BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
--

First, the level of anti-semitic remarks in this argument is worrying. Hitler did not merely 'expell' the Jews - the deaths of 6 million of them show that his actions were far worse. Also, to claim that ethnic cleansing is acceptable because of allegations against a few members is a vile, evil viewpoint. Jews were hardly involved with 'criminal tax farming and merciless gouging of debtors with 40% or higher compound interest', and to suggest this about all Jews is plain ignorant. To then claim that the Jews were responsible for WW1 and Communism shows a distinct absence of understanding of the 20th century. America became involved in WW1 purely because it knew that it would have to act soon, and the bombing of the Lusithania was the trigger needed. Communism was barely a Jewish concept - vast numbers of Jews were killed or expelled by Stalin's regime, and the proposition would do well to actually describe the supposed 'deep Jewish involvement in communism', so that future readers may have the chance to see the reason why a proper education is important. Saying that the Jews 'bought up evertyhing in sight while the German people starved, thereby exploiting the misery of the defeated' is yet another example of the author's ignorance. Germany had always been a centre of Judaism in Europe - it had also become a centre of anti-semitism, and this was partially responsible for Hitler's rise to power. Onto the original point raised, nobody is claiming that Hitler was 'uniquely' evil - he was just evil. Ultimately, I would like to remind the author than neo-Nazism is considered a crime in most of the world. Have you never seen any footage of the Holocaust? Have you never read the Diary of Anne Frank? Have you never even left your hole in the ground of racism?
Hitler banned Smoking and Vivisection..

In 1933 the Jews declared War on Germany ,The Night of Broken Glass (1939): In retaliation for the assassination of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris and Jews were rounded up(Mainly Communists) and sent to concentration camps (When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Japanese US citizens were rounded up and put in concentration Camps)within Germany (No German Camps were claimed to be Death Camps).. To answer any question as to why Jews were not welcome in Germany.(Over the centuries Jews have been expelled from 109 Countries) ,German Soldiers were forbidden to smoke and drink in occupied France and rapes committed by Germans was virtually unheard of (The liberating allies especially Red Army went on a raping spree) Poland: 1940 the Jewish led NKVD executed 25.000 Polish officers.. In 1941 the Nazis discovered the Mass Graves and attempted to report their findings to the wider World but the controlled Media under orders from allied governments blamed the atrocity on the Germans. Propaganda Before During and after the War : It is a documented, verified fact that Hitler did not want War but the British antagonists ensured war would be waged ,, The Brits gave Poland the incentive to destabilise Germany and when it was discovered that ethnic Germans in Danzig and Bromberg were being massacred by Communist dregs (58.000) Hitler found himself in an hopeless situation.. (Hitler had offered the Poles favourable terms before the massacres) .. When Hitler invaded Poland (If you research Poland invades Czechoslovakia reasons become clearer) the British and France declared War against Germany . Unlike WWI propaganda where stories of Germans eating Babies was the norm (Post Rothschild meeting with British War ministers after Britain had LOST the War) during WWII Atrocity stories were significant but also German expansionist (conquered Nations) goals were used to frighten Citizens to accept the draft (UK: conscription) ;(German propaganda warned of Communism). Propaganda after the War was by way of the Nuremberg War crimes trials, The sole mechanism was to point all the blame at Germany and white wash the allies. (1.5 000.000 German prisoners of War were starved to death in open fields after the War .. Fuerstenfeldbruck was Hell on Earth but that has been omitted from school History books) Is Hitler evil ?? God no but i know a few who are .. Stalin, Churchill Eisenhower, Ilya Ehrenberg(Kill) Lazar Kaganovich (Gulags)
Others have committed comparable atrocities

With all the horrible events in history considered does Adolf Hitler deserve his damning reputation? The science of the time was without a doubt completely and fundamentally flawed. However, while heinous crimes like the holocaust were committed under Hitler’s rule, aren't we still to a lesser extent committing similar crimes? The South African government has attempted ethnic cleansing. In Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations we have been trying to spread democracy by killing off the pre-existing government structures and replacing them with our own. I would suggest that many Americans, due to the negativity of the media, feel about Muslims what Germans felt about Jews. Some would even compare the former Guantanamo Bay and its gross human rights violations to a touchier camp. All through history there have been attempts at racial and cultural genocide: China in Tibet, Roman rape policy, deliberate starvation in Ireland, and South Africa to name just a few. So does Adolf Hitler deserve his reputation as one of the worst men in history? Or is our history, like Churchill said, "Written by the victors". The scale of ethnic cleansing undertook by the Nazis fully deserves its horrific reputation. Yet it is not an isolated historical event; there have been many comparable atrocities, yet those responsible have not been demonised in the same way as Hitler.
The fact that this cause is right hardly negates the possibility of other correct claims, too – ther...

The fact that this cause is right hardly negates the possibility of other correct claims, too – there may well be other worthy causes for reparation, but that is another debate. This is about total ownership of human beings within society, not the conquest and colonial rule of people elsewhere. It is also very different from wrongs visited on individuals for a purpose that is essentially moral, like wrongful court judgments. Slavery was the state-sanctioned and enforced objectification and abuse of a part of humanity based on the colour of their skin – that’s unique in US history.
[If in a debate with a model, counter this argument by running a case with an amount that isn’t absu...

[If in a debate with a model, counter this argument by running a case with an amount that isn’t absurd, either to a fund or to individuals. After all, reparations are about acknowledgement and an attempt at compensation, not an attempt to pay off all the labour of slaves in its entirety. If in a principles debate, agree that the amount has to be practicable, but that it is not the key issue.]
Slaves performed involuntary labour without pay. That is wrong. They were entitled to compensation...

Who is to benefit? How distant a descendent can one be, and still receive compensation? An eighth? A sixteenth? Many people who are or appear to be completely white, some of whom perhaps have no idea that an ancestor of theirs was a slave or even that they were coloured, will benefit from this. This is made more likely by the fact that many slaves were effectively white – records show slaves who were as little as one 64th black were sold. Plenty of people who are descended from those that suffered cannot provide concrete proof – or, as discussed above, don’t even know it. If there has ever been a case for slavery reparations, it would have been in the generation or two after slavery ended. Now, it’s absurd.
There is a perfectly reasonable case that the state should pay. The wealth now enjoyed by the USA s...

Who is to pay? Many individuals and corporations benefited from slave ownership, and the wealth it generated has trickled down into investments, bank accounts and business funds today. Should that money be traced? It’s a huge undertaking. But why should the state pay, when the primary benefit was not to the state, but to individuals? The current government and state grew out of the Union, which opposed slavery. Furthermore, the state’s money comes from taxes which are levied on a population that never kept slaves. No-one should be punished for something they haven’t done.\ Even if the principle of ancestral responsibility holds, reparation is still absurd. Large numbers of those whose ancestry can be traced back as pre-1865 Americans will have ancestors who didn’t own slaves, and many will have fought to end slavery. Many in the USA – whites, latinos, and blacks too – are descended from people that came to the USA long after slavery ended. It’s illogical for them to be required to pay.
There are precedents for this kind of compensation. The notion of national responsibility for the a...

Nobody now living was harmed by the activities we’re talking about. Nobody now living committed them. So there’s no responsibility, and no grievance to be redressed. We don’t believe that the punishment for the sins of the father should be passed on the son. We don’t believe in compensation where no harm exists. Holocaust reparation or the compensation given to Japanese internees was money given for the suffering of identified individuals. In the Tulsa riots, compensation was either paid to the individuals or to their first generation descendants, directly affected by violence done to their parents.
This isn’t about victimhood or singling out a particular minority for special charitable treatment –...

It is divisive to push an agenda that suggests that African Americans are still so different that they can and should be singled out. Why encourage those that weren’t born at the time of slavery to see themselves as victims in a society that actually offers them huge opportunities? Why suggest that whites should feel responsible for the actions of long dead whites (ancestors or not)? The proposal encourages racial stigma and groupthink ghettoisation. It is racist to suggest that people owe others money simply because they were born a particular colour. We should be looking beyond race. We should forgive and forget. This discussion drags us back to old problems, opens old wounds, and makes racial divisions and tensions more likely.
Companies can be traced back over many generations, and can be proven to have profited from slavery....

Many of the companies advocates suggest suing for reparations are only tangentially connected to the slave trade by long-forgotten predecessors. FleetBoston, for example, which grew from hundreds of predecessor banks, has a single predecessor with a loan that went to a slave trader. Should they be liable? Furthermore, most corporations don’t have records from 150 years go. They’re not obliged to.
Slaves performed involuntary labour without pay. That is wrong. They were entitled to compensation...

Slaves performed involuntary labour without pay. That is wrong. They were entitled to compensation and, being deceased, that money should go to their descendants. This principle doesn’t cease to be true over time – truth and justice don’t have sell-by dates. The most important thing to establish is the principle of reparation being right. The how is less important. A reasonable approach would be to say that individuals would have to establish a direct link between themselves and a slave (many can). The fact that doing so will be difficult does not mean that it should not happen. Dwelling on the practical difficulties is no real opposition. Practicalities come second: the focus should be on righting this wrong.
There is a perfectly reasonable case that the state should pay. The wealth now enjoyed by the USA s...

There is a perfectly reasonable case that the state should pay. The wealth now enjoyed by the USA stems in part from the use of slaves. It development wouldn’t have been as fast, its GDP would not be so high, it would not have so much money. Some of it should be paid back. If links can be established to corporations, then those corporations should pay. Pointing to the fact that individuals alive today didn’t keep slaves is simplistic – they have benefited from living in an environment whose wealth was built on the backs of slaves.
There are precedents for this kind of compensation. The notion of national responsibility for the a...

There are precedents for this kind of compensation. The notion of national responsibility for the acts of the past is displayed in Holocaust reparation – why is the suffering of Africans different to the suffering of Jews? Germany has paid billions not only to individual Jews, but also to the State of Israel. Compensation was also paid in 2001 to victims of the Tulsa race riots of the 1920s – or to their descendants.
This isn’t about victimhood or singling out a particular minority for special charitable treatment –...

This isn’t about victimhood or singling out a particular minority for special charitable treatment – this is money owed, and money people are entitled to. It is not the causing of a division, but rather the healing of a still-open wound. That supposed symbol of freedom and liberty, the US Capitol building was constructed by slaves. How can African-Americans truly feel part of the free society and democracy in which they live until this wrong is publicly admitted and righted?
There doesn’t need to be a quantification of how much any individual suffered – all suffered the sam...

How would one quantify the debt concerned, if there is one? Some individuals suffered much more than others. Should some descendents therefore receive more? On one hand, considering the horrors of slavery, would any amount ever really be compensation? On the other hand, some slaves benefited from being transported to a land of opportunity – and their descendents certainly gained. How can they be said to be worse off than the descendents of those left in disease and war-ravaged Africa? How would that be allowed for?
The fact that this cause is right hardly negates the possibility of other correct claims, too – ther...

Why just this one issue? Why not Native Americans (‘Indians’)? Or the population of the Philippines, for their time under US rule? Or native Hawaiians? If individuals can establish that wrong was done to an ancestor (e.g. wrongful imprisonment) are they entitled to compensation? This is either inconsistent, or the start of an absolutely huge slippery slope.
[If in a debate with a model, counter this argument by running a case with an amount that isn’t absu...

The amount concerned is absurd. Harper’s magazine estimates the total of reparations due at over 100 trillion dollars, based on 222,505,049 hours of forced labour between 1619 and 1865, subject to compound interest since. Dr Robert Brock, a proponent of reparations, suggests $500,000 per descendant. Given the fact that most African Americans have at least one slave ancestor somewhere in their family tree, this equals a mere $15 trillion – or a surtax of $50,000 on every non-African American man, woman and child in the USA (higher than the median family annual income).
There doesn’t need to be a quantification of how much any individual suffered – all suffered the sam...

There doesn’t need to be a quantification of how much any individual suffered – all suffered the same gross indignity of being denied their freedom. Denial of liberty is a grievous wrong. \ Arguments about the supposed benefits of slavery for those who suffered under it are speculative and insulting, set against the great suffering generations of African-Americans endured. Far from being a land of opportunity, the United States continued to oppress black people for a hundred years after the formal end of slavery. Even today, African-Americans are the poorest social group. Finally, a comparison between the USA and Africa today is ill-informed: many of the problems of Africa can be traced to the slave trade and to the colonialism which followed it.\
Laws Should Not Be Passed To Protect People From Themselves

Recreational drugs can only do bad in society, as they harm the physical and mental health of those individuals who consume them, in addition to contributing to social problems. The legalization of recreational drugs would send out the message that consuming recreational drugs is more acceptable and less harmful than previously thought, and through this and the increased availability and accessibility of recreational drugs, individuals and society as a whole would suffer. The notion of personal freedom is trumped by the adverse effects that the legalization of recreational drugs would entail.
The Illegality Of Recreational Drugs Results In Unnecessary Risks For Those Who Choose To Consume Them

The health concerns of consumers of recreational drugs are irrelevant. Not only are recreational drugs inherently unhealthy (and so consumers of recreational drugs consent to consuming something which is detrimental to their health) but consumers of recreational drugs engage in illegal activity by so doing. The health concerns which result from illegal activity are not something which should be considered when assessing the legality of such activity.
Laws Should Not Be Passed To Protect People From Themselves

In a free society individuals should be able to do as they wish unless their actions harm others, even if their actions harm themselves. This does not mean that with the legalization of recreational drugs should come a completely hands off approach. Education about the effects of recreational drugs, safe and controlled environments in which to consume recreational drugs, monitoring of strict standards that recreational drugs must meet in order to be sold, and other measures which ensure the consumption of recreational drugs is informed, safe, and controlled should be implemented. But as with currently legal recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, individuals should be free to make informed choices as to whether they wish to consume a recreational drug, and as long as the consumption of that recreational drug does not harm others, should not be punished for doing so.
The Illegality Of Recreational Drugs Results In Unnecessary Risks For Those Who Choose To Consume Them

Individuals will always consume recreational drugs, despite their illegality. For those who do consume recreational drugs, they are at risk from the lack of control over what the recreational drugs they choose to consume contain. The doses and contents (such as the use of fillers) of recreational drugs are determined by the criminals who currently produce them, and who's objectives are profits as opposed to the concerns of consumers. Were recreational drugs to be legalized, the doses and contents of recreational drugs could be monitored and controlled, and so reduce the risks involved in consumption.
Subsidies are the most efficient means for a state to redistribute wealth within its borders and ins...

Subsidies are the most efficient means for a state to redistribute wealth within its borders and insure stability. Poor communities, often concentrated in rural areas or around large cities, carry a large risk for social instability, whether through epidemic illnesses, crime, drug abuse or political and social revolts. Even the most developed countries find it difficult to deal with these communities without paying proper attention to their development. The suburbs of Paris have recently been in the attention of the press for the violent riots led mainly by poor, unemployed, young men from immigrant families who felt abandoned by their own government. France is by no means the only country dealing with such problems, and in order to avoid such high-risk behaviour, the state should be encouraged to create new subsidy schemes that address these communities in particular. For example, employment could be subsidised by paying companies to create new jobs in such deprived areas.
While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution, the reality is ...

While getting the private sector involved might indeed be a more effective solution, the reality is that many of these poor communities are groups of outsiders. They often discriminated against by the rest of the population, including decision makers from private business. These communities often find themselves abandoned, and at the mercy of the state. Despite its inefficiencies, the state remains the main organisation capable to reaching out to all different communities, of gathering funds and redistributing them, and of making new investment opportunities in places where the free market would not otherwise have created them. At the risk of some inefficiency, this problem does require solvency, and while ideally things might run otherwise, this is the closest solution to the problem at hand. Governments have also been creative with their subsidies schemes, often getting the private sector involved by providing them with incentives such as tax breaks.
We cannot wait for each community to find creative solutions on its own, or for corporations to deci...

We cannot wait for each community to find creative solutions on its own, or for corporations to decide when they want to be socially responsible and under what conditions. Waiting too long will transform dangerous suburbs into real slums, creating long lasting problems such as the ones currently experienced in the cities of Latin America. These areas have become a haven for criminals and drug lords, who both have a clear interest in keeping these communities poor so that they can continue to exert their influence on them and use them as a hiding and recruiting ground for illegal activities.
Unless we deal with the problem of poor communities, our cities will be surrounded by a belt of pove...

Unless we deal with the problem of poor communities, our cities will be surrounded by a belt of poverty, an increasing growing belt that will create a serious threat. As most cities continue to grow and attract more and more people from rural areas, the state needs to find a way to address the problem of urban migration, which is closely linked to the formation of poor communities particularly around cities. Illegal immigration also contributes tremendously to this problem, particularly in areas such as the Mexico-California border. Targeted subsidies can slow the pace of migration, by giving those in the countryside and in poorer countries a better standard of living where they already live.
Subsidies help create an important sense of equality and non-discrimination that is essential in the...

Subsidies help create an important sense of equality and non-discrimination that is essential in the new multi-cultural states of today. With more and more people moving across the globe and the clear realization of inequalities in lifestyles, creating this sense of equality is essential. If we are serious about our commitment to universal human rights, including the right to equal survival chances and opportunities, then we need to consider using subsidies to promote these values. Without such a commitment to equality, problems like the unrest in the suburbs of Paris, the reaction to the flooding of New Orleans, and crimes in the favellas of Rio de Janeiro will simply become uncontrollable.
Poor communities have a disastrous effect on the environment. Unless we do something about it we ri...

Poor communities have a disastrous effect on the environment. Unless we do something about it we risk seeing our planet destroyed. The destruction of forests for coal or agricultural land, the destruction of farmland through illegal buildings lacking proper infrastructure, water pollution, deserting arable land in the countryside in order to move to the city are all serious environmental problems and their effects are long lasting. Subsidies need to be used to provide incentives for people to act in ways which will preserve the environment for the benefit of all.