BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Division I college football should adopt a plus one playoff system

I think that it should stay the same way. I know it is not perfect and many teams do believe that they should have a chance at a playoff game but it is tough to put into D1 college football. A whole playoff system like the National Football League would be nice but then how do you determine who would make it and the plus one does seem like a good system but then the two or three teams out of the top four will think they should be in. The system in now has been working. Keep it the same way. The top two teams should play each other for the national championship. The other teams still make the playoffs with the other Bowl games. A lot of teams win also because there are a lot of Bowl games. Using last season as an example I believe that the two best teams in college football played against each other for the national Championship when Alabama beat LSU.
Division I college football should adopt a plus one playoff system

In division I college football, the two teams that play for the national championship are decided by the top two teams in the BCS rankings. A system that ranks the top 25 college football teams in the nation. However, every year there are always multiple teams that think they deserve a shot at the national championship game and don't get it because only the top two ranked teams have a shot to play for it. In no other sport in the world that I know of is there such a small playoff system that negatively affects the integrity of the true champion. Therefore a plus-one (4 team bracket) playoff system needs to be adopted. Anyone who feels differently (thinks there should be a larger than 4 team bracket, it should be kept the same, or any other view is welcome to debate the topic)
Rematch: so-called racist skinheads are really dumb and know nothing of the true Nazis

Nice arguments ! And sorry for the half finished sentence my pc played tricks on me If Hitler was not realy a supermacist that would mean that his book mein Kampf which spoke of the needed Lebensraum(Living space) was not writen by him. It was the planed policy of the Nazis to -after winning the war- kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic people. Secondly the fact remains that the nazists had no reason to get the jews to the concetration camps other than ideological ones,nor had they any reason to undermine the russian conquest by angering the populace that initialy was welcoming the invaders as liberators from the stalin police state.It is an accepted fact that had the nazis not ill-treated the russian people the partisans would have never been formed and the nazis would have a better chance of success as there would be no partisan ruled chokes of land inside the conquered territory and as a result the supply lines would be intact. Finaly I dont see any reason for Hitler to attack the USSR anyway under any circumstances.Stalin had an extremely bad leaded (because of his police state killing many good officers because of indications of not being completely loyal to the state and the fact that stalin chose his generals with the criteria of loyalty not skill)and ill-equiped (not all russian soldiers had rifles, some fought with rocks and sticks months after the declaration of war)army and did not want to fight the germans.Thats why he chose to sign the Molotov"Ribbentrop Pact (non aggresion pact and a deal of which countries belonged to whose sphare of influence).No army could ever reach to the uralian mountains in the middle of the winter.Hitler underestimated his enemy thinking it would be an easy win.The racial hate and belief of supermancy lead to his downfall. The KKK are the spiritual successors of the nazist party and even if they dont follow the Nazi dogma to the letter their beliefs are heavily ispired by them.
Rematch: so-called racist skinheads are really dumb and know nothing of the true Nazis

Lets get started First of all you stated that Hitler is not a Nordic supermacist because he allied himself with Japan and Italy.Hitler allied himself with all the fascists regimes in central europe as well (Romania,Hungary,Bulgaria). That was because he chose to ally himself with all the countries that were under the same system as his: The totalitarian system.Germany was the only nazist state in the world and because the war was coming it needed allies.Thats why Hitler allied himself with all the fascists countries.Fascism is a totalitarian system as well and prodessecor to nazism lacking only the racial discrimination.Thats why I believe the AXIS to be an alliance between totalitarian states against democratic ones. Secondly you stated that Hitler did not ally himself with Great Bitain nor Denmark which according to you would be natural allies if he indeed had supermacist beliefs.I like to see the two countries as two different situations.British people are of saxon blood which does not belong to the nordic (aryan) race.Morover dont forget that Germany and Great Britain got to war because of the gurantee of Poland.Hitler hoped that he could annex Poland without starting the war because the English people were so afraid of another Great war.That means that the war was more of a diplomatic red line that Hitler crossed forcing England to take a stand or loose its great power status.As of Dannish people,they were under a pretty autonomous occupation.The king was allowed to remain as did the government.The Nazis took completely over as late as 1943 (the occupation happened in 1940) and only aft
Rematch: so-called racist skinheads are really dumb and know nothing of the true Nazis

I will be arguing that skinheads that are proclaimed to be racists are really just Klan member's sons who are Nazi wannabes and wanna mix their daddy's beliefs with their's. First of all, the KKK was the one who believed in Nordic supremacy. And they Zionists too, which was the opposite of Adolf Hitler, inherently. Hitler was allied with Italy and Japan, which automatically makes him not a Nordic supremacist. His allies were not Denmark or Britain. Denmark actually later fought Hitler.I fell sleep so maybe a rematch would be good. Sorry.
The Taliban"s usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

> As Americans, we cannot pass judgement on the Taliban's decisions to use children as suicide bombers. Their culture is so far different from ours that we cannot hope to place ourselves in their shoes in order to understand, therefore we cannot judge them. We can judge them because on a moral standard what they are doing is wrong. They are lying to kids about what their exact mission is. > They are not the first, nor will they be the last, to make use of child soldiers. Throughout history, we ourselves have drafted America's youth into fighting in our wars. If we've done it before, what makes us able to judge the Taliban? They may not be the first and they are not the last but what they are doing to these children is wrong. They can't defend themselves so it is very different than youth in wars. > Proponents claim that the children are too young to fully accept and understand the situation they've been put in and that it's cruel. I'm not denying the cruelty of it all, though I wish to point out that we do the same to our 16 and 17 year-olds who sign up to join the military. As teenagers, they lack the impulse control that can prevent a lifetime of regret, and the military takes full advantage of this. The JROTC is even worse in this respect in that it glamorizes the military life and conditions a child to think that the military is the place for them. While this is different from strapping a bomb to them directly, the American military sets them on almost the same path JROTC trains you to become accustom to the superior, honorable military standard at a young age. At that age you are very impressionable and will take those commands and use them in everyday life. Unlike the Taliban, JROTC teaches young ones the proper ways to battle and to deal with harmful situations. The Taliban teaches you to go to a random building or area and blow yourself up with dozens of innocent people. > It may be immoral to harm someone else for you own good, but that happens everyday in America, whether it's street violence or white-collar crime. Just because it happens everyday doesn't make it moral. It can happen once a year or once every 10 minutes, it will still be wrong. >11) There is never a guarantee that a child will survive warfare, so while the process of how they die may be different, the end result will be the same: the child will die. There is absolutely no guarantee that a kid would survive a gunfight in combat, just like they have no guarantee they'll survive a suicide bombing. In a warzone, everyone is a soldier, which means that if a child is out there fighting, they are definitely going to be killed. Being able to defend oneself does not mean that you'll survive the fight. If there is absolutely no guarantee that the kid would survive, then why do we put them in that situation in the first place? In conclusion I think that child suicide bombers are inexcuseable.
The Taliban"s usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

>How different can it really be though? Suicide bombings are much different than combat. In combat soldiers usually fight other soldiers. As a suicide bomber, you have no control of the radius of the bomb. There could be a 3 month old baby in the bomb radius and you will have no control of their death. >There is no guarantee that a child will survive warfare anyway Anyone who is battling is guaranteed to survive. But, having a bomb on your chest is a guaranteed death. At least being a youth in combat you have the power to retaliate or defend yourself.
The Taliban"s usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

>But their governing ways don't have to do with their goals. Their goals are about power and money so the religious aspect kind of gets thrown out the window That's the thing though, the way they want to govern the the people and their goals are one and the same. They want to lead the people under a unified Muslim code and to keep foreigners out of their homeland. The money isn't the objective so much as it is a means to an end. >There are plenty of other ways to defend than using teenagers as bombers... True, like how we're using drones to unexpectedly and totally annihilate terrorists at the cost of innocent bystanders as well. If it's morally wrong to teach children to kill themselves and others via suicide bombings, then it's equally wrong to teach them that it's okay to take out "the bad guys" at the risk of accidentally killing those who were innocent. Therefore we can't judge their actions by trying to justify our own. >...there has been child warfare in the past, but I don't think anywhere comparable to this. To have them be suicide bombers is much different than fighting in combat. How different can it really be though? The result is the same: the children will end up dead. We've knowingly sent children to their deaths before, just as the Taliban are doing now. There's never a guarantee that a child would survive warfare anyways. And even if they did, they'd be severely traumatized. >JROTC and youths that want to enlist are doing it for the protection of our nation, not to harm innocent people. This one's a bit of a two-part answer here. It's not necessarily true that the young men and women who enlist do it to protect the nation and not harm the innocent. As we saw in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal in the early 2000s, men and women of the armed forces absolutely went beyond the limits as to what was humane, let alone legal. Here's a quick reference point: http://en.wikipedia.org... How is the systematic torture of prisoners protecting our country? For the second part of the answer, it's not necessarily true that American soldiers won't harm the innocent. In the late 1960s, in the Vietnam War, there came an event called the My Lai Massacre. Women, children, and infants were tortured and killed by American soldiers. The women themselves were raped and even brutally mutilated. Only three men of out the entire company tried to stop these heinous crimes, but were called traitors and shunned for it. It was only posthumously were they recognized for trying to do the right thing. Here's the link for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Taliban"s usage of child suicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by any moral relativism

>How can we as Americans, truly understand our opponent's final goal? Church and state are separated in America so we don't get a full grasp on their goal. But their governing ways don't have to do with their goals. Their goals are about power and money so the religious aspect kind of gets thrown out the window. >Wouldn't we feel obligated to protect ourselves by any means necessary? There are plenty of ways to defend than using teenagers as bombers, they are corrupting young minds. I understand your point that there has been children in warfare in the past, but I don't think anywhere comparable to this. To have them be suicide bombers is much different than fighting in combat. Also, those kids knew what they were doing, the bombers didn't know that they had bombs attached to them, and the ones that did thought they were going to survive. JROTC is a little different, the acts these bombers are committing are more violent and towards innocent people. JROTC and youth's that want to enlist are doing it for the protection of our nation, not to harm innocent people.
Technology has lead to the death of human emotions

You see, the thing about technology like mobile phones and social networking sites is that humans aren't talking to each other directly, which means that we're not expressing our emotions like we should. To be honest, I don't believe that technology has led to the death of our emotions just yet, but if we carry on like this, then it might as well take them now. Human's today spend more time on their phones or computers than they did a few decades ago. Women are actually worse than men. Females spend up to 40% more time social networking a day, which may not seem like much, but it is actually a huge difference. One of the main problems is that humans are tempted by companies like Apple, because every so often a new type of tablet or phone is released, making us all think, "This is the best thing to ever happen". To make things clear, I have no intention on offending Apple or any other company in any way, it's just, technology limits human emotions. Please consider my argument, and I apologize that it is very limited. I am afraid my opponent failed to give me a proper debate, which means that I had very little to rebuttal. http://www.marketingcharts.com...
Technology has lead to the death of human emotions

according to me technology has not lead to the death of human emotions whereas it has increased human bonding and relationships. with the advent of social networking sites people are able to know their relatives and family friends. Earlier people had to wait for months to talk to each other and no communication means no expressing of human emotions, but today as the communication is increasing the people are able to talk to each other frequently and express heir human emotions too. with video conferencing we can see each others facial expression while talking and one's facial expressions are the best way of expressing emotions.Hence, I strictly oppose the topic that technology has lead to the death of human emotions.
Protesters who hide there identity to the public.

==Why protesters should be able to hide their identities==(I) UtilitarianismMy main line of argumentation will proceed from the perspective of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy which judges actions based on its outcome. While protests are generally rooted in foundational principles, a utilitarian perspective will be necessary if one is to be able to create a state of adherence to those principles. For instance, while the colonist revolutionaries had strong foundational principles, a utilitarian perspective in regards to attaining and keeping power was imperative. Otherwise those principles would have had no existence in reality.The main reason one protests something is to change it. For instance, the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo were a means to reforming various aspects and policies of the Egyptian government. Since the end in sight is large scale reform and is usually directed against those in power, sometimes hiding one's identity is necessary in order to elude persecution. This is the reason why the hacker group Anonymous is just that, anonymous as various agencies from the FBI[1] to Interpol[2]. If Anonymous wasn't anonymous it would have been shut down long ago with its members prosecuted. Obviously if you want to change things and the only way to do so is to hide one's identity, utilitarianism demands anonymity is necessary.===Sources===[1] http://www.wired.com... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Protesters who hide there identity to the public.

When you make a statement in protesting something you believe is wrong why should you hide your face or deny accountability for your actions? Case in point are the p*ssy riot protesters. P*ssy riot clowns wore masks an when caught denied they were a part of the band. Why be cowards an do this. Stand strong an behind your beliefs an let the world an your recipient hear an know who you are. I would not wear a mask if I believed strongly in what I was protesting.How about you would you or wouldn't you wear a mask? And if you would where a mask tell us why you coward!
Workplace internet restrictions

"the Internet is a great source of information. This Information could be put to good use in the workplace. "The internet gives good information for your work yes, but youre not going to find that information on sites like facbook, twitter, or pornhub. .. .. "When a company is not able to encourage the employees to focus on their tasks, wants to force them by forbidding other things that might be distracting! While, the lack of strong management, staffing, planning and a system which employees are requested to accomplish their duties; is leading to create difficulties. "I dont even know what youre argument is here because of how bad the grammar is. .. . "Employees falling to procrastination during work is usually a sign of bad management, rather than a bad employee. "That is bull crap and everyone knows it. Have you ever had your mind wander while in class when the teacher was teaching math? We've all done that at one point, and its not the teachers fault either. If you cant focus on the task youre working on because you distract yourself, thats your own fault not anyone elses. "And censorship is not really a true solution to the problem. "Its not a true solution but is sure helps the problem of employees not being able to focus on their work due to them screwing around on the internet all the time. .. .. .. . "Censorship is not the solution. "We're not talking about internet censorship here we're talking about internet restrictions. .. . Theres a massive difference between the two.
Workplace internet restrictions

It says 'we pay you to work and do as your told, not to screw around on the internet when you should be doing your job.'There is a lot than just screwing-up on the internet,One of the big advantages of allowing free access is that the Internet is a great source of information. This Information could be put to good use in the workplace.Corporations arent obligated to trust their employees at all, all they are required to do is pay them for their work. If they feel that they are paying their workers too much for their level of productivity, they are more than within their right to do what they feel is necessary to increase productivity, namely restrict internet access. When a company is not able to encourage the employees to focus on their tasks, wants to force them by forbidding other things that might be distracting! While, the lack of strong management, staffing, planning and a system which employees are requested to accomplish their duties; is leading to create difficulties.Employer-employee relationship should be based on mutual trust and understanding. Employees falling to procrastination during work is usually a sign of bad management, rather than a bad employee. And censorship is not really a true solution to the problem.listening to music while you do something has been shown to decrease productivity and how well you perform. Different strokes for different folks here..In biological terms, melodious sounds help encourage the release of dopamine in the reward area of the brain, as would eating a delicacy, looking at something appealing or smelling a pleasant aroma, said Dr. Amit Sood, a physician of integrative medicine with the Mayo Clinic.People’s minds tend to wander, “and we know that a wandering mind is unhappy,” Dr. Sood said. “Most of that time, we are focusing on the imperfections of life.” Music can bring us back to the present moment.“It breaks you out of just thinking one way,” said Teresa Lesiuk, an assistant professor in the music therapy program at the University of Miami.Dr. Lesiuk’s research focuses on how music affects workplace performance. In one study involving information technology specialists, she found that those who listened to music completed their tasks more quickly and came up with better ideas than those who didn’t, because the music improved their mood. http://www.nytimes.com...Censorship is not the solution.