BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
STALIN is mentally disturbed

ResponsesMy response to point 1:I agree, I do have quotes relating to Stalin. However the only reason I have those quotes there is to support my name. I don't actually believe what is said in those quotes.My response to point 2:Stalin killed more than 20 million people. I understand this and my understanding of Stalin's crimes is shown in several of my debates. In addition to this, there are DDO users such as Abnewstein[1] who believe that Hitler didn't really commit any crimes. However you didn't make a debate stating that Abnewstein is mentally disturbed. He has a picture of Hitler but this does not mean he is mentally disturbed. I agree, my name is Stalin. So what? If my profile name was Hitler or Mao Zedong would you also use this as an excuse to insult me and make a debate stating that I am mentally disturbed? This argument shows nothing.My response to point 3:I would agree with this. I do try and act like Stalin. That is the reason I have all those quotes on my profile. The only problem with this argument is that it does not make the connection between me acting like Stalin and me being mentally disturbed. The main reason I act like Stalin is because its fun seeing others rage at all the silly polls I make using Stalinist pictures. In addition to this, the name "Stalin" makes me stand out more. My opponent is trying to compare me with the historical Stalin. In the comments section he stated that we are talking about the DDO user Stalin.My response to point 4:My opponent has presented no proof of this. Just because I have made polls and debates about Stalin and have mentioned him many times, this does not mean that I am not obsessed with Stalin.ArgumentsArgument 1: I am a very good debater. Perhaps not the best, but good enough.Argument 2: I know a lot about history. A retarded person could never memorize what I have memorized about WWII.Argument 3: I am currently in the Academy Program (similar to running start). I am in college instead of in 11th and 12th grade at high school. I don't think a person who is mentally challenged could get into college.ConclusionMy opponent is clearly trolling. He doesn't really know me well and has no idea what he is talking about. Pro likes to rage a lot and take out his failures on others.Sourceshttp://www.debate.org...
STALIN is mentally disturbed

Point 1STALINs favorite quotes are all related to killing people, guns, or death: "Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." -Josef Stalin"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic." -Josef Stalin"The only real power comes out of a long rifle." -Josef Stalin"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." -Josef Stalin"We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?" -Josef StalinLiking comments related to killing people, guns, and death is likely not an indicator of good mental health; more likely an indicator of being mentally disturbed.Point 2STALIN has a user name named after Joseph Stalin; a Soviet leader who executed 799,455 people, killed his friends, and during his regime caused the deaths of 20 MILLION people. Having a username named after a mass murderer who killed his own friends does NOT signify mental health.Point 3Many people comment that STALIN tries to act like Joseph Stalin; and in this debate someone commented: Which Stalin are we talking about? Historical leader or the modern imposter? Having a mass murderer who killed his own friends as your role model does not say very good things about the mental health of that person.Point 4STALIN is possibly obssessed with Joseph Stalin; how can anyone obssessed with a mass murderer not be mentally disturbed!CONCLUSIONSTALINs obssession with all things Stalin shows he is mentally disturbed.
STALIN is mentally disturbed

"A connection is made between STALIN acting like Stalin and being mentally disturbed because acting like a mass murderer is a sign of being mentally disturbed."Do I act like a mass murderer? So far, how many people have I killed? This statement makes no sense but I would like to thank my opponent for his opinion anyway."These arguments are a red herring because there is no evidence that the historical Stalin was unintelligent or mentally handicapped."The historical Stalin couldn't even see that Hitler was planning to invade the USSR while the Germans were massing 4 million men on the German-Soviet border. This shows that Stalin wasn't the most intelligent of beings.http://en.wikipedia.org..."Now STALIN is committing the ad hominem fallacy."Can you please elaborate?"STALIN has not conclusively proven he is not mentally disturbed, is using some major fallacies, but is well on his way to proving his mental health."These are empty words. I'm not sure what my opponent could possibly be thinking here."STALIN is possibly obssessed with Joseph Stalin; how can anyone obssessed with a mass murderer not be mentally disturbed."I would like to go back to this argument that Pro stated in round 1. If you notice, Pro said that STALIN is POSSIBLY obsessed with Josef Stalin. This shows how unsure my opponent is in his position. He couldn't even spell obsessed correctly.ConclusionMy opponent draws quick conclusions without properly examining the evidence. This was Pro's position throughout this entire debate:1) DDO user Stalin acts like historical Stalin.2) Historical Stalin ended up killing millions.3) DDO user Stalin must be mentally disturbed since he decided to name himself after Stalin who killed millions.What I should have done from the very beginning was report this challenge and let Pro get temp-banned. The only problem is that I realized that the odds were against my opponent in this debate and I would most likely win this debate.I will finally end this debate by stating that my opponent only responded to around half of my arguments while I responded to all of his arguments. He failed to prove that I am mentally disturbed.
STALIN is mentally disturbed

The only response I can argue is response 3:My response to point 3:I would agree with this. I do try and act like Stalin. That is the reason I have all those quotes on my profile. The only problem with this argument is that it does not make the connection between me acting like Stalin and me being mentally disturbed. The main reason I act like Stalin is because its fun seeing others rage at all the silly polls I make using Stalinist pictures. In addition to this, the name "Stalin" makes me stand out more. My opponent is trying to compare me with the historical Stalin. In the comments section he stated that we are talking about the DDO user Stalin.A connction is made between STALIN acting like Stalin and being mentally disturbed because acting like a mass murderer is a sign of being mentally disturbed. Although STALIN says his main reason for this is because peoples reactions to his polls; but there are less evil historical people to name yourself and design your polls after. Since he could use less evil people to make him stand out and make people rage at his polls; it can only be concluded that he has other reasons that show mental disturbance.STALINs arguments:ArgumentsArgument 1: I am a very good debater. Perhaps not the best, but good enough.Argument 2: I know a lot about history. A retarded person could never memorize what I have memorized about WWII.Argument 3: I am currently in the Academy Program (similar to running start). I am in college instead of in 11th and 12th grade at high school. I don't think a person who is mentally challenged could get into college.These arguments are a red herring because there is no evidence that the historical Stalin was unintelligent or mentally handicapped.ConclusionMy opponent is clearly trolling. He doesn't really know me well and has no idea what he is talking about. Pro likes to rage a lot and take out his failures on others.Now STALIN is committing the ad hominem fallacy.CONCLUSIONSTALIN has not conclusively proven he is not mentally disturbed, is using some major fallacies, but is well on his way to proving his mental health.
Single-sex education is better than co-ed.

"My opponent constantly talks about gays and how gays also study together and I want to tell my opponent, "if you want to debate about gays, you can do it in another debate. This debate isnt about gays." What? Gays are included in this because they are apart of the people that make up the student body. If you are including people with heterosexual attractions then why exclude homosexual attractions when they fall under the category of attraction. "Moreover, And there is huge difference in acting dumb with your friends and trying to impress someone you like. (I dont even need to explain this one)" My opponent claims that there is a huge difference but doesn"t explain what that difference is, essentially saying that saying this is enough. Therefore my opponent actually didn"t provide a rebuttal. Also acting dumb with your friends is a distraction, just like trying to impress someone. "THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE OTHER SEX LIKE THEM. exactly what I'm trying to say." No, you totally read it wrong, maybe this will help. ""Therefore in double sex schools, people will try to less to embarrass themselves because they are trying to make the other sex like them, than as if they were just hanging out with their friends." "Well, schools are initially made for teaching not for match making." Just because they were made for it doesn"t mean they will actually do it. "I said that they could be in a bad relationship. Because they are young and half of them are not even serious and the relationship just won't work. If it does though, happy life to that couple!" My opponent says because they are young, they must not take the relationship seriously, which I disagree with. I consider myself young and take my relationship very seriously. My opponent does not provide support for her assertion, and also begs the question by saying relationships just won"t work. Since there isn"t 100% correlation, this would be similar to adults, thus my opponent would by her logic, make it wrong for adults to have a relationship, since they have the possibility of having a bad relationship. And yet ignores my statement about how a bad relationship could be good. "It's still better for a girl to insult a girl rather than a guy insulting a girl :/ it takes away their dignity." I literally read this over and over to see if I"m missing something deeper. But I"ve came to the conclusion that there isn"t one, thus I"m astonished that someone would use this as an argument. My opponent puts forward an evident double standard. And also gives no valid support for why it would better for a girl to insult. As if girl on girl insults are immune to losing their dignity
Single-sex education is better than co-ed.

So, my opponent basically took all of my arguments, cut it down into pieces and just denied all of it and gave meaningless "logic" to support his denial. My opponent constantly talks about gays and how gays also study together and I want to tell my opponent, "if you want to debate about gays, you can do it in another debate. This debate isnt about gays." Moreover, And there is huge difference in acting dumb with your friends and trying to impress someone you like. (I dont even need to explain this one) And opponent agrees with my point when he says "Therefore in double sex schools, people will try to less to embarrass themselves than as if they were just hanging out with their friends because they are trying to make the other sex like them." THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE OTHER SEX LIKE THEM. exactly what I'm trying to say. "How do schools take this into consideration, not only that, how do they fix it? It"s not enough to only consider it." Well, schools are initially made for teaching not for match making. And, I said that they could be in a bad relationship. Because they are young and half of them are not even serious and the relationship just won't work. If it does though, happy life to that couple! But since I'm not talking about them.... "If people are in a same sex school, they can too call the same sex sluts which would also result in the same thing, therefore my opponent"s argument is meaningless" It's still better for a girl to insult a girl rather than a guy insulting a girl :/ it takes away their dignity. Thanks I've successfully proven all my opponent argument as illogical.
Single-sex education is better than co-ed.

Students who are intimidated by the opposite sex may find it difficult to participate in class at co-ed schools, while others (admit it!) simply find the opposite sex to be a distraction from their academic work. For many heterosexual students, dating is one of the biggest issues at stake when considering co-ed schools, single sex schools and the impact their choice will have on the social life of campus. Co-ed schools offer the obvious benefit that the dating pool on campus is all-encompassing. However, as previously mentioned, some students find it more difficult to focus on academics at co-ed schools. After all, it"s hard to listen to your professor"s lecture when you"re constantly looking at that cute classmate across the aisle! Single sex schools may be a major turn-off for heterosexual students who believe that their dating options will be severely limited. Most single sex schools take this concern into consideration, however. Moreover co-education is bad because if a boy and a girl gets a relation, it would cause a bad future for them. One more thing is that girls can easily cheat the boys who are very lonely and boys can also cheat the girls who are lonely. This can be related with money. And it does introduce both the genders to certain things too early. For example if girls are talking to each other and they call each other 'slut' Just like that, guys might pick that habit up.. And they won't even realise how bad that is.
Single-sex education is better than co-ed.

Rebuttal My opponent claims that it's a great risk to combine two sexes in a school when going through puberty but neglects that there can be homo relationship as well a hetero. Therefore that point about them being introduced to sex at a young age could be going on in both schools. And I don't know where my opponent gets that people who are introduced to sex entails leaving education behind since my friend was valedictorian and had sex with a girl. This also leads to my next point which is why does my opponent assume that having sex is a bad thing and how does it entail leading to a decrease in moral value. I don't believe that majority of people decrease the moral value of the opposite sex because they had sex. In fact, I think they increase the moral value, but since we both don't have evidence it cancels out. Plus just because someone gets introduced to sex at a young age doesn't mean they are constantly having it. Argument There are undoubtedly certain attributes to one sex that"s more prominently seen than in the other, and to add more attributes to the everyday life will make the both sexes knowledgeable. For example women tend to be more nurturing towards children, men could learn things from them and women can learn things from men. Plus if we are trying to live, we need to have kids, therefore it would better if people were used to women, thus better at talking to them.
Rights are Alienable

Here's a problem with selling a right or giving up one as punishment: it doesn't exist. Like I said before, it has no value. It's not time, or the fruit of your labor. Rights are an idea. There will be no guarentee that you "have" the other person's right. Then again, you can argue that money is also idea, and it doesn't exist. However, it represents something, for example, gold, which has value. But rights also represents something. (Sorry if I was a little contradictory)It represents the person, who they are, andwhat they choose to do. If you own someone's rights, then that person cannot do thingsfreely and doesn't have a choice, which means that he/she is not theirown person anymore. He/she is a part of the owner, and therefore represents the owner, andtheir owner will have to pay for the consequences ofanything that he/she does, after all, whatever they do is ordered by their owner. Now we're getting into slavery. According toDictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com...) a slave is "aperson who is theproperty of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant."The owner owns a few ofhis/her rights,so he/sheconsidered a partial slave. (It's outlawed, I think...) Well, happy voting!
Rights are Alienable

The right to property in a car or house is very useful. Such goods are bought and sold constantly. To buy or sell, one must have the right to property in the item exchanged. Our rights are quite tangible, as they relate to real things like these. "Pursuit of happiness" is a euphemism used for property. So, if your car is sold, you stop "pursuing happiness" in it. The buyer "pursues happiness" by purchasing that. Your analogy to selling the color green does not follow. As I said above, our rights relate to tangible things which can be bought, sold and given away. "Here's the real proof: It is impossible to sell rights, even if he/she wanted to. For example, a person voluntarily sold her right of speech. If you slap her, I will guarentee you that she will say something like "ouch". " The right, in such a case, would be over control of her body, speech specifically. If the woman sold her right to speech, she would have given up the right to speak except at the permission of the owner. Assuming she continued to speak anyway, it would be within the owner's power to insure silence by, for instance, severing her vocal cords. The right she gave up is clear: that of control over her speech, even to such a drastic length. I certainly do not recommend it.
Rights are Alienable

I would like to start by saying that someone's rights are useless to anyone else. For example, it would be useless to buy a right. You just end up with 2 of the same rights, after all, you only need one. So why would you want one? Second, it wouldn't make sense to sell rights. You can't say, "Gimme that car, I'll stop pursuing happiness." A right isn't anything physical. You can't perceive it in any way. Selling it would make as much sense is selling the color green. Here's the real proof: It is impossible to sell rights, even if he/she wanted to. For example, a person voluntarily sold her right of speech. If you slap her, I will guarentee you that she will say something like "ouch". Ok...it's getting late. I gotta go. Good night and good luck! ;)
The universe does not necessarily require a cause

Pro said- Oh ya, that's right, you asserted that atoms are timeless in time, which I'm not sure makes much sense in the context the Theists use to describe the "cause of the universe" as timeless. I wasn't arguing God. But I can - Closing arguments- But let me ask you, you say that things can just begin to exist? No cause at all? They just out of nowhere are here? Nothing caused everything we have? If nothing caused the universe then where did all the stuff come from? If you asked me, this shows and proves creation. Things that just begin to exist would prove Creation. Scientist have longed to prove that everything has a cause and the cause was not God. The only way they could prove this is that everything that is here had a cause. Let's, just look here and think about this a minute, If the universe didn't have a cause then, you couldn't really argue Creation with high expectation. If things can just begin to exist as would be necessary for no cause. Then you could not necessarily argue Creation. That would still show a cause that God would be the cause. Now with this, I am not and do not have to prove God, I'm just showing how If there is no cause and things just begin to exist that you can't necessarily rule out Creation.
The universe does not necessarily require a cause

You were arguing me a few weeks ago on time and no time and cause and effect and thought I had a gottcha… Looks like you have changed your views. So I'm ganna have to do the best I can with this. Pro says- P1: "11. There can be no cause and effect unless there is time." This is most likely correct; however, this destroys your entire case. You are arguing for the existence of a timeless cause, but this cannot be true by your own premise here. If there can be no cause without time, then there can be no timeless cause of any kind (which falls in line with my argument). Very good observation now let me copy and paste from my first argument. 11. There can be no cause and effect unless there is time. 12. The universe has a cause. 13. Therefore the universe has a beginning in time. 14. The universe cannot have a beginning in its own time dimension. 15. Therefore the universe has a beginning in a time dimension independent of and preexistent to its own time dimension. Pro says- This is clearly false. I even posted a quote from a Physicist speaking about uncaused events in physics in my last round, so it's clear my opponent does not plan on engaging much of what I had to say in the last round. Just because time is needed for causation, that doesn't mean that uncaused events cannot happen in time. This is a clear non-sequitur. Here is the Quote- "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations." Adams are timeless, that exist in time, so this does not change that there was a begging of time.
This House Believes that Terrorism can be Justified

Well done, you managed to find a person, an amazing person, ONE person to justify your argument that the "end justifies the means". If you would go back to my definition of the debate, you will find that I stated that terrorism can only be justified when fighting back against an oppressive regime or society. Even if we totally discount my second argument (which is still entirely fair and you have actually agreed with), then by the definition terrorism can still be justified in these certain situations because of the pressured and unequal circumstances. This example was to back up my earlier point that in certain situations terrorism can be justified, something which you have not yet argued against or disproved. if we keep using violence it would just keep on going in an endless cycle Con does not seem to be getting the point of my arguments. Peaceful protests are all well and good, but sometimes they just aren't enough. Do you think that if America and England had peacefully fought back against Germany in WW2 we would still be in our rich and diverse world today? The harsh fact of life is that violence is needed sometimes, and that violence can be justified when the thing you are attacking is so repugnant that it would be immoral to leave it alone. However, surely the person that commits the act is not right to justify themselves? It's like how we don't let criminals to vote, why do you think that is? We don't let criminals vote because they lost that right when they committed the crime. However, this does not mean that their opinion and justification of the crime is any less worthy. Who are we to say what opinion is right and wrong? The fact that Alqueda would support 9/11 is a perfectly reasonable point. You seem to think that this nullifies the debate, but the debate is about whether terrorism can be justified or not, and if you agree then you are conceding that I am correct. To summarise my side of the arguments: 1) Terrorism can be justified when the thing being fought against is so terrible it would be worse to leave it to happen 2) Terrorism can always be justified by certain people as the justification is entirely subjective