BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Vikings should not be celebrated

OK, first of all Vikings were not a race but an empire that composed of what is now modern day Denmark, Sweden, and maybe Norway to an extent. Their atrocities against the indigenous Britons for instance is documented. (http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk...). According to that source, "The monastery was sacked and the monks slaughtered. The "fury of the Northmen" in their streamlined long ships struck terror into people from the Northern Isles, Caithness, Sutherland, round western Scotland, and south to Dublin. The Vikings attacked Iona in AD 795, then again in AD 802. Four years later, in AD 806, the Vikings killed 68 monks by the shore at Martyr"s Bay." Cruel and merciless they were. (http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu...) In another source, we see the graphic oppression and repression caused by the Vikings. Now, let's establish some people influenced by this: the Ku Klux Klan. Pillaging, attacking people. Does this sound familiar? This is exactly what the Klan did in its time of power in America. They lynched blacks at random, terrorized them, oppressed them. I definitely believe the English colonists learned their wicked ways from the Vikings, because they had contact with them. Minnesota Vikings team probably has a history of discrimination and humiliating black opponent teams as well in humiliating games with N and C-word clashes. The Vikings they all admired too much.
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

I'm typing this from my iPad, so bear with me. In no way am I attempting to justify the execution of the Romanov family, and I do not agree with Communist ideals. However, if we are to analyze the options presented to Lenin at the time, the choice was simple. His sole options were: 1) Execute the entire Romanov family so as to eliminate the threat of their existence. 2) Hold a trial while undermining the ideals of his totalitarian system. Option 1 clearly makes the most sense for Lenin, and that is why I am supporting it in this debate. There are multiple issues with smuggling the children out if the country. One being that it does not eliminate the threat of the royal family rebelling against him as they could grow up to be power hungry royalists. The other being that once again it violates Lenin's new ideals of government. The Soviet Union essentially showed absolutely no mercy towards its subjects, therefore why should it be merciful towards these children? Because they were royal? That goes against the communist ideal that everyone gets equal, yet limited rights. I believe that the issue that my opponent has is not with merely the executions yet more the actual concept of the Soviet government. In GUIs case I full heatedly agree with him that the government that Lenin established was morally wrong and was terrible for the people of Russia. However, under Soviet rule the execution of the Romanov's was not only justice, yet was preferred.
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

Hey :). I understand procrastination, believe me. My worthy opened makes very valid points and I agree with most of them. In rebuttal and conclusion of this debate, which I have enjoyed immensely, I would like to close with this. A fair trial would undermine the value of communism, but at least it would give the children a chance. Some of them, in fact probably all of them did not understand what their father and mother were doing, and for this I pity them. They were brutally executed, and they had no chance to stand trial fairly and justly. Communism would have been shaken, yes, but I think that if the royal family was not well liked V. Lenin would have been able to keep his life and sanity. Also, I concede that most of your arguments have won me over, but the fact remains about the children. Is it possible that the children could have stood trial, or maybe, just maybe, should have been smuggled out to another nation to live in peace? That is all I have for Round 5, and I would like to thank a fellow history lover for a great debate. I enjoyed it immensely.
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

The point about giving the family a fair trial is valid, however under the new Communist regime it would pose many problems. For one Communism states that every person is to be considered as equal and no privledges are to be granted to anybody. Therefore giving the Romanovs a trial would be incredibly hypocritical given that none of the other Soviet citizens were given any form of a trial. True, murdering the royal family may seem extreme, however in Lenin's point of view, he had no other option. I have shown that keeping them alive was politically unwise given that their was always the possibility that the Romanovs may rebel against his new and fragile Soviet rule. However by showing them mercy and granting them a trial (one that the Romanovs would most certainly lose mind you) he would be breaking the very fundamentals of Communism. It would either be to grant everyone a fair trial, something Lenin certainly didn't want to do as it lessened the power of the government, or not give the royal family a trial at all. Appologies again for the short resonse. Procrastination truly is my fatal flaw :P
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

No problem on running out of time :), I understand, life is busy and hectic. For Round 4, I am somewhat at an impasse. Your points are very valid, and I agree with most of them, like the threat to the throne the children would pose. However, I think the only reason people supported Lenin is because they were forced to. Communism often forces people to support them (North Korea for instance). The majority of Russia was probably more harassed by the socialists/communists than they were under Czar Nicholas II. I think that the Czar was naive and unable to understand that his throne was at stake. Thus, my argument for Round 4 is: The Romanov family was naive, and while killing them removed a threat to the throne, they should have been allowed a fair trial.
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

My opponents opening argument was quite brief and direct, therefore my rebuttal shall follow a similar fashion. My opponent states that Nicholas II had not commited any atrocities worthy of execution in his opening round, however in the third round he clearly states that he was mistaken about this so I have nothing to rebut here.The primary issue with keeping the Royal Family alive is that they will constantly pose a threat to the newly established Soviet Union. Their will always be the possibility that at least one of the members will rise up in rebellion to claim the throne. Now it is clear that this is not in the best interests of the Soviet Union however what really matters is if this is in the best interests of the people of Russia or not. To answer this, we must see what percentage of the population supported Lenin as opposed to the Tsar. This is not exactly a set in stone number, however it can be assumed that since the Tsar had been so abusive towards his people the people would be more likely to support Lenin. While in truth Lenin did not truly have the full support over the Russian people in 1918 when he overthrew the tsar, given that he had only true control over the slice of land between Moscow and the European border, while everything else was essentially under anarchy. However we see that after Lenin destroyed the White Rebelion in 1921 the majority of the people of Russia supported Lenin [1][2]. Appoligies for how short this argument was, however I am running out of time!Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

Hey. Thank you for posting your argument it was very informative, I learned a lot, and I am grateful again for your respect, kindness to me, and willingness to debate this. I had no idea that Nicholas II was Anti-Jewish. That is crazy. Be that as it may, I do not think that killing his entire family was a good idea still. Nicholas II could have been executed for his crimes against Jews, Russians and everyone and that I don't think would have been a huge problem, because it would be for crimes against the state. However, killing his entire family was not good. Who says that all of the family was Anti-Semitic or guilty of the death of the innocents? I believe that Nicholas children and his wife did not or could not know what their father did. They did not deserve to be executed like their father.
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

I'm going to keep my argument short given that I am running out of time, and I have other obligations at the moment. I am going to be arguing that the offenses of the Czar (or Tsar) were too great and that the seemingly immoral execution of him and his family was for the betterment of the Russian people. The history of the former Czar of Russia is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world (Dec of Ind. reference :D) 1. The Czar Nicholas II was known amongst his peers as Nicholas the Bloody after several vicious events that were related to his rule. The Khondynka Tragedy is one such event. At this Khondynka Tragedy over 1,000 citizens were stampeded to death at the coronation of Nicholas II. While it is unsure that it is a direct result of the coronation, it is most likely. Another event was the Bloody Sunday which occurred when the Imperial Guard shot upon protesters who were attempting to present a petition to the Czar [1]. 2. Nicholas II was also infamous for his anti-semitism. Nicholas II was the initiator of many violent pogroms against Jews resulting in over 4,000 deaths and an additional 10,000 injuries for little reason outside of discriminating against Jews. Further evidence of his anti-semitism was shown in this quote: "He had a particular animus for the Jews. When Stolypin, the chairman of the Council of Ministers 1906-11, proposed to relax certain restrictions imposed on the Jews in the Pale of Settlement, the tsar replied: ‘In spite of the most convincing arguments in favour of an affirmative decision in this matter, an inner voice ever more insistently confirms that I should not take this decision upon myself. So far my conscience has never deceived me. Therefore in this case also, I intend to follow its dictates.’ Not for nothing did the tsar become a member of the anti-Semitic Union of the Russian People, subscribe to the Union’s funds and receive its president, Dr Dubrovin, on friendly terms. He had no sympathy for the victims of the pogroms that followed the publication of the Manifesto of October 1905. On the contrary, he saw in them a revolt against ‘the impertinence’ of the socialists and revolutionaries" [2].3. Nicholas II also was infamous for his execution of political opponents, especially the Social Democrats [3]. Now the major concern in this situation is not the assassination/execution of Nicholas II, but the execution of the remainder of his family. If the removal of Nicholas II was for the better of society, it is clear that the removal of the royal family would help the entire country. While admittedly the new Soviet government did not significantly improve the situation, at the moment it would be considered justice to the Russian people. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.marxist.com... [3] http://books.google.com...
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

Hi! This should be fun, one history lover to another in a fun debate on a very controversial topic. Thank you for your courtesy first off. Now then with the formalities concluded, my arguments for Round 2 as follows The Romanov line was not totally innocent of crimes, but they were for the most part naive to the Russian Revolution of 1917. It was not Justice to kill children, teenagers really, by a Bolshevik firing squad. Prince Alexi, and Princess Anastasia, Tatiana, Olga, and Maria were innocent of the crimes their parents were charged with. They were naive to what their father Czar Nicholas II was facing, and to my knowledge did not commit crimes worthy of death. The Romanov line was brutally murdered by a Russian firing squad, that in the process bayoneted or shot innocent children. Their execution was unfair and unjust. If it was inevitable, there should have been a fair trial held before a criminal court. They should have had adequate lawyers and a fair judge, not be hastened into a basement and brutally murdered. I rest my case for Round 2, and I really look forward to hearing my opponents argument.
The execution of the Romanov royal family in Russia by the bolsheviks was justice

Greetings everyone, it's Kylar. I am an avid history lover, and I am curious about your opinion on this topic. The Romanov's: Czar Nicholas II of Russia and his family are rather infamous. They were overthrown in the Russian Revolution and were executed on July 17th 1918 by bayonets or firing squad. Was this justice? I am adopting the Con viewpoint.
Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

This is a challenge to soccerisfun, who expressed interested in this topic. It will be debated similar to a LD topic, though not verbatim.The round structure will play out as follows:R1: Con: RulesPro: Acceptance and Presentation of CaseR2:Con: Presenation of Case, RebuttalsPro: Rebuttals, DefenseR3: Con: Rebuttals, Defense, Closing StatementsPro: Closing Statements (why you should win), no arguments.Rules:No k's of the topicNo semanticsNo trollingNo forfeitureMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphereFailure to comply to these stipulations results in an automatic loss.Definitions:Presumed consent: "that is, in the absence of written instructions to the contrary, it is presumed the decedent has agreed to the donation of organs at the time of death." [1]Ought: moral obligation [2]Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved: Just governments ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Let's go through the arguments each side won and who the winner of the round should be. We can ignore the FW mishap because the rules weren't too precise. I assumed it was full LD but it turns out that wasn't the case. So let's see the FW arguments. He says his definition of PC doesn't rule out soft consent. "that is, in the absence of written instructions to the contrary, it is presumed the decedent has agreed to the donation of organs at the time of death." This is clearly hard consent only, like I said earlier. I can't argue, but it should be common sense that this definition is hard consent. He says he's winning donation rates and autonomy but I will show why I'm winning both of these later. So whoever wins donation rates wins his C1 and 2 and my C1. Once again, I showed that his evidence was based on family consent. e.g. "What he and his colleagues learned was that even in the countries with presumed consent, donation was still discussed with the potential donor"s family at the time of death, even though doctors were legally permitted to transplant those organs." from his #2, which is the same as 3. But instead of doing this again, let me rehash why I said my evidence is better. 1) It takes into account other factors. 2) It's a metastudy, so its unbiased. 3) It uses the right definition of PC. I also showed how Austria, one of the few countries that uses PC correctly, has a whopping 99% donation rate and that example flew through uncontested. PREFER MY EVIDENCE for all these reasons. Now to autonomy, the other main point. He doesn't understand my refutation. I showed that in the status quo, people still have to interact with the government in order to make a decision. So I'm winning this for three reasons. 1) His offense is non-unique because the status quo forces people to opt-out, and if they don't their organs aren't donated- which isn't what most people want. 2) I quoted a medical expert who says the way they do policy is by assuming the more popular option WHICH IS DONATING, so I make sure more people have their choice honored. 3) People who opt out have strong reasons to do so and will remember to do so. I make more people have their true wishes honored, so I respect autonomy more. Thus I am winning under both frameworks. Just keep this in mind when voting. We are looking at if a just government should implement hard presumed consent. It improves over opt in because it preserves autonomy more because most people want to donate, it increases donation rates when looking at the best study available, and if implemented correctly, can have donation rates of 99%. A just government would not turn it into family consent or pull a Brazil. As it stands, I beseech you vote aff. Thanks for the debate opponent.
Euthanasia is acceptable

Thanks to Pro for this debate; my final responses are below.Opponent's Contention One: It degrades human lifeMy opponent just evades my actual refute that there's no source and that almost the whole thing is quoted and merely states:"Can you show me that euthanasia does not degrade human life?" This is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy. In this debate, the burden of proof was on both of us, if it wasn't, you wouldn't have used any contentions. My opponent clearly implies his positive stance of: Euthanasia degrades human life. Saying that "I cannot show how it doesn't" ((I can - I'll address it later)), therefore, you're correct is not adequate. I made a suggestion, expressed as a motion, as to what the source was showing - EPAC's evil, evil money-holding lords! My point is that my opponent gives no source to back up these large claims and thus I can logically dismiss them without the need for counter-evidence. No point providing counter-evidence if there's nothing to counter. In reality, my opponent's contention was how legal euthanasia could be mistreated. Fine. But he hasn't given me any examples of this! At least, nothing that holds up to scrutiny."You have the burden of proof!" As I already pointed out; I have some of the burden. My opponent has some more, which he tried to fulfil by using contentions. In conclusion, my opponent's refute to my counter was evasion, straw man, and he completely missed the point of my refute. He also tried to shift the burden of proof completely onto me.Opponent's Note One: Free will and sacrednessI won't go into semantics, but my opponent moves the goalposts here. Life is sacred to a degree, but I will show why euthanasia can actually support this claim later.Opponent's Contention Two: The US court rulingsMy opponent apparently consents this ad populum fallacy. Since a fallacy is, by definition, not logical, his whole contention is refuted. Nevertheless, I will continue to counter:"That can only be appeal to authority if the supreme court is not entitled or expert to give its opinion."Demonstrably false. An authority fallacy is authority = truth. Indeed, my opponent's counter actually supports my claim, because it is an authority it makes the argument fallacious! You cannot use an authority to equal truth. Refuted.I should counter my opponent's contention to reveal it for the fallacious argument it is. If it's fallacious, which I have shown, then it's invalid.Contention One: HumilityI gave a hypothetical situation. In this case, euthanasia would be acceptable. I do not have to give examples, only why it is acceptable. We are talking about the concept, not the actual act - even though they are similar. Therefore, my opponent's counter was true to an extent, but it doesn't work as a refute. I extend my argument because my opponent has failed to refute it.A big thanks to my opponent for this entertaining debate! I'll see you all around!J
Euthanasia is acceptable

Thanks to Con for his opening contentions; allow me to respond.Opponent's Contention One: It devalues human lifeCon's case is that there was one report issued by EPAC that made a suggestion that killing people is OK, because it saves money. Well, let me consider this.First, a lot of Con's contention is quoted word for word from his source, a blog (I believe) by one Bill Muehlenberg.[1] Here's the thing, it gives no source of it's wild assertions. It is merely a wall of text making bold claims to degrade EPAC's stance[1]. No source at all. Con's whole case is a source less quote. It is not reliable and is also an ad hominem of: EPAC did this bad thing, therefore, euthanasia is bad.So, until Con provides a reliable source, his contention is just a claim without evidence and thus can be dismissed without evidence. "Life is very sacred, accepting euthanasia destroys that sanctity. It may be your life but according to God, you don’t have the right to take it." This is religious bias and thus invalid. ((Even if it were true, so much for free will, eh?))Opponent's Contention Two: "It neither preserve[s] human life nor protect[s] the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion"Here, my opponent puts forward a vast array of fallacies and implied fallacies. It is a series of court cases in the USA that found euthanasia to be unacceptable. Here are the fallacies:Ad populum: The majority thought that euthanasia is wrong, therefore, euthanasia is wrong.Appeal to authority: The supreme court itself thought that it was wrong, therefore, it is wrong.If that holds, I argue that the Belgian courts found it was OK, therefore, it's OK.The problem with my opponent's second contention is that it is just a court ruling and not an actual argument. Now that my opponent's contentions are refuted, allow me to introduce a contention of my own:Contention One: HumilityHere's a scenario: An old man, a war veteran, is terminally ill. He is dying, in constant great pain; he is also paralysed and cannot move. Day by day, more of his muscles lose control; he's already lost control of his bowels, legs, arms etc... He is also poor with no family and has to be attended to by doctors and nurses every single day. He wants to die.But he can't.Euthanasia is to preserve humility of a person who cannot do anything, who wants to die, who cannot do anything, in great pain, and immense suffering. It is a way out - a final way out. Con presents a case where this cannot happen and thus far, he has given no reason as to why it shouldn't be so. I'll pass the ball over to Con, then.See you all next round![1]http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...
Evolution (Pros) VS. Adam And Eve (Con)

Now, nearly your whole argument is based on who has the BOP. I was expecting you to try to prove both wrong. I have already proved evolution right (admitted by you) so if it were to stand right now, I would take convincing arguments. Your only hope is to prove that Adam And Eve happened to tie. Providing you saying that it is probably a metaphor makes it a he// of a lot harder for you to prove it right. As for my argument against Adam and Eve, you literally didn't try to rebut any of it.Good luck!