BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

"The battle of the Reichstag!" Funny, too funny. The Battle for Pavlov's House was more important than The Battle of the Reichstag. Reasons that Stalingrad was important: -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis Reasons that the Battle of the Reichstag was important: -Captured a building. I mean seriousely, Con has no chance in this debate. What was more important, a battle that was the turning point of the war or a battle that is a small engagement in comparison? Clearly Stalingrad, in 1942/1943 when Hitler was winning was more important than a battle that took place in the last hours of the war when Hitler was already dead.
Resolved: That Global Warming is a manmade problem.

First, my opponent claims that CO2 is shown to be connected to GW, as shown by the graphs he lists. While often it seems to be very connected, if one magnifies parts of the graph, CO2 will go up after temperatures have gone up, not before. That means although they may be connected, CO2 is not the cause, as it came second. Also, as shown by the graphs, CO2 is sometimes way up, while temps are way down. Then, he says that temperatures are way up, okay, so? That doesn't mean that men caused GW. Third, he says that ocean warming could not have been natural, using a scientific testimony. In the same article it says "'We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance.'" That doesn't mean it is not natural, it means that solar changes/volcanic effects didn't cause it, something else could have. Finally, he brings up the point that the vast majority of scientists support man-made GW. Scientists also though that the planets, stars, and sun revolved around the earth, and anyone who said otherwise got burned as a heretic. The same thing is happening, the idea is so accepted, it can't be called into question. I may not be a scientist, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Resolved: That Global Warming is a manmade problem.

Note to Voters: Take not your own beliefs when voting, vote based on merit of the arguments. Also this is copy-pasted from another debate I was in: http://www.debate.org... From my opponent-to-be's comments in that debate, he looks to be good competition. I hope for a good debate, and I thank him in advance. Okay, to set the parameters of this debate, my opponent must prove with a preponderance of evidence that men did indeed cause global warming. I must cast a serious doubt that CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases created by industry cause global warming. Also, this is not about the existence of climate change, the earth is warming, the question is why. Contention 1: CO2 is not correlated to temperature change. As shown in graphs by realclimate.org at the end of the last ice age there was a 1000 lag in CO2 and CH4 levels as the heat increased. Other evidence from the EPA shows that in prehistory CO2 levels have dropped as temperatures have increased. The evidence supporting correlation between CO2 and global warming is at best sketchy, and leans more towards completely false. Contention 2: Current Temperatures are not abnormal. According to Ben Lieberman Senior Policy Analyst, Energy and Environment for the Heritage Foundation "But temperatures have risen and fallen many times before that. The Medieval Warm Period (c. 1100-1450) and earlier periods were likely as warm or warmer than the present. The earth was cooling as recently as the period from the 1940s to the 1970s, giving rise to fears of a coming ice age, until temperatures began to increase in the mid-1970s up through the present day." Also, according to EPA data, temperatures rise and fall constantly, our current position is not abnormal compared to the historic trend of rises and falls. Why vote CON? 1. CO2 and CH4 are not correlated to climate change and 2. Current temperatures are not abnormal
Diplomacy vs Military with regards to the mid east.

I disagree on why we have not used military to intervene on Iran and North Korea. We are in no position to wage another conflict with another country currently, any conflicts post WW II with a lack of support from the economy. We can't expect results when fighting blind folded with one hand tied in our back. I agree fighting Iran would create more problems, we are in no position to wage another war especially when we don't have a plan to rebuild Iran. You are right diplomacy is way to go at this current day and time with Iran. Opening another front in the Middle East would increase the strain our current military forces are enduring with the draw down. We have not invaded North Korea for a few reasons. 1. Economy, China and North Korea's relation has been deteriorating but there is no guarantee that China will stand by idly if we invade North Korea. I'm sure over time China will separate itself from North Korea but now is not the time. 2. North Korea is a nuclear threat but not to the US as their missiles are still unable to reach the US. 3. Refugees, South Korea does not want to deal with North Korea's shambling infrastructure. An invasion would create a 20+ million refugee. 4. South Korea's GDP as of 2013 is 1.305 trillion while North Korea as of 2011 is 12.38 billion. South Korea does not want to deal with that. If we had the ability to invade North Korea with the ability to deal with and rebuild North Korea with little problems I would support invasion. The United States can't defend the home front from standing idly by in the Continental United States every time, intervening is necessary at times especially with the world economy connected with each other. A recession in the US has a global effect on countries everywhere. You are right at times intervention has created more problems than it had solved, this is as a result of the political aspect of military intervention. The military aspect of the invasion of Iraq (2003) was a success, however plans to rebuild Iraq and let them stand on their own was not. The military can only do so much with a government that limits their ability to rebuild and limited findings to support Iraq. The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq beginning in 2007 is what led to ISIS increasing it's territorial control and influence on the Middle East. Military intervention is extremely limited by politics, we can't expect construction workers to build a building without giving them a plan, supplies time etc etc.
Diplomacy vs Military with regards to the mid east.

As it stands:Currently as we talk about diplomacy vs miltary action, we are embroiled in two conflicts regarding nuclear power with Iran and the DPNK.Iran is currently struggling to find the means of creating a nuclear program. Not to say they don’t have one, of course. The Democratic People’sRepublicofNorth Koreais much in the same way. Now, why have we not invaded? While there are plenty of implications for this, the reasoning is quite simple: military intervention is the surest way to invite problems. Seemingly all of America’s less than desirable outcomes in the mid east (and a handful of others) have all stemmed from some variety of putting of our blood and treasure to enforce a quasi-agreed upon dictum in place. Intent:Diplomacy is not about winning hearts and minds, though that might be a happy side effect. It, much like its bullet bound counter part is about success, and success can be achieved through an assortment of means. Its not until the agreed upon (world stage agreed upon) enemy makes use of their own military does intervention of equal kind become justified. Benefits: Diplomacy carries with it the honor that those back on the home front will not be spending their taxes, their sons, and their daughters on frivolous or ill thought out occupations that can drive on for decades, and more over, are viewed as imperialistic at the onset from allied nations. Lets rewind time for just a few moments, and talk about Iraq, pre Desert Storm. What if the world simply stopped buying Iraqi oil? What if the world simply agreed through trade negotiation and native land incenctive to overcome the deficit by opening their own reserves, increasing quotas, or simply placing a cap on a barrel of oil beneath what was profitable for Iraq? What if Iraqcould not buy anything on the world market? These tools are the hallmarks of sanctions which have the ability to bring a country to its knees if enforced properly. Peace, through Superior Fire Power(?): When leveraging the cost of ambassadorial envoy, public works, trade agreements, and resource development against military action, the choice is clear. Even in the best of arrangements, the host land for the engagement is left with destroyed buildings, a potentially starving and spent populace, costs in the billions for repairs, ill sentiment to the invaders (no matter how righteous), and potentially the loss of their government to unknown power. On the home front, men and women are spent, tax dollars are spent, literally destroyed in the field of battle, which leads us to the thrust of the problem. Military actions destroy. That by nature is their purpose. Diplomacy is about victory. Shared victory, in which no lives are expected to spent to uphold a failed policy, and no money to be spent save for expected investment. The purpose of a military is to defend the home front, and beat the enemy into submission when employed abroad. We are expected to finance destruction in hopes that by razing the enemy, they will later feel not so bad about being beaten. What sense does that make?
Diplomacy vs Military with regards to the mid east.

My fault, I didn't make a rule for Round 4. What would you like to do for that? Anyway I still stand by my ideals. Diplomacy alone cannot change the world, the international community has imposed sanctions on Russia after their military intervention in the Ukraine. After the sanctions, Putin's approval rating reached an all time high while Russia's disapproval of the US reached 81%. Diplomacy alone can't win the hearts and mind of the people. While I do agree the cost of war is high we have also attempted to better Iraq and Afghanistan's infrastructure. We've spent nearly 53 billion building hospitals, water treatment plants, electricity substations, schools and bridges.Those investments would be a waste and counter productive if they reached ISIS's hands. Diplomacy alone can't protect aids we provide to the Middle East. Our military intervention has not been as successful as intended as a result of politics, excluding WW I and II we have been fighting with blind folds and one hand tied behind our back, as a result our spending increases with little progress achieved. Source: http://www.pewglobal.org... http://www.danielpipes.org...
Diplomacy vs Military with regards to the mid east.

It has been stated many times that the pen is mightier than the sword. Sadly, precious little practice is given to this in an age of smart bombs and drone strikes. My policy for intervention in the Mid East involves one less making use of ordinance and one of using pen strokes. The world, being immediately connected, makes for an alliance on many fronts against those that would treat their neighbors, and their citizens unjustly. For a moment, entertain what Sun Tzu stated about moving a military: “In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men”. To put a fine point on it, the war in Iraq totaled up to 814 billion dollars. In Afghanistan, 685 billion. (1) This comes to a grand total of 1.4ish TRILLION dollars. Trillion. One tenth our deficit. Consider the possibility of aid packages, societal bribes, lives not lost on the matter, and willing coalition members that could have been purchased for a similar end? Diplomacy is the fine art of appreciating what the ‘enemy’ needs and denying them that without violence, or bribing their populace and neighbors. In the course of this debate, we will explore the adventures that 1.4 trillion dollars could have on a world stage, and how diplomatic negotiation can win the hearts and minds of foreign citizens in the Mid East such that regime changes are possible. (1) http://time.com...
Diplomacy vs Military with regards to the mid east.

I believe military intervention is the better option when dealing with foreign policies in the Middle East. We need a combination of both military and diplomacy but when separating them to having just one or the other, military intervention trumps diplomacy. I personally don't agree with how the US conducts these military interventions but regardless intervention has a better effect on the continent than resorting to only diplomacy. The world economy is deeply engraved and dependent on each other. We need access to markets and in order for those markets to be accessible we need a strong military that will intervene if necessary in order to help keep those markets secured. The Middle East was and currently is often ruled by a dictator. With a lack of check and balances to control the dictator they can do whatever they want with little to no opposition as they can often just silence those oppositions. Diplomacy wouldn't have stopped Iraq from invading Kuwait in 1990, military intervention was necessary to protect our allies Kuwait. If we did not intervene Saddam would've set off a trigger which would've led to severe damage on the world economy, a weakened US position in the world stage etc. Dictators need to be controlled, military intervention will help control them. Dictators will not comply with just diplomacy. Diplomacy is too reliant on the entire world to unify in order to have a real effect and it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.
The 70s were the ugliest decade

further examples abound http://www.cannibalisticnerd.com... http://thebareden.files.wordpress.com... http://www.google.com... I point to my examples here: http://www.plaidstallions.com... http://www.cannibalisticnerd.com... http://3.bp.blogspot.com... http://files.broadsheet.ie... http://www.google.com...
The 70s were the ugliest decade

First, I will begin by defining "ugly."According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "ugly" means- offensive to sight, frightful, or dire.Now, looks are all a matter of opinion. What one man calls ugly, someone else could call beautiful.These examples also contradict your statement.http://www.frugal-cafe.com...http://i.dailymail.co.uk...http://i.dailymail.co.uk...http://theapeonline.com...http://i300.photobucket.com...In addition, people's standards of beauty continue to change throughout the years. The people of the 70s thought that the people of the 30s were ugly.http://aguidetotroubleshootingwomen.files.wordpress.com...40 years from now we will look back on this and say this was the ugliest decade.
There Should Be an Estate Tax

An estate tax is really horrific, considering that money from a dead family member is being taxed. An estate tax is also quite inefficient in its purpose, as studies suggest that the expense to the government of collecting the estate tax is almost as high as the funds received from it, thus making it a highly inefficient way to get revenue. However, I do agree that more tax could be set aside for education, but not from death. I would propose a plan to divert some of the tax money used for the military on education and social mobility projects instead.
There Should Be an Estate Tax

For topic background:http://www.debate.org...The estate tax is needed to increase government revenue and be sure that money is not inherited by children so that millions upon millions will only go from the wealthy to the wealthy.We need an estate tax, ideally all tax revenue would go to education, so that money will not consolidate with wealthy families. Therefore, we should institute an estate tax of 45% on those who have an inheritance of $800,000 or more. This new tax revenue will lower the deficit and increase social mobility. Respectfully submitted,Hierocles.
The Federalist Papers Cannot Support Political Parties

Yes it is true that the Federalist papers were written by those within parties, but the papers were not actually written by only Federalists. James Madison who wrote Fed. 10 was actually a Democratic-Republican, which differs from Federalists in many ways. The argument made using Fed. 10 was that factions/parties are inevitable in places where liberty exists. Liberty allows different thoughts to occur and different opinions to voice their opinions which is what this Fed. paper argues for.
advertisment aimed at children should be banned

Advertisement aimed at children is unethical because children are not mentally developed enough to make decisions. They are easy to manipulate because until the age of 8, they cannot tell that the advertisements seek not to give them information, but to persuade them [1]. These advertisements are directly related to many social problems concerning youth today. First, the child food marketing business is a strong cause of obesity problems in children [1]. They encourage children at a young age to make unhealthy food choices [2]. Second, advertising to children has caused harmful eating disorders [1] by manipulating the child's ideal body image [3]. Third, advertising to boys has promoted violent behavior [1]. They cause children to be more fearful, aggressive, and less sensitive to the pain of other [4]. To my opponent's case: http://www.youtube.com... My opponent states that advertisements aimed at children will give them an insight into what is necessary and what is not. As evidence from the first video, this is not the case. Advertisements aimed at children are based in glittering generality ("Have you got the Pow-Pow-Power?") and false advertising. The video, for example, claims that Jetstreex "smash the speed barrier," although the video obviously doesn't show that. My opponent also states that advertisement will help children come to know about the product. However, this is not necessarily a good thing. A child that comes to know about Jetstreex, for example, is more likely to waste his parent's money on a tiny manual air pump when they could be spending it on something else. http://www.youtube.com... From the second video, it is evident that the same problem occurs in advertisements aimed at little girls. Little girls are asked if they "wanna be a teen top model" and that the way to do that is "B.A.R.B.I.E." It also falsely reports that as a model, the little girl could "be who [she wants] to be," which is false, because models are paid to advertise a specific clothing; instead of defining themselves, they are defined. So, from both Mattel commercials, we can see that my opponent's statements are either false or supportive of my case. Further, advertisements aimed at children have had an overall negative effect on society. Thank you. ==Non-video sources== [1] http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org... [2] http://www.kff.org... [3] http://hubpages.com... [4] http://www.abelard.org...
Anime Rap Battle

Kaori Miyazono(Your lie in April) Now with this I make my stand and say that you can"t simply demand that I throw in the towel because you"re starting to feel a little like a man. This boy still thinks he has a girl when all she wants is to take his life, while the one of the other ones wants to cut him with a knife. In regards to one's wounds your one to talk you lost an arm and leg to a bug that came from a rock. My anime was cheap? Well mine got a second season released. All this and you still don"t understand you"re not even a man. Your parents are dead and you have a loli in your bed. You've got more screws loose than a man on LSD and you really ain't got nothin on me. Nyanta(Log Horizon) I'm one of the original masters of elder tale standing up to monsters in suits of iron and steel. While you faced off with a bear and a girl who couldn't even name the color of her heels. You're an inexperienced boy just a little kid. As for my love life you don"t even know what I did. You're getting lucky you"ve got no real knowledge. Chiaki you say she was only an ai who decided to die and you will never get to look into her eyes. I've got people who look up to me you've barely got a family. You messed up boy trying to pick a fight with me you won"t even be worth making a cup of tea. If we were to have a fight, I would hit you with a Viper"s Thrash and make the battle end real fast.
Anime Rap Battle

Satomi Rentaro: (Black Bullet)What's that, little girl? I couldn't hear you. You're too sick cause you're weak and very prone. At least I can say my significant other didn't end up all alone. You couldn't help by die?What did that little wimp of a man do? Oh yeah! All he did was cry.Just another generic tsunderewho couldn't keep all her wounds away. Hang on... You'll fall for me if I take a picture of you when the wind is blowing at a certain angle, right? *looks lewdly* You call what you went through a masterpiece?More like rinse and repeat.Your boyfriend acts like he hides himself during Halloween.Just remember my Tendo style as I bend and snap your back.Let me put it you this way. Your anime was bad. Really cheap.Look on the bright side. When I feed you my Rokuro Kabuto, you won't have to watch it and continuously fall asleep.Hajime Hinata: (Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair)Should a man in his 40's really be playing an MMORPG?You're like Kirito mated with the grandpa I found across the the street. You must be a cat; since you don't get any p**sy. Not to mention around 300 pounds too fat. A swashbuckler? You couldn't move like that in real life.Let alone find yourself a decent wife.You won't come close to me. I'll see you from miles away.Why are you chasing me? Go work on your horrible sword play.I solve murder and mysteries; day after day. I help all of the class trails; giving everybody aid.It'll take a blind woman in order to finally get you laid.How about this? While I hold Chiaki; solving mysteries and being bold. You act like the cat you are; and chase mice into their holes.
Anime Rap Battle

This is gonna suck but it's worth a try. Kaori Miyazono (Shigatsu wa kimi no uso): I guess i'm here to tell you about myself but first I've got this kid Arima whose head is up on a shelf. He's got problems with his mom even though she's gone and his piano really isn't going on. He used to live the high life now he's living my life just a simple musician trying to turn a blind eye. Then you got me the one true masterpiece taking classic and making it fantastic. That"s enough about me now let's roast this kid who thinks he's got rhymes that I bet didn't even come out of his own mind. You've got some black bullets but what are they really for are you compensating for something or is it really something more. Nyanta (Log Horizon): My name is Nyanta just a simple stylish cat and if I wanted to I could easily whoop ya @$$ i'm part of log horizon and it's as simple as that. I"ve beat dragons and bards and wizards and the like I can tell you right now I could beat this skinny little brat. Your naive son if you think you can beat me I mean you even got told off by a teddy bear with ADHD.