BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adolph Hitler was an Atheist

Alrighty, let's get crackin'... I believe we require definitions so here they are Adolph Hitler:A German political leader of the twentieth century, born in Austria. Hitler's early program for Germany is contained in his book Mein Kampf. https://www.google.ca... Atheist: a disbelief in the existence of deity. http://www.merriam-webster.com... I will be arguing that Hitler was not an atheist, but a theist. Theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods. http://dictionary.reference.com... Firstly, Hitler said many things highly indicative of a theist. "Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples." (Hitler) Max Domarus & Patrick Romane. The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary. Bolchazy-Carducci. (2007). P. 499. "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out" (Hitler) Speech in Berlin. October 24, 1933 This next quote is most damning against your argument. "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God"s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice"For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." (Hitler) Norman H. Baynes. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler. Vol.1. Oxford University Press (1942). pp. 19-20. The list goes on however there are more than speeches that show that Hitler was a theist. Such as the fact that his soldiers all wore the slogan, "Gott Mit Uns" (God with us) on their belts, that his birthday was "celebrated from the pulpits until his death," as Hitchens so eloquently put it, and another most erie point is that the Nazis published their own slightly revised Christian bible. Susannah Heschel. The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. Princeton University Press. (2008) Chapter 3: Projects of the Institute. https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com... In conclusion... I believe it is obvious that Hitler was indeed a theist, and although his thoughts on christianity may have been twisted indeed, does not play a role in this debate. Thus from the facts I have presented Hitler was a theist. I look forward to my opponents response.
Adolph Hitler was an Atheist

Time to type... Arguments about meat didn't feed my appetite. Just because someone eats meat doesn't make them an atheist. Enough food for thought, you cannot prove Hitler was an atheist just because he ate pork or meat. As for the following they add nothing to your case. Just becasue you don't have a religion doesn't make you an atheist. In fact it makes you agnostic or just a plain theist. SO as I said this provides nothing to your case. Also just because you believe in evolution doesn't make you an atheist. I see you are scratching the dirt hard in this round but you didn't gain anything useful. In Conclusion... It is clear that Hitler was not an atheist from the speeches that he said. Since we are referring to Hitler and since he says he believes in God it's his word against ours and until PROVEN false his words still stand. Thank you for reading.
Government Surveillance

Firstly I'd like to thank you for your argument in favor, nut would point out that firstly a government is elected to serve the people, not the other way round, also governments do very often serve a specif group of people, whether that be rich people of a minority group. Governments do not always act in the best interests of the people they are elected to serve, as for evidence that Governments and the agencies they run are over stepping the mark when it comes to spying on what we all do, you only have to look at the recent events concerning the NSA in the States and GCHQ in the UK. the following links will inform you fully about how the Governments of the UK and US are monitoring us http://news.yahoo.com... http://www.itv.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.theguardian.com...
Government Surveillance

REBUTTALS Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition was clearly unable to concretize his own arguments on how the government, if given the power to check on our internet usage and whatnot, will harm democracy. He did not even give examples on how monitoring government surveillance will prove to be detrimental! He only gave mere assertions, which do not form arguments, but rather, generalizations, that in most cases, prove to be faulty. To add to his lack of any concrete examples and myriad assertions, the only argument that I could actually see coming from his side was that "it would make the citizens feel uneasy". Really? Is the interest of one individual, or a few isolated persons, more important than the general interest of the entire population? I will further expound on this in my substantives, on how the interest of the government weighs heavier than the interest of a few individuals. It is for this reason that we regard all the arguments of the opposition void. SUBSTANTIVES Moving on to my substantives, I would like to point out WHY THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE NATION, IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A FEW INDIVIDUALS. We on the government bench believe that since the government represents the whole population, their interest weighs so much more heavier than the interest of the chosen few. You see, if the government appeals to the requests of a chosen few, it would be unjust for them to have a preferred group of people. In addition to that, the requests of the chosen few may not be in line with the needs of the entire population. Individuals tend to only seek for what they believe are their NEEDS, disregarding the fact that the government serves for a higher purpose- which does not include their own personal needs. For example, a rich family may be against the whole ideal of government surveillance to hide their tracks that their wealth came from illegal sources. In such scenario, the government should not appeal to the need of this one family, but instead, to the entire nation that may be placed in detriment due to the illegal acts of this family. It is with these concretized examples I move on to my second substantive, which is that government surveillance appeals to the needs of the entire nation. The whole population may disagree to this idea because they do not realize their own needs. Therefore, it is the task of the government to reinforce precautionary measures, such as government surveillance. This is to show the people that although the irrational members of society may disagree to this idea, the government is putting the needs of the entire nation of security before individuals wants. It is for the following reasons we are proud to oppose.
Government Surveillance

Thank you for your quick reply. I do concede to your point that the government is elected to serve the people. However you've again neglected that in order to serve people, they must put the interest OF THE MAJORITY forward, rather than their own. And in this debate of government surveillance, the underlying principle of monitoring activities of the state's citizens is for safety. Now safety wouldn't be a concern of the state if they could not care less about the activities of its citizens. The reason they want to implement government surveillance is to be able to track down alleged perpetrators of crimes, and get ahead of citizens who plan to commit illegal acts. Now if the government does not do government surveillance to monitor terrorists and whatnot, all because it's citizens, who are not even knowledgeable of the needs of their WHOLE NATION and only focus on their own selfish needs, how will the government be able to serve its people rightly? How will the government be able to fulfill its purpose of being of help to its citizens, if they do not differentiate the needs of the entire nation to the needs of certain individuals? To summarize, it is very clear from the beginning of this debate that the opposition has only been making assertions, generalizations, and contradictory statements that cannot be trusted. While on the government bench, I have been able to very well illustrate how government surveillance and its intention is for the betterment of the country. I did not make assertions, but rather, concretized examples and expounded on topics thoroughly so as my substantives would be more credible. It is for these following reasons that I am proud to say that the government wins this debate.
Titan Fall is the best game out there!

Alright, this debate is claiming that Titanfall is the best game out there. Not only do I believe this statement to be not true, but I can vote based off of a few facts. The critics at Game Informer give Titanfall a 9.25(Xbox One), a relatively high score. However, according to their critique, some games can surpass 9.25. Some are at a 10. Titanfall: http://www.gameinformer.com...Bioshock Infinite is one of those games that got a 10. http://www.gameinformer.com...There are of course, reasons to this. The biggest one, according to Game Informer, was replay value. Bioshock Infinite blew this section away. Titanfall, however, as you can see, did not. As for personal opinion, I found myself once more returning to other games, such as Diablo III or Halo. It was good, but I think that other games are truly better.
The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14

You are arguing that the group of 14-year-olds who are employed is too small? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov...), in 1999 roughly a quarter of 14-year-olds held non-freelance, meaning paycheck, jobs. If 25% is too small a group, then you might as well argue that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote - after all, they make up only about 13.2% of the U.S. population, according to the United States Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov...). 25% is, by no means, a negligible minority.
The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14

Because of working restrictions on children under 16, dependent 14-year-olds most likely don't make enough money to have to file an income tax return, and considering, then, the incredibly low statistic of 14-year-olds with jobs in the first place - no, 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, based on this argument.
The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14

The voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on "my side of the fence", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. "The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14." 2. Compromise. "The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17." 3. Alternative solution. "Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis." You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.
The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14

*Neither citations you used to confirm your statement that more 14-18-year-olds are involved and concerned with politics today used 14-18-year-olds as a reference, BOTH of the citations you cited quite clearly said the sample was between the ages of 18 and 36. Thus the new basis for your argument is invalid. It should be noted that I think the law is less in place because teenagers are "ignorant" (I was one not very long ago however and can attest: they are), but because they lack experience and, perhaps most importantly, a fully-developed ability to make rational decisions. I mean this scientifically - it has been observed that teenagers don't have very active frontal lobes (this is the rational thought center of the brain) when making decisions, and rely more on their brain's limbic system (more emotional / reactive basically). (1) This is why, for example, teenagers are so stereotypically prone to peer pressure, and stupid decisions. Anecdotal, but back when I was starting college I used to give high school kids stick-n-poke tattoos on the side for cash, and, believe me, this tendency was on full display. Plus, while Trump is, frankly, rather irrelevant in this argument, it isn't as if teens ubiquitously hate Trump, thus proving their rationality. (2) (1) http://brainconnection.brainhq.com... (2) https://newrepublic.com... Side note: Not bad, but do know that it's generally not good debate form to change the basis of your argument in the final round, when we should both be drawing our conclusions. You should have still attempted to find some way to counter my point. You could have, for example, argued that ANY tax payer should be afforded the right to vote, regardless of age, and possibly argued that the large percentage of teens in the age bracket who DON'T pay taxes don't invalidate the ones that may still DO. You could have further argued that enough legislation occurs regarding teenagers without their consent - concerning their education, their employment, even their sex lives - that not giving them the right to vote essentially makes them second class citizens to be acted on by government but without a voice, etc.
The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14

All right. I will change my argument, then. There are about 4,200,000 fourteen-year-olds and many, many more 14-18 year-olds (http://www.marketingcharts.com...). We are currently denying about 16,000,000 Americans the right to vote. Now, some may argue that high-schoolers are too young and ignorant to understand the politics of the U.S., but this is simply not true. In fact, millennials are more involved and concerned with politics than any previous generation of 14-18-year-olds (http://www.usatoday.com...),(http://www.forbes.com...). So, millions of young Americans are being denied the right to vote on the basis that they're too ignorant, while millions more older Americans are voting for the likes of Trump. (Now, dear voters, I know this will bring down the hordes of Trump supporters on this website, so please try to ignore them).
The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14

That is... an offensively absurd argument, no, I'm not suggesting minorites not be allowed to vote. What? The issue is that if only 25%* of 14-year-olds work, that means, for starters, SIGNIFICANTLY less than 25% of 14-year-olds would be paying taxes (keep in mind, the entire basis of your argument is on the precept that 14-year-olds should be able to vote because they pay taxes) because of working restrictions. So, let's say the actual percentage of 14-year-olds who pay taxes comes out to 2%, you are then arguing that 98% of 14-year-olds who don't pay taxes also deserve representation - therein lies the problem. It's not that 2% is too small, it's that 98% is too big and it, frankly, isn't warranted. *that statistic is from '94-'97, not '99, and is also likely outdated (though we'll never know, as there isn't a lot of officially published research on the subject).
Cyber bullying isn't really that big of an issue

Hello there, today I will be doing another new argument. As you can tell by the title, it's about how cyber bullying is honestly not a big deal and won't seriously affect your life. Here's why, -Most of the time when someone cyber bullies you, they don't even know you in real life -Most of the time Cyber Bullying is literally just calling someone curse words or just insulting them in a very cliche'd and repetitive way. -Most of the Cyber Bullying videos say how Cyber Bullying can effect your life. But most of the ways they portray this is pretty idiotic. They even think that Cyber Bullying can make you commit suicide? Unless if your a little 2 year old baby, then your probably aren't going to be affected at all at cyber bullying. Also if you seriously don't want to get cyber bullied, then all you have to do is not post some idiotic content on the internet and pretty much just don't act like an idiot. Which means just act like a normal person. -Now some cyber bullying can occur around school. The way that people picture cyber bullying at school is basically like this; "OMG ALICIA IS LIKE SUPER DUMB LIKE OMG" Then the people who make anti cyber bullying videos think that everybody at school is really dumb and that there going to randomly think now that Alicia is Dumb. I'm sorry but this is not how the world works. -There are even some people who dare to even compare cyber bullying to getting BEAT UP. I mean PHYSICALLY INJURED. Why would you even compare those two in the first place? No, just stop. I seriously have no idea why there even doing this. -People take cyber bullying so seriously and think of it as a really huge problem. I'm sorry but there are much bigger problems in our world like hunger, poverty, terrorists, global warming, and depletion of natural resources. I don't think cyber bullying is even close to being compared to these ACTUALLY IMPORTANT problems. Well here's my opinion.
Patriotism is ultimately destructive

I shall first separate the concepts named jingoism and patriotism.Patriotism[1]: Vigorous support for one’s country.Jingoism[2]: Extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.Aggressively supporting your country to damage others is ultimately destructive. But just supporting your nation to make it better and to sustain it is not destructive? I don't actually understand this resolution at all, debating pro is simply futile. you are saying supporting the nation in which you reside is somehow destructive? I fact you say ULTIMATELY destructive which indicates a huge degree of destructiveness...Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Patriotism is ultimately destructive

Patriotism: Devotion to and vigorously supporting one's country.[1]Ultimately: Option 1 - being the best or most extreme example of its kind.[2]. Option 2 - being or happening at the end of a process.[2]Destructive: designed or tending to hurt or destroy.[3]If we replace the words in your resolution with definitions we get:[Option 1] Being devoted to and vigorously supporting one's country is being the best or most extreme example of being designed or tending to hurt or destroy.[Option 2] Devotion to and vigorously supporting one's country is being or happening at the end of being designed or tending to hurt or destroy.I believe this is a false statement to assert because simply, to support ones country merely is an element of helping ones clan/group/family survive. It's an instinct called groupthink[4] and has helped teh human race survive for millenia.Sources:[1] http://www.wordreference.com...;[2] http://www.wordreference.com...;[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
I Bought a Toyota

1. I AM saying that little yodas in stores don't light up. I lied to you so you couldn't find the beacons! I'm Count Dooku! Muhahahahaha! They're magical beacons that summon the Ultimate Force That Thwarts All Evil! By now my droid army has destroyed every store, restaurant, of actors, and pawn shop that sells toy Yodas! MUUUUUUUHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA! 2. I had my evil scientists install chips in the toy Yodas that make them kill you the first chance they get because we didn't need buyers telling people about the toy Yodas or about our evil plot! *laughs evilly*3. That "designed by the devil" thing is also a lie that I told you so you wouldn't buy a toy Yoda! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Bought a Toyota

The Jedi fleet is all quite proud of me for investing in a toy Yoda! In fact I even earned a light saber so that my Toyota COULD light up! By the way I wasn't serious about the Siri's and my temper. Nor was I about if God could save me from my toy Yoda, because I know Yoda is fictional and God is not (though they are both thought of as supernatural)! 1. Are you saying that little Yodas sold in stores don't light up? You must be kidding, because the technology these days have boosted even little toy figures/characters to be very detailed and advanced! You'd be surprised. :) 2. Because of the fact that my toy Yoda can drive while I sit in the passenger seat, I agree with you that you never know when they're trying to kill you! 3. Sorry but this is where I disagree; my toy Yoda is not designed by the devil--unless you're saying Stuart Freeborn is a Satanist--but actually my Yoda does a lot of useful things besides drive me around: he cuddles with me in my sleep, I rub his fuzzy head to get comfort, and he also gives lots of good advice in times of need (such as when I lose my temper). When the Engine Strikes Back, Yoda always says... "Ready are you?" (I always answer with NEVER.) "...What know you of ready? For eight hundred years I have trained Jedi. My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained..." (THAT'S ME) "A Jedi must have deepest commitment, the most serious mind" (Well that ruined it for me.) "This one..." (he's talking about the TOYOTA car) "...have I watched. All his life he looked away..." (FROM THE ROAD--and me) "...to the future..." (OH, that) "...to the horizon." (THE HORIZON OF CRASHES) "Never his mind on where he was..." (Ain't that the truth.) "...Hm? What he was doing. Hmph. Adventure. Heh. Excitement. Heh. A Jedi craves not these things..." (HEY, maybe I AM a Jedi after all!) "You are reckless." So don't shame my toy Yoda so much. He's a good life lesson for me! And even if I DO get a Toyota, my toy Yoda will always drive it. May the force be with you.