tigers were mostly on the Eastern Front, and Panthers and Elefant tanks were also the same: Eastern Front material. The British Empire and North America were supplying them with materials, whereas Germany had two useless allies who were all doing their own things to expand their empires. The Allies worked together; the Axis also did, but they worked for their respective goals. The Allies worked for one goal: world peace. The Adis were too selfish, which is one of the reasons why they didn't win. You said the Americans suffered heavy casualties. Would anyone outside of this debate, observing, notice the differences between casualties? By June 1944, the Americans had 11 million men mobilized. The Germans, however, could not simply replace lost soldiers, so much that by December 1944 Hitler Youth troops began entering battles. America had advantages: no one could bomb them, their country was miles away. Germany, on the other hand, was bombed into submission. No country could've survived such bombings and still won a war, unless you were Britain. Hitler also underestimated North Africa; they failed to realize that the importance of the continent's result would've determined the war: The Americans would've arrived from the west, the British Commonwealth from the east, and ended up in Tunis. Tunisia is not exactly a country mile from Italy, and the Germans failed to realise this until they lost Sicily. Overall, my opponent has offered no sources, cancelling his own points, while I have been offering tonnes of relevant points. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)
Nazi Germany could have won

Let's talk casualties and allocation here. 4 out of 5 German soldiers died on the eastern front, and just think about the countless tanks and aircraft as well. If Hitler had not attacked the Soviet Union, the sheer amount of manpower he could have allocated through out Europe would have been overwhelming, and also they would be relatively well trained. It wasn't until 1943 that the airborne landings occurred during operation market garden, and the Americans would have taken tremendous casualties, because the Germans would have had more time to dig in and fortify anti-aircraft positions. The campaigns in north Africa would not have been lost had the Germans gained the allocated tanks from the eastern front, and remember, the quality and attributes of German armour were superior to that of the mainly British counterparts. And let's not forgot the "desert fox". With his expertise the extra tanks would have been invaluable in all operations. Let's face it, would you like to be on the business end of a panther? Or a tiger? Or a hetzer? No, of course not, especially remembering you would be in a cruiser tank or a Matilda. So yeah, the German armour was superior in virtually all ways. Anyways, let's be hypothetical and say that with the extra aircraft from the eastern front, the Germans had won the battle of Britain, game over for the allies. Now once the Soviets had invaded germany, they would meet superior soldiers and vehicles, a dug in defence, and the tenacity of a cornered raccoon. Why can I hypothosize this? Because Hitler would have anticipated it and planned a counterattack. Although it is speculated that Hitler suffered from schizophrenia along with drug and metal poisoning, he was a military genius and anyone who say otherwise must be incredibly prejudiced or Jewish. The allied war machine won ww2 only because it could sustain and replace massive casualties and mass produce like there was no tomorrow.
Nazi Germany could have won

I, as Con, accept Pro's challenge and state the following: World War 2 would've been lost had the Nazis not invaded the Soviet Union anyway. Stalin had said, while Hitler was planning Barbarossa, that the Soviets would try and delay the Eastern Front for two years. This means that Stalin was delaying the Eastern Front for one of two reasons: 1. Preparation of defence, proving Hitler was planning on invasion from the outset of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. 2. Planning to invade Germany, using propaganda as cover to expand his Soviet empire. Also, the Japanese had, by the time of the Battle of Moscow, been ready to attack the USA. This attack, and thus Hitler's declaration of war, mean that Americans could've easily landed in the West of North Africa, helped Britain sweep North Africa clear of Rommel and ended the war earlier in Italy, then a cross-channel invasion of Occupied France. Stalin also ignored the supposed readying of Nazi troops pre-Barbarossa for two reasons: 1. His troops were ill-equipped for the battle (they lost 125,000 men in their battle for Finland) 2. He was offering Hitler a chance to call off the invasion, thus stopping his hating of war on two fronts and continuation of the Nazi-Societ non-aggression pact. Hitler also, wrongingly, deluded himself that one front, the Western/British front, had been won. So attacking Russia wasn't the worst idea. http://www.alternatehistory.com...
Communism is better than Capitalism.

I would like to point out that every communist government person is rich. Yes, this is mostly true for capitalism, because the politicians need money to campaign, but I would hardly call running for positions campaigning in communist countries. Anyone who's heard the news knows communist rulers eliminate the competition through their own methods, and I don't think someone with ethics would do this. Ethical people want the best for their country, so wouldn't they try their best to legally campaign, but let the people decide what they want. Politicians aren't exactly known for ethics, but their is not a single american politician worse than the corrupt King John Uhn. Sure the people should revolt, but they can't. If they even talk about their government they might say "mysteriously disappear" in the middle of the night. Even, if communism allowed people to talk about revolting against their government, and have guns it would still be bad, because it gives the government a monopoly allowing them to control prices. If you still don't believe me here are the various problems of some large communist countries. People's republic of China (it's not a very good republic)- overpopulation -one child act -rulers who won't give -xi jingping - small amount of middle class people Democratic republic of North Korea- Crazy leader - nukes -extreme poverty -Do I even need to mention the rest? I'm just stating facts everyone knows. Socialist republic of Vietnam- Actually Vietnam- It doesn't many more problems than America. It's surprisingly moral. Of course I was getting board of this argument; meaning I didn't research it as much, but still. (You know governments are bad when american politicians are relatively moral.) -deforestation Also if I were an ethical politician leading a government I would not steal money from the people. That's something most communist governments do that others don't do nearly as much. Stealing money is not considered ethical.