BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stalin is worse than Hitler

In my opinion, Hitler was WAY worse than Stalin. Hitler almost wiped out an entire RACE of religion. Plus, he didn't just focus on one religion, he took out Homosexuals, Muslims, and even straight up poor people. That's pretty f*cked up. The only way Hitler was even caught was by Committing Suicide. Stalin was caught himself. If you pay attention in history class, Hitler was psycho enough to betray a superpower that was BIGGER than his whole army, the Russians. He took over almost all of Europe with an iron fist. He also did the one thing I hope I won't die by: gassing people. The one key factor that i think is most important is this: Hitler started a World War, a war involving many different countries all over the world. I await my opponents response and rebuttals.
Stalin is worse than Hitler

I believe one of the many reasons Stalin was worse than Hitler was even though both of them committed genocides which are terrible atrocities. The Holocaust was 9-11 Million people killed which is considered Childs Play (though in no way and excusable offence) compared to Stalin's death toll of 20-60 Million people. Also Hitler himself may not even be the most evil person in the Nazi party, Heinrich Himmler than man who engineered the Holocaust and created the Nazi Death camps who showed no remorse when has captured and was treated as a criminal.Hitler also was insane. That is undeniable. He is crazy. Stalin though was probably not, a crazed madman and just a remorseless murderer. Basically if a serial killer took control of the one the worlds most powerful countries.Hitler also pulled the world out of the great depression which was the worst economic crisis ever and was the main problem in every country at the time.
Why all children should be rewarded candy when good work is achieved.

Healthy lifestyle habits, including healthy eating and physical activity, can lower the risk of becoming obese and developing related diseases.6 The dietary and physical activity behaviors of children and adolescents are influenced by many sectors of society, including families, communities, schools, child care settings, medical care providers, faith-based institutions, government agencies, the media, and the food and beverage industries and entertainment industries. Schools play a particularly critical role by establishing a safe and supportive environment with policies and practices that support healthy behaviors. Schools also provide opportunities for students to learn about and practice healthy eating and physical activity behaviors. (1) The above information rom the Center for Disease Control demonstrates that eating candy is detrimental to children. Thank you for reading this debate.
Why all children should be rewarded candy when good work is achieved.

Obesity in children is currently a major crisis in the United States. 1/3 of all children were obese in 2008. Obesity increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, bone and joint problems and some psychological problems (1). Giving daily amounts of candy as my opponent proposes would cause more children to become obese and lead to further health risks as listed above. Furthermore, sugar from candy is harmful to the teeth and increases the risk of cavities. It would be better to reinforce children's good behavior and achievement through more positive means that they enjoy, but that do not carry the harmful effects I have shown to occur from candy. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. (1) . http://www.cdc.gov...
Why all children should be rewarded candy when good work is achieved.

I have made a speech on why Children should be rewarded candy if we have finished our work and done a good job of it. I have three main reasons on why we should be rewarded candy. #1- Motivation #2- Happy Children #3- Why it backs up learning Motivation If children get rewarded candy for doing a good job in their work they will be motivated to do a good job so children would get better grades and both teachers and parents will be happy that they are trying hard in their work. Happy Children If children are getting rewarded candy for all the good work they do they would be pleased with themselves that they are doing a good job because candy is a loved treat for children so if they get rewarded candy at the end of the day for doing a good job in their work they will be happy in two ways. One way is that they get candy, and second because they are doing a good job and getting better grades. Why it backs up learning Getting able to do a good job with work because they getting rewarded for children"s good work encourages more people to learn more in their work and getting better grades. It even has effect on the teachers because if your whole class isn"t trying then their grades aren"t good which the ministry of education might look at the grades of the children in the teacher"s class and might think that the teachers aren"t doing a very good job of teaching and the teachers achievements might go down so it has a good effect on everyone. I hope that you can all see my point on why that should happen because I see it as a valid point. Thank-you for listening to my speech and found something interesting and good out of it.
A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable

Before I speak my points, I will do as my opponent has so requested and define the word "acceptable. " By the word "acceptable," I see its definition as, "2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome. " [1] Now I will explain why a speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable. I will argue this in two points. My first point will explain the efficiency of the speculation tax. In 2011, Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Peter DeFazio introduced the Wall Street and Speculators Tax Act, which, if put into effect, would tax three cents per hundred dollars of financial securities. This would be imposed upon trades taking place in the United States, bringing 352 billion dollars in revenue over ten years. [2] Not only would this bring revenue to supplement important programs but it would also fix a crucial tax loophole. The loophole I am speaking of is the fact that American taxpayers pay sales taxes from their transactions, yet those on Wall Street do not pay a sales tax when it comes to buying or selling securities. A speculation tax would also curb investors from making short-term bets, something that would potentially hurt the market if such gambling went out of hand, effectively reducing market volatility. [3] I now move on ahead to my second point: the moral reason why this tax is acceptable. As most of us know, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, more commonly known as the bank bailout, was an approximately 700 billion dollar package used to keep the banks from financial turmoil, despite that their constant lobbying and reckless gambling with the economy brought us to this mess in the first place. [4] Because the government used taxpayer dollars to help the mess-makers, it morally permissible that these same people reciprocate by scratching the back of the American taxpayer. The subsidy created from this speculation tax could help pay for certain programs such as making college tuition-free. And seeing how these same banks are subsidized by the government through tax breaks, tax loopholes (to the point where they pay NEGATIVE TAXES,) as well as the government's oversight of these same banks holding nontaxable, offshore money, it is reasonable that a speculation tax be implemented to keep these people in check. With that, I await my opponent's argument for the second round of debate. Sources: [1]: . http://www.dictionary.com... [2]: . http://ourfinancialsecurity.org... [3]: . http://www.usnews.com... [4]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...
A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable

Greetings, I am honored to have been challenged by name to this debate which will (hopefully) be an exceptional one. Since this is Pro's first debate, I feel obliged to offer a few brief pointers: 1. The debate topic is excellent as a speculation tax on Wall St. is a current, relevant issue. 2. Please define "acceptable" in Round 2. 3. Use as many credible sources as you can. With that said, I eagerly await Pro's opening arguments. Thanks, - Mr. Speaker
Hulk vs Wolverine

As you have known the only time Wolverine has beaten the Hulk was when he was joe fixit but Hulk in the other hand ripped him in half the first time and pummeled him with the x-men the second time so my conclusion Hulk will win here are the videos of Hulk beating x-men with wolverine http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be...(Hulk beating x-men with cain marko) And ofcourse you will try to put Wolverines regen into this The point of the match is who would win and No Hulk will not return to banner until Hulk kills him.Which is automatic win to prove how regen is having a hard time against hulk here a video of deadpool needing 5 days with medical atention to regen from a single punch from Hulk if wolverine pisses off Hulk enough Hulk will rip his skeleton and head off thus not being able to regen that is wolverines flaw once you cut his head off he cannot regen not like deadpool http://youtu.be...
Hulk vs Wolverine

!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! VOTE PRO ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! VOTE PRO ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !
Hulk vs Wolverine

While I concede that Wolverine cannot defeat the Hulk while in Hulk form, Wolverine can defeat the Hulk while in human form, as Bruce Banner and the Hulk are the same person.I agree with PRO that the Hulk will not turn into Bruce Banner by matter of time, but there are ways to forcibly turn the Hulk into Bruce Banner. It is by this method that the Wolverine will defeat the Hulk.http://wiki.answers.com...'s_weaknessHulk only remains in Hulk form when he is angry. The Hulk still possesses a conscience and is prone to have feelings of love, or worry.Therefore, the Wolverine can easily stipulate this emotion within the Hulk by holding a little girl hostage for example. The link specifies that a little girl crying about Hulk smashing will do the trick. Through threats, the Wolverine can simulate this as well, turning the Hulk into Bruce Banner, and killing him.Another way is through radiation manipulation. There are machines that can asorb gamma radiaiton. The wolverine can take one of these machines and turn the Hulk into Bruce Banner and kill him.Both ways, the Wolverine is able to defeat the Hulk. Wolverine is the obvious winner.
Prepei na kataskeuastei ergostasio udrohlektrikhs energeias

Η κατασκευη φραγματων μπορει να εχει σοβαρες επιπτωσεις στους ιχθυοπληθυσμους μιας περιοχης για διαφορους λογους. Μπορει να επιβραδυνει και να σταματησει τις μετακινησεις τους και να υποβαθμισει την ποιοτητα του νερου. Μεσω των αλλαγων που προξενουνται στο οικοσυστημα, μπορει να επελθουν αλλαγες στη συνθεση των ιχθυοπληθυσμων, αυξανοντας, για παραδειγμα, τους αριθμους των αρπακτικων ειδων και προξενωντας, ετσι, προβλημα στα τροφικα πλεγματα της περιοχης.
Prepei na kataskeuastei ergostasio udrohlektrikhs energeias

Με τη δημιουργια φραγματων εξασφαλιζουν οι ανθρωποι αντιπλημμυρικη προστασια κατα τους χειμερινους μηνες. Τα φραγματα ειναι αναγκαια και για την υδροηλεκτρικη ενεργεια αρα εχουμε δυο οφελη.
Prepei na kataskeuastei ergostasio udrohlektrikhs energeias

Ωστοσο προκαλειται μειωση της τροφοδοσιας των εκβολων με φερτες υλες, καθως οι μεγαλυτεροι ογκοι τους κατακρατουνται στους ταμιευτηρες, με αποτελεσμα τη διαβρωση της παρακτιας ζωνης.
Prepei na kataskeuastei ergostasio udrohlektrikhs energeias

Ωστοσο η αποθηκευση μεγαλων ογκων νερου στους ταμιευτηρες βοηθα στην καλλιεργεια των υπαρχουσων χωραφιων, γιατι ειναι δυνατον να διατεθουν μελλοντικα για την καλυψη των αρδευτικων αναγκων.
Prepei na kataskeuastei ergostasio udrohlektrikhs energeias

Για να λειτουργησει το υδροηλεκτρικο εργοστασιο ουσιαστικα δημιουργουμε μια τεχνητη λιμνη. Δηλαδη μια περιοχη που ηταν καλλιεργησιμη εκταση καλυπτεται με νερο.
Prepei na kataskeuastei ergostasio udrohlektrikhs energeias

Στα θερμοηλεκτρικα εργοστασια χρησιμοποιειται ως καυσιμο συνηθως γαιανθρακας ο οποιος δεν ειναι ανανεωσιμη πηγη ενεργειας και, ανεξαρτητα απο την ποσοτητα του, μετα απα καποιο χρονικο διαστημα θα εξαντληθει. Απa2; την καυση του παραγονται πολλα βλαβερα καυσαερια, τα οποια επιβαρυνουν σημαντικα την ατμοσφαιρα. Ενω οι υδροηλεκτρικες εγκαταστασεις στηριζονται σε μια ανανεωσιμη πηγη ενεργειας που ε^3;ναι το νερο, το οποιο δεν επιβαρυνει καθολου την ατμοσφαιρα. Επομενως αυτ^0; που κερδιζουμε ε^3;ναι περισσοτερα απο αυτα που χανουμε.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

Obviously a debate I shouldn't have taken since I have no interest in government or anything pertaining to it. As you can tell by my profile and picture, I am an anarchist who believes no government at all would be a good thing. I would like to point out you said twice, "I thank my opponent for their response" Indicating you have stated that your opponent is more than one person when it is only a simple Christian anarchist. But I won't hold that against you. But I would watch out for that mistake in the future. Reagan armed the terrorists? So do we. We practically have dirty pasts and histories. Reagan was trying to make allies, not enemies. And in the comments, tell me how were the hostages that were traded for the original hostages? Did they live or die? And if I basically admitted that everything you said is true, then I would say you are truthful. But those words didn't come out until I gave this example. But anyways. This debate was alright, but I made a mistake and wish I could've withdrawn this completely. I thank you sir for bearing with me.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

I thanky my opponent for their response. The source my opponent cited is not explained at all by my opponent, but he is refernecing a military coverup in the middle east. This was not treasonous aciton, howvere. It wasn't even technically illegal, just highly immoral. Reagan didn't just negotiate with terrorists, he armed them. "And my main point is who cares? Reagan not only made a lot of good happen compared to other presidents, but he also is dead. So nothing can be done. Unless this is some sort of personal grudge you have with Ronald Reagan. Everything you have said is not news. It's happened since murderers started lying about murders. "This whole statement represents a fundemental flaw in my opponents understanding of the purpose of debate. I am arguing that Reagan should have been convicted of treason and impeached following the Iran-Contra scandal. No, that does not mean that he can be. I am just proving that the decision made was not the just one. My opponent basically admits that everything that I have said is true. Therefore, Reagan did commit an act of treason. He attempts to dismiss the fact that Reagan should have faced the punishment for his crime by stating that he had good intentions, and that it was to save hostages. My opponent appears to have skipped the part of my argument where I proved that Reagans actions only led to even more hostages being taken. My opponent cedes that Reagan committed treason, therefore, he should have been convicted of this crime. Along with such a serious crime, and impeachment would obviously be necissary (as presidents have almost been impeached for lesser crimes such as purgury).
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

Ok. Well one thing I may point out, is that people have been lied to us about several things. In 2007, one of the world's cover ups began while still under the presidency of George W. Bush. http://collateralmurder.com... This pretty much explains itself. Now that we have this, I will also state that while people have done it and got away with treason, Why does Reagan not deserve impeachment. Who wouldn't negotiate with terrorists? Ever seen those movies where you see a clear way of making a deal and winning with a carefully devised plan. Terrorists aren't always going to be smart. So if you don't negotiate with terrorists, even when they have your people hostage, then you hate the American people and must want em to die. Imagine if that was your daughter. Just don't negotiate? Unless the better idea would be Special Ops attack. That may be a good idea. But Reagan wasn't for war. Why do you think he ended the Cold War? And my main point is who cares? Reagan not only made a lot of good happen compared to other presidents, but he also is dead. So nothing can be done. Unless this is some sort of personal grudge you have with Ronald Reagan. Everything you have said is not news. It's happened since murderers started lying about murders.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

I thanky my opponent for their response."Well the only main point I'll point out is that it was a tough situation and any president is going to handle it differently."I assume that this means that my opponent cedes that Reagan did commit what qualifies as an act of treason. I forward all of my points.As for the rest of my opponents argument, they make the point that no president is without fault. This is true, but when a president violates the law, he must be impeached. Clinton was almost impeached (for purgury not adultery. Adultery is not illegal). Hoover recieved much negative attention, but was technically operating within the law. Nixon was impeached for purgurey as well. Reagan commited actions that constitute treason, a crime punishble by a minimum of 5 years in prison. A president, under US law, is impeached for any type of crime they commit. Treason is a crime that is of incredibly serious gravity, and just because someone is the president, doesn't mean that they are immune from the law.In summary, my opponent justifies reagans act of treason by comparing it to other US scandals, that typically did spur the impeachment process, or weren't even violations of US law. Reagan violated US law and committed an act of treason. He deserved impeachment and conviction.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

Well the only main point I'll point out is that it was a tough situation and any president is going to handle it differently. And no 20th century president was not the clean president. Herbert Hoover sent a riot squad to attack veterans and homeless people who protested at the white house, resulting in the death of a mother and her child. This was from a textbook and a lecture in my Junior year of High School. Bush funded way too much of our money in the war in Iraq. Bill Clinton lied about him cheating on Hilary, hurting his reputation and our view on our president. I don't think Reagan should've been impeached for something alot of presidents would do.
The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated

My argumentsDeath Penalty is JustAny crime should be punished proportional to how serious they are. So when a man commits the most atrocious acts, he should receive the highest penalty: the death punishment.This a quote of Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, about one of his case: "In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die." [1]What is described above is just one single case. There are many other criminals who committed much more horrifying murders, and they should receive their retribution.Death Penalty deter crimesPunishment makes people less likely to violate the laws and more severe punishment will deter crimes better. Because everyone fears death, they will be more hesitated before committing a serious crime.In one of his research, Professor Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Buffalo estimated that each execution deterred about seven or eight homicides [2]. Additional research of Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina has reconfirmed Professor Ehrlich's results [3].Counter ArgumentsPro accused me of using a logical fallacy, but it is not true. I didn't use the example of armed robbers to compare with the death penalty. I used it as a direct counter to his "all forms of killing are wrong". Because Pro said "all forms" so my example must be included.Then Pro said that the killing of the robbers is "necessary" but not "morally right". He talked about a desirable where the problem could be solved without anyone killed. Of course it's the ideal solution, but sometimes it doesn't work and you have to use the last resort. So, in a situation where you have no other choice, what will you do? Pro said it's still "not right". I respect his opinion even though mine is different. But it doesn't matter, as I've already said in Round 1: You can't outlaw something just because you personally think it's wrong. Pro said it himself: One should not confuse "crime" with "morally wrong", and this is my point: We outlaw "crime", not something "morally wrong", as morality is subjective.Regarding the "paradox of the death penalty", it requires three conditions to be true. The first and the second ones are debatable but it does not matter. Because Pro conceded the third point, so he conceded this argument and therefore this so-called paradox doesn't exist.[1] http://prodpquotes.info...[2] "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," (1975), Isaac Ehrlich[3] "Homicide and Deterrence: A Reexamination of the United States Time-Series Evidence," (1985), Stephen K. Layson,
The Death Penalty Should Be Eliminated

Firstly, I appreciate Con's prompt and honest response. Now, paraphrasing Con's response to my original claim: Not all forms of killing are wrong, and just because you may think it is morally wrong does not mean that you can make it illegal.My opponent uses the example of the police killing a group of armed robbers due to the robbers' immediate threat to civilians. He then posed the question: "[I]s that wrong as well?" My answer continues to be yes, while contending that such violence is necessary violence. I say this because I maintain that such an argument is a logical fallacy; it is a false comparison. The death penalty, on one hand, is where the state executes a person who is of no immediate danger to anyone else. The convict has committed their crime, been arrested, been jailed, been tried, and has little to no chance of harming another civilian. On the other hand, there is the armed robber, who is an immediate threat to several civilian lives, and is quite dangerous. The state is still involved (the police), but in this case, the state must take action in order to protect its civilians. A more desirable outcome would be for the police to disarm the robbers (be it by negotiation or by non-fatal force). When I say that is a necessary violence, please note that I do not mean morally right. The death penalty is the unnecessary killing of a person who is not a threat. One should not confuse "crime" with "morally wrong", nor should one confuse "necessary" with "morally okay".Con goes on to rebut me by saying that the paradox of the death penalty is "absurd", a point that can be tied to his second point which is that taxpayers are not guilty of crimes committed by the state. Does the state not represent its people? In any state-sponsored endeavor, it must be funded by citizens, the taxpayers. If the state kills someone, the taxpayers become responsible simply because they paid for that action. So, essentially, the government is forcing some people who do not support the death penalty to kill against their will.Con also notes that not all violent criminals are put to death, a clarification that I am aware of but appreciate none the less.I would now like to let Con respond and then elaborate further on his reasons for opposing the abolition of capital punishment.