BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Holocaust Really Happened

There is further evidence to support his assertion that gassing never happened... Though six million Jews supposedly died in the gas chambers, not one body has ever been autopsied and found to have died of gas poisoning. We have been shown piles of bodies from World War II, but most of these persons died of typhus or starvation or Allied bombings and a great many of those were murdered Germans, not Jews. Even if we threw away all the evidence and accounted for every so-called gas chamber, it would have taken 68 YEARS to accomplish gassing six million Jews!
The Holocaust Really Happened

http://www.holocaust-history.org..."Toxicological analysis were carried out in 1945 by the Cracow Forensic Institute (7 Copernicus street) on 4 complete plates and 2 damaged ventilation orifices found in the ruins of Krematorium II. After scraping the white substance that covered these objects back to the metal, 7.2 grammes of scrapings were collected and subjected to two qualitative analysis, which established the presence of cyanide compounds. The report, signed by Dr. Jan Z. Robel, was written on 15th December, 1945 and transmitted to the Examining Judge, Jan Sehn." "In 1945, an examination by the Institute of Judicial Expertise in Krakow of a sample of hair found in Auschwitz revealed the presence of compounds of prussic acid, the basic component of Zyklon B gas used in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. Traces of the acid were also found in metal objects found in the hair, such as pins, clasps, and gold-plated spectacle holders."Leuchter Is NOT CredibleLeuchter's only degree was a BA in history. He misrepresented himself as an "engineer", and wrote his findings to help defend a holocaust denier, Ernst Zündel in court in Toronto.
The Holocaust Really Happened

I thought this would be a long thing, anyway... Records of what exactly? Ever heard of Fred A. Leuchter? Fred A. Leuchter is America's leading specialist on the design and fabrication of execution equipment, including homicidal gas chambers. In 1988, Leuchter scraped samples from the alleged gas chamber walls in Auschwitz, Birkenau and Lublin. Cyanide residue would be clearly evident on all these walls if gassings did occur. To his astonishment, Leuchter found no significant cyanide traces in any one of these rooms. In 1991, the Polish government repeated these tests to disprove Leuchter's findings, but they as well found no evidence of any gassings ever occurring.
Gay marriges should be legalized.

===Definitions===Gay marriage refers to civil recognition of same-sex partnerships equal to recognition of difference-sex partnerships. ===Counters===Con's argument is basically as follows:P1: Most countries accept freedom of choice. P2: Gay marriage is a choice. C: Therefore, gay marriage should be legalized. A. Pro's first argument is that "almost every country in the world" recognizes freedom of choice. This is his first mistake since it amounts to little more than an argument from popularity. Everyone else is doing something so it must be right. This is actually a formal fallacy, referred to as argumentum ad populum. A clearly invalid example (though one which employs the exact same reasoning) would be to argue from the popularity of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany to it's supposed validity. But this is clearly not the case. Since this line of reasoning can lead us to absurd consequences, it amounts to nothing as far as a valid method of inference is concerned. B. Next we may focus attention on Pro's assumed premise, that choices must be justified by virtue of that very fact. If this is the case than we can look at examples of other choices and expect to come to the same conclusion right? Murder is a choice. Rape is a choice. Presupposing free will on our parts, every possible course of action is a choice. But where our counter examples of rape and murder clearly refute this position. Some choices are valid, others are not. Just reasoning from the existence of choice to validity though is an unsound argument. Pro's argument has been successfully refuted.
An Autocracy is a Better Form of Government than a Republic for Underdeveloped Countries

I accept, with the additional definition assumed:Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives" (Oxford)http://oxforddictionaries.com...;I'm also taking part through presenting my own video responses, rather than typing, in order to practice speaking. Any comments regarding my voice would be much appreciated when it comes to voting. Thank you.
An Autocracy is a Better Form of Government than a Republic for Underdeveloped Countries

Hello, this is my first debate and I've chosen a (hopefully) controversial issue, and hopefully not thoroughly explored in previous debates. Round Format : 1. Intro/Acceptance 2. Opening Statements and Con opening rebuttal 3. Rebuttal/Responses 4. Responses/Closing Statements Definitions: Autocracy: a system of government by one person with absolute power (Oxford Dictionaries) Better: more desirable, satisfactory, or effective (Oxford) Democracy: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives (Oxford)
The government department named "The Department of Defense" is misleading and wrongly named.

Fine, I agree About your point on that when the army is out to attack, in should be in a different department. So don't say it's misleading and needs to be change. In conclusion, when we are attacking OTHERS, then it's appropriate to have its OWN deparement. Not change the previous one. One department that is for the protection of the United States, which is the department of defense. And one taking matters in our own hands at war.
The government department named "The Department of Defense" is misleading and wrongly named.

My opponent does not understand what I am trying to say. He is ignoring my points. I will say them again. Our department names should reflect what they are saying, and when the government is going into other nations to kill people, that is attacking. Thus, for our troops overseas fighting others, they should not be categorized under the Department of Defense. For your argument that all of our military isn't attacking I just have to say, obviously! So if it makes you happy, I would be satisfied with keeping all defense missions within the United States controlled by the Department of Defense. HOWEVER, all attacking overseas should not be under the Department of Defense. They should be under the control of a different department. If we can't think of a new name for that department that throughly sums up what we are doing overseas that sounds civilized and proper, then what we are doing in not civilized and proper. Again, we can keep the department of defense if it makes people feel safer. That is fine as long as everything that department is doing is DEFENSE. In conclusion, our department names should reflect what they are truly doing. So when we invade other countries, we should have a name that reflects that. When we are defending ourselves, we can call it the department of defense.
The government department named "The Department of Defense" is misleading and wrongly named.

The deparement doesn't always deal with wAr you know. Every action they make doesn't reflect on war itself. It also deals with terrositic threats that doesn't come from Iraq or any other place that's not a war zone. The name the department of defense is supposed to sound like a civilized organization. Not a "always making war plans" battle station. People felt safer towards the name "the deparement of defense" thAn "the department of war" because it reassures them that the ones that are responsible of providing the safety of this country aren't always into the war affairs
The government department named "The Department of Defense" is misleading and wrongly named.

You asked me what the name of the department should be. My answer; something that truly reflects what it is doing. If it was truly and just defending itself, i could be called the department of defense. Before the 1950's, it was called the Department of War. Frankly, this would be a better name because we are fighting a WAR! I don't care what it is called, just that it should truly reflect what they are doing! Don't lie like Big Brother. He said "WAR IS PEACE" and "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY". He called his department the Ministry of Truth, where he had workers changing the history to best suit the needs of Oceania. Next, you said: "If the U. S. is keeping invaders out, that's a defense right? " My response: No! You are wrong for a couple of reasons. .. First, the amount of "invaders" of our country have been like less than 100. We have sent tons of troops to the Middle East. Next, we may be keeping the invaders out by taking a visit to their country with our military, but WE ARE INVADING THEM! We have sent drones and thousands of military personnel to fight them in their own country. You cannot say that is pure defense. You should understand the concept of attack versus defense. Attacking is when you go out of you land and into another persons land. Defending is when someone else comes into your land and you stand your ground. Its that simple. To conclude: 1. Our department names should reflect what they are truly doing 2. It doesn't matter if they invaded us first or if they attacked us 3. Because we have attacked/invaded them by entering their country.
The government department named "The Department of Defense" is misleading and wrongly named.

The Department of Defense, to a logical person, means that one is defending themselves from an attacker. It does not mean you are fighting war, attacking, or trying to make peace. It means you are defending yourself from invaders. Our troops are in nearly 150 countries (http://www.cnn.com...)! We have invaded many countries since the name change, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan... (and who knows how many secret operations went on). Take Iraq or Afghanistan for example, we invaded their lands, killed their civilians, and brought their "criminals" to justice. How is that a defensive maneuver? That is an act of aggression! No wonder why so many people over there hate us; its cause we are ATTACKING THEM! Now I know you are going to say, "well they attacked us first." "So this is just us defending ourselves." -Cool, maybe they did. But we aren't defending ourselves when we fly our troops halfway around the world and kill others. That simply is not defense. Good Luck in the debate.
Employees who use childcare issues to excuse their absence from work should not get paid

My argument is that having children is a choice and parents must accept that having children will bring costs. In families where both parents work full-time, one of those costs is the salary of a nanny or au pair girl who can look after their children if their school is closed. However, some greedy, selfish parents shirk their responsibilities and save the cost of a nanny and have to take days off work themselves to look after their children when their school is closed, thus obliging their colleagues to cover for them – and they still expect to be paid! That's just not fair and that's why I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
Employees who use childcare issues to excuse their absence from work should not get paid

As you may have seen on the news, much of northern Europe is lying under a thick blanket of snow and many schools are closed as a consequence. [1] This means large numbers of employees with children have taken the opportunity to bunk off work, fobbing their employers off with the pathetic excuse that they have to stay at home to look after their kids. Their absence puts huge additional strain on their more conscientious and less selfish colleagues, who would love to stay at home and have snowball fights and go sledging, but realise that they have a responsibility to their employers to keep their businesses running come what may. This week most UK airports were closed or were subject to severe delays, but regardless of that, on Wednesday night I made use of all forms of transport to get back to London from a trade fair I was attending in Barcelona, finally arriving in the office twelve hours after setting off and having had no sleep - but I had no complaints about that – however, I did bitterly resent that I then had to put in a fourteen-hour day because some of my co-workers with "childcare issues" thought that I should do their jobs for them while they played in the snow with their kids. And what really adds insult to injury is the fact that these skulking loafers will get paid the same at the end of the month as the employees who did their jobs for them while they were having fun at home. Now, that's not right is it? What would your employer say if you called up and said: "Hello Mister Big Boss Man, sir, I'm calling to let you know that l won't be coming into the office today as it's snowing and, to be honest, I'd rather build snowmen and drink mulled wine than come into work and do my job – and don't even think about docking my pay because if you do I'll have you up court so fast your feet won't even touch the ground." Do you think you'd have a job to come back to if you did that? Probably not, but if you are a parent you are legally entitled to take dependency leave if your child needs looking after at home [2] and there's nothing firms can do to about it – they have to take the hit and rely on the goodwill of the remainder of their workforce to put in the extra hours to cover their absent colleagues. Of course, mums and dads could easily make alternative arrangements for school closures: they could leave their kids with the other parent, friends, relatives, neighbours, older children or they could bring them to work with them and tie them up outside; whatever: but if they if they decide to skive off instead they should not expect to be paid for staying at home with their families while their workmates do their jobs for them – the bunch of indolent, work-shy slackers. Thank you. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://www.lawandparents.co.uk...
Romantic french kissing is better with eyes closed

PREMISES (I., II., & III.):(I.) Sacrifice sight, Enhance touch When you close your eyes, your other senses become more sensitive. That is why many of those who French kiss choose to close their eyes. [1] By shutting their eyes they take away their visual sense in order to emphasize touch. The reason why a French kiss is so pleasurable is due to the high sensitivity of the human tongue, not because of sight. [2] By taking away the "distraction" of sight, the tongue becomes even more sensitive to the touch, improving the quality of the French kiss. The sense of sight is pretty irrelevant when it comes to French kissing, as the next argument will prove. (II.) Kissing a distracting blur?Moreover, it is difficult for your eyes to focus on a face from kissing distance. [3] Trying to focus on the face instead of looking at a blur becomes a big distraction and takes away from the experience of kissing. Try putting a big object really close to your face; it's going to turn really blurry, and you will have to constantly re-focus your eyes in order to see it... Keeping your eyes open is an unnecessary hassle that takes away from the kissing experience. (III.) Causing a tense moment to be less tense Although it is certainly a very passionate and romantic activity, French kissing often makes both parties feel uneasy and vulnerable. [3] If both parties have their eyes open and are staring at each other, it only makes the situation more awkward and uncomfortable. Closing their eyes makes both parties feel more at ease and takes away from the uneasiness and tension that naturally comes during intimate moments like these. This is similar to why many couples choose to turn off the lights during sex. ...For these reasons, French kissing with closed eyes is better than French kissing with open eyes. [1] http://books.google.com...[2] http://www.eroticcosmetics.com...[3] http://sciencefocus.com...Thank you. I am eager to read my opponent's refutations.
Romantic french kissing is better with eyes closed

I accept, this challenge.As PRO has not provided a definition for better, I will do so.Google defines better as: of a more excellent or effective type or qualityhttp://www.google.ca...The purpose of a french kiss, or any kiss, is to display your intimate feelings for your significant other.Therefore, a better french kiss would be a kiss where it is more effective in achieving this goal. A better french kiss would be a kiss where it is much more intimate, and you are able to display deeper and truer feelings for your partner.As side CON, I will prove that this can be achieved much more so with your eyes opened during a french kiss.I await PRO's arguments.
The NCAA in football should change to a playoff system.

First of all, I'd like to say that I am glad to be here (first debate on the site) and that this will be fun to argue, since I don't have a bias to either side of this debate. That being said, I must negate the resolution presented here that the NCAA in football should change to a playoff system. Observation 1. While not all bowl games are part of the BCS the resolution does not state that the BCS is the only set of bowl games. Though the affirmative mentions the BCS exclusively a number of times in its argument the affirmative does not state that it is the only college football avenue open to debate. Therefore it becomes the negative's burden to set the grounds of the debate, therefore argument will be open to any and all of the bowl games played between Division I teams, even outside of the 5 games played in January that belong exclusively to the BCS. Contention 1. Revenue is lost to many of the sponsors of the bowl games if the bowl games in question are dropped to make room for bracket games. While a company can sponsor a game in the earlier rounds of a proposed tournament, the revenue generated will be less likely to meet the revenue of a bowl game. While the affirmative can argue that larger-market schools can generate more ratings and more revenue, this creates a catastrophe in which companies will be fighting over the big-ticket games which creates too many problems for its expected reward. Contention 2. The BCS is working for its own good in the long run. The BCS has the 5 biggest sponsoring companies of all the Division I bowl games, and tends to choose larger-market teams to help generate even more monetary gain, as higher ratings will result in higher revenue; also look to the fact that even in seeded tournaments such as the NCAA Men's basketball National Championship tournament, larger schools will almost always still come out on top no matter if the rankings are biased or unbiased due to overall better recruiting due to having a more prominent name in their respective sport (i.e. the Dukes and North Carolinas of football). Contention 3. By dropping bowl games, you end many teams' seasons too early. The affirmative states that "The BCS could still be maintained for the rest of the teams that are not in the tournament," however the BCS only consists of five games, therefore it is useless to uphold a system that these schools can no longer compete in. It is wiser to continue the BCS normally and keep bowls alive for smaller schools that may not have the same abilities as a larger school, and while underdog stories such as that of the Boise State victory do go against this claim, it is somewhat of a rare feat, and you also must apply my C2 in this case, where larger market teams will always be chosen for the revenue, which is the more important factor to the people in the industry. For some schools, the minor bowls are like their championships, their small but proud victories, and the cap to a season that obviously went well enough for them to earn a spot for a bowl. Therefore for the arguments I have presented, I strongly urge you to vote negative in this debate.
The NCAA in football should change to a playoff system.

Whether or not there should be a playoff system in college football is one of the most controversial aspects of college football. Right now, we are stuck with the traditional BCS which has had its positives but its time to change. In 2006, #9 Boise State defeated the heavily favored #7 Oklahoma Sooners in one of the most spectacular games ever witnessed in college football. Now this may not seem like much of an upset, but Boise State only has about 11,000 full-time students. Oklahoma has about 30,000. The reason Boise State got a ranking that high was because they went undefeated in the regular season. Oklahoma lost three during the regular season. Boise State did everything they possibly could do and was still denied the opportunity to compete for the national championship. The BCS makes it virtually impossible for smaller teams to try for the national championship. Not only does the BCS hurt the small teams, but also the larger schools. There have been many instances where there has been much controversy over who the top two teams should be. The teams given the opportunity to compete in the championship game should not be based on the opinions of so called "experts." Such subjectivity needs to be done away with. The solution to this problem is a hybrid of both the BCS and an average playoff system. For the playoff part, the top 6-8 teams could be put in a tournament style bracket. The BCS could still be maintained for the rest of the teams that are not in the tournament. In essence, the only thing you would be changing is the top 6-8 teams which would eliminate controversy over who should be given a chance for the national championship.
The NCAA in football should change to a playoff system.

1. A six to eight team tournament would not allow for the almost twentysomething bowl game sponsors each year. And cramming multiple sponsors into each makes them have to split the rewards. 2. "The BCS is usually more concerned with the teams that would generate the most money than with the teams who deserve it the most." Exactly. While we think it's unfair, they won't choose a more fair system due to the fact that they would get more from larger-market teams' viewership ratings, even by fans of neither team. Making money is more important to the networks than good football, despite how enthusiastic the commentators are. The CEOs don't care, they just don't want to see ratings drop, because that's more money in their pocket. 3. You mentioned the BCS the first time, which is only the 5 BCS championship games. The smaller schools could not compete for BCS titles. You now state that you said that they keep the regular bowl games too? Make up your mind. 4. A tournament would also be bad for the sole reason that this is not basketball, and too many games are trying to be fit into little time. Basketball teams can play multiple games a week, but football would result in a tournament spread too thin for fans who lack the luster of the hardcore alumni fans at home or the just generally hardcore fans. It becomes a bit too much like the NFL playoffs where only one championship game is played. How would you determine who would get slotted into the remaining BCS Tournament Bowl Games, (as I will refer to them here)? Yes, a National Championship matchup is much easier, but slotting teams into the other four isn't, as you did say you planned to keep bowls open.