BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Hitler deserved a nobel peace prize

I'll get our other debate deleted once we catch up to the point that we are at now. Our old debate was here but the glitch stopped us from doing it: http://www.debate.org... have noticed that resetting the debate has caused multiple glitches in debates that I have seen so that is why I have decided to redo it as a new debate. I will just copy my arguments over and then I will get our old debate deleted. I am doing this debate because I recently achieved 4000 elo. Resolved: Adolf Hitler deserved a Nobel Peace Prize after World War 2 - assuming that he survived and did not commit suicide.Rules1. No forfeits2. Sources may be provided in the comments3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic7. The burden of proof is shared8. First round is for acceptance only9. You cannot contest with definitions, burdens or rules10. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss Definitions Adolf Hitler: A German political leader of the twentieth century, born in Austria. Hitler led the Nazi party, and began to rule Germany in 1933 as a fascist. Deserved: Justly or rightly should have receivedNobel Peace Prize: One of six annual prizes that are awarded to people for important work in the field of keeping peace. StructureR1: Acceptance R2: Arguments (no rebuttals)R3: Rebuttals to R2R4: Rebuttal to R3 (defense)
Support displaced Syrians

Eight hundred dollars per month per person would comfortably support an individual's basic needs if housed in this country, as well as in most others. By American economic standards, allocating a $24 billion annual value to the collective needs of displaced Syrians would subsidize the efforts of nations across the globe to support Syrian civilians until the end of the conflict. This would lead by example, inspiring other nations to pitch in with their own financial and logistic contributions to the crisis. A year under this plan would cost roughly 1% of the $4 trillion required to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and would act as early damage control against the escalating Syrian situation. It would reduce the risks of having to repeat such an invasion, concretely disprove the talking points of terrorist anti-western propaganda, and provide a political bargaining chip to negotiate with whichever Syrian faction stabilizes as the Syrian leader in the next few years.
Support displaced Syrians

Terrorist groups get much of their political support and funding by accusing the United States and Europe of hypocrisy and cowardice - it is both inhumane and dangerous to prove them right. It is absurd to think we will make more global enemies by defending civilians than we will by ignoring them. Additionally, it is naive to think the human race can prevent terrorism by preventing people from moving into new countries - bad men exist in all cultures, and their evil is not triggered by the process of migration. It also lacks a grasp on complexity and reality to try and chracterize an entire population of Alawites, Sunnis, Christians, Armenians, Assyrians, Druze, Kurds and Turks by the actions of Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda and Assad. My opposition would have us quarantine an entire population of unarmed civilians from aid and support because we fear political movements that exist within those borders, but political borders do not divide the world between good and evil or civilized and malicious.
Support displaced Syrians

While this is a good idea to help benefit the terrible situation that is occurring in Syria right now,I believe that this is an unacceptable answer. Syria is a country of chemical warfare, and terror. While Syria is saying that they will end their chemical weapons and attacks, their is no way to be sure that their word is good. How would we determine whether or not an incoming immigrant was a "terrorist" or not? If we begin to immigrate Syrians into the United States, and then the United States decide to launch their cruise missile strike on Syria, as President Obama is currently leaning towards, what will these Syrians do?These immigrants could be "terrorists",and they could retaliate against America, just as the Al-Qaeda did on September 11th, 2001. No we did not bomb Iraq,but we sanctioned them, had troops watching them in Saudi Arabia, and also had support of Israel, their enemy. Al-Qaeda killed over 4,000 people from this...what would Syrians INSIDE our country do if we bombed them?
PC is superior to consoles

People can choose. I'm not saying people can't have preferences. I have no problem with people who prefer a console as their platform of choice, but preference is subjective. I'm discussing how the PC is objectively superior to consoles. This doesn't denote that I think everyone should choose a PC.To address the comment, not from Con:You pay more up front for a decent PC, but you save more money over time. As I mentioned previously, on consoles you have to pay to play every game online when you've already bought the game, you've already bought the console, and you already purchase the internet. Games are cheaper on PC as well, Steam sales happen very frequently and the deals are great, and there are other services like G2A who sell games at incredibly low prices. After you get things set up, you don't have to pay much money at all afterward.As far as updates go, drivers just need to be installed when the PC is up and running for the very first time, and you don't need to upgrade hardware often at all. The last time I bought a PC part was 2 years ago, and it was a cooling system. You only NEED to upgrade a part if something stops working, but that's never happened to me once and I've been gaming on my current rig for 3 years. If something in your console stops working, you have to send it in or buy a new one. You can't fix it yourself.The PC isn't hard to understand. Building it just takes an hour of googling, and once you get it done you need to just install the OS and drivers. The common man wouldn't have a hard time at all doing that. I sure didn't.
PC is superior to consoles

You have to care about what entertainment technological digital visual presentation device you want to use. Today in the mumbo jumbo criteria of pissmisycm's there creates the highly dynamic visual presentation application for lifestyle enhancement, or its enhancing the modern generation's low negotiable chemistry. james Jonah Handsome Goanna had a console he got from the chinese factory, that becomes the conclusion of my mother who lives in the same asia location and now I'm thinking of what she would want to say. Of course she has an opinion but the real fact is that my lord needs everyone, this lord our savior wants us to feel free to pick what we want and not feel pressured and anxious to pick what ever we want. That is why we kill those who appose anarchism.
PC is superior to consoles

There are far too many objective advantages of the PC over the consoles. PC is an open platform (meaning any developer can put games on the platform without a company like Sony or Microsoft having to approve it), you don't have to pay a subscription to play every single online game for absolutely no reason, you have the option to use multiple monitors, you can play games with much better graphics above 60 fps with good enough peripherals, and the keyboard and mouse are objectively superior to the controller (even if you prefer the controller you have the option to use it). There are far too many positives on the side of the PC.I await the response of my contender.
Parents should talk to their kids about drugs at a young age

Many parents do tell their children about drugs at a young age. The problem is, the kids just don't listen. Telling your children about drugs at a young age won't do much because when their best friend asks them to use drugs, chances are, they are going to say yes. I do think it is extremely important to find a way to dramatically decrease the percentage of people who use drugs in the future, but the problem isn't awareness.
Animal Rights

If animals were as smart as us they would be supreme. They would be driving cars, building cities, talking on cell phones, and debating about whether they should have rights, but their not because they are NOT EVEN CLOSE TO US IN BRAIN POWER. God did not name the animals Adam did, a HUMAN. Animals cant have rights because they don't need them. What would they do with them. Nothing because they are just animals. Humans are supreme and always will be supreme. If Humans are just animals then would you rather me eat a cow or a human.
Animal Rights

There is a limit to the amount of animals on this Earth. Since you are deciding to refer to "God" oofr the bible, he actually took time to name/create all of the living animals, on the 6th day of the creation of Earth. I am not going to rely only on the bible. Animals are not stupid, many animals are as intelligent as us. Animals such as dolphins, whales, and apes have minds that are just as brilliant as ours. And many animals display characteristics of human knowledge, few above the rest.
Atheists do not have an excuse for preaching atheism

I did indeed make the statement, in Forum, and I'm pleased to have Con challenge me on it. In the Forums, people seem to often forget that this is a debate site. I agree with Con's definition of atheism. I am an atheist, and have defended the atheist position in a number of debates here. I disagree with Con's definition of "preaching." My assertion about atheists preaching uses "preaching" in a sense paralleling the way religious people preach. We think of a religious person preaching, we do not think of a vigorous defense of the ontological argument, or anything like that. What we think of are statements like, "Jesus is the only way to salvation!" The dictionary gives the definitions of "preach:" 1 : to deliver a sermon 2 : to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner http://www.merriam-webster.com... I was focusing on the second definition, but the first has some relevance. The definition includes "to urge acceptance ... to exhort." The definition is *not* "to present a logical argument in favor of a position" or in any way to argue a position. When religious people present arguments, they are not preaching and when atheists present arguments they are not preaching either. Preaching is tediously presenting a series of conclusions. The definition of a "sermon" includes "a speech on conduct or duty," http://www.merriam-webster.com... It is saying what people ought to do, not why they ought to do it. Again it is an exhortation, not an argument. I am claiming that atheists can argue for their position, but they have no excuse for preaching. My sense of "preach" clearly parallels the religious use.
Atheists do not have an excuse for preaching atheism

"RoyLatham: Atheism, The one thing more obnoxious than a religious person preaching is an atheist preaching. The religious people have an excuse; they think they are saving souls. Atheists have no excuse." I would like to challenge RoyLatham on the statement that atheists have no excuse for preaching atheism. The burden of proof is on myself, I must show that atheists have an excuse for preaching atheism. First, some clarifications and rules set forward. I would like to avoid semantics, except for the purposes of clarifying our positions. The first round will be used for him to simply agree (and offer his own definitions if necessary), and in the second round I will make my case. From there we will debate. Preaching I will define as strongly and assertively proclaiming a position. This is a bit of a mish-mash of the definitions involved with preaching/sermons as well as how Roy has described what he sees as preaching. Atheists I will define as people who do not believe in a god. Atheism is lack of belief in a god. This is distinct from the assertion that no god exists. Therefore, my resolution is that people who have no belief in a god have an excuse for trying to assertively encourage others not to believe in a god (ie, they have an excuse to preach their lack of belief). Obviously we cannot speak in terms of all or 100% of atheists. So the debate must apply to simply atheists in general/the majority of atheists, specifically those who preach atheism. Note: My resolution is not that RoyLatham made the statement. If he did not, he may still accept the debate and simply debate my resolution. The resolution is simply a response to what he has apparently said.
Christianity has roots in other religions besides Judaism.

All of my opponents arguments rest on one conjecture: Parallelomania (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Parallelomania refers to a phenomenon where authors perceive apparent similarities and construct parallels and analogies without historical basis. My opponent offered various comparisons between Horus and Christ, and offered a link to validate the claims. Here is a quote from the source given under the heading 'Reactions of Egyptologists': "There is no evidence that Horus was born of a virgin, that he had twelve disciples, or that he was considered incarnation of God."To further validate my point, here is a list of common deities that are generally attributed (through false information) to have correlations with Christ: Krishna, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Attis, and Dionysus, and here is a link that shows that none of these deities actually do have substantial correlations: http://thedevineevidence.com...(Some examples from the link is that some of these deities do not actually have a virgin birth, specifically Horus, who was born from his mother using magic to make sperm from her dead husband to be able to become pregnant, etc.)Pro "Although passed down mostly by oral tradition" I argue that pagan mythologies borrowed from the Christian religion. We have accurate accounts of prophecies that the Messiah was supposed to fulfill that can be demonstrably be proven to have been written before Jesus. However, with pagan mythologies, there is very little written material, and as they relied on oral traditions, additions are inevitable. Unless my opponent can validate the argument by providing adequate references to pagan texts that predate Christ, there is no case here other than certain historians using their credibility to create erroneous arguments for Christian/pagain parallels. (Also, it doesn't matter that we celebrate Christmas on December 25th, because, as my opponent has proved, Christ was not born in December. Yes, later Christians celebrated this date to increase their number of converts, but that isn't paganism influencing Christian theology, it's just Catholics willing to do anything for converts.)
Christianity has roots in other religions besides Judaism.

OpeningAs my opponent accidentally posted his comment in the argument section, I obviously don't have anything to rebut. However, I will give an overview of my understanding of Christianity.BeliefsTrue Christianity does not have God as a trinity. The Scriptures declare one God, the Father, and one mediator between man and God.Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." Christianity does not believe in Hell as a place of torment. Believers will be resurrected, but those who are deemed as unworthy by God will be annihilated in Gehenna, not have an eternal torment in hell.StatementJesus came to fulfill the Law given by Moses and to fulfill the messianic prophecies. Everything Jesus did was in relation to Scripture, not as an influence of other religions.
Christianity has roots in other religions besides Judaism.

I am on the pro side of this debate, and thus I shall be arguing that Christianity had many roots from religions that it would declare "heathen". Of course, Judaism will be off the table, because Christians and everyone understands that a lot of Christianity is from Judaism and therefore it is unnecessary to discuss it. As the con side for this debate, my opponent shall be arguing that Christianity had no roots in any other religions. (accepting Judaism) I wish whoever it is the best of luck. Here is the layout of the debate. Pro | Con Round 1: Description of debate | Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments | Opening statements/ Refutations Round 3: Refutations/argument | Refutations/arguments Round 4: Closing arguments/refutations | Closing arguments/ no new arguments The rules are as follows 1. No swearing 2. This is not an argument over the existence of god 3. This is not an argument over the validity of the bible 4. This is not an argument over the divinity/ existence of Christ 5. Please do not use religion in your argument. 6. Judaism is not allowed to be used on the pro side as an example.
Christianity has roots in other religions besides Judaism.

My opponent never offered any evidence to show that pagan religions were similar to Christianity, only just by asserting that the that there were simiarities. Some people have claimed similarities, but historians have denied such claims.The only real argument that my opponent has is that Christians celebrate Christmas, which was on a pagan date. However, this does not show Christianity changing their beliefs. The Christians actually took the pagan dates, and changed the nature of the celebration. I argue that just because when Christianity became the main religion in Rome so Constantine changed all of the pagan holidays to christian ones but kept the dates just to make everyone happy is not a good argument to show that other religions influenced Christianity. Actually, this is Christianity influencing other religions to make more converts.
Humans Can Have A Soul

I’ll keep this short since my opponent is unable to respond.My opponents objection to the given definition of soul is an odd objection because it’s ultimately an argument better represented by a linguist than anyone else. Why do we call anything by any name? Why is the word blue represent blue? Because humans look at object with that color and named that attribute blue. In the case of a soul people need a name to attribute what is perceived as free will. Some give it far more definition than that, but I see no reason to include attributes that cannot be tested, or clearly defined.Free will is something that can be defined even if you object to the definition. There was no presented objection to the definition of free will just whether it exists by that definition. My opponent could have taken a different path, and objected to the definition as Sam Harris, and Stephen Hawking have. In fact, I was hoping more for a more modern attack on my argument then has been presented by my opponent.If you’ve stayed reading to this point. Thank you for your time.
Humans Can Have A Soul

I was a bit concerned that I wasn’t going to have time to respond to my opponent. There was a family emergency this weekend, and I only now, with 14 hours left, know that my opponent has forfeited, or had their account terminated for other reasons. I’ll cover the objection to why should we considered the given definition of soul in the rebuttal, and focus what little time I have on the issue of uncertainty vs determinism. Unfortunately, if you’re set on believing in local realism in spite of any experiment, or data to the contrary, there is little I can say to persuade you. However, if you side with determinism through either the Many Worlds Hypothesis, or via non-local variables then there is something that I can. With non-local variables a form of time travel is permitted. After all, a non-local variable is a future state causing a change to a past state. This permits two systems that use non-local variables to be established to become interdependent. If determinism were correct this would lead to an infinite loop, and prevent any result from occurring. However, if you accept that one of the results is randomly set, and the others are falling in line with that one random result then you have no more paradox. The Many Worlds Hypothesis is interesting, but the lure of determinism is illusory. Every possible outcome occurs in the Many World view, but you are still left with no way of determining which of an infinite number of paths the world will follow. An indeterminate path is hardly determinism, and yet the Many World view is only a hypothesis with no proposed experiment.Thank you.
Humans Can Have A Soul

I am not arguing that the mind is necessary the sole, or that physical events may have no effect whatsoever. What I am suggesting is that when the mind is faced with a probabilistic outcome that it could query, or be affected by, a source of real chaos in order to make a choice that had no predetermined outcome. For example, if there were a 60 percent chance of turning left, and a 40 percent chance of turning right that choice could be chosen nondeterministically. Con has assumed far more than what’s been stated, and is an attempt to change my argument into something it is not. Con fails to understand what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is. An appeal to authority is only applicable with the authority is false. In Cons case Einstein is unable to review, or examine any data after his death. It would be like claiming the solar system is unstable because Newton claimed so in spite of additional data from Laplace demonstrating otherwise long after Newton's death[1]. However, in my case, all I am doing is stating the definition of a soul. There are plenty to choose from, and I’ve choosen one based on the function of a soul. By taking the position of non-locality Con has refuted his own position on the Principle of Determination where every later state is uniquely determined by a later state. In order for non-local variable to function later states can determine prior states. It also happens to break the Principle of Continuity, and Causality. The Many-World interpretation is interesting, but defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, and Matter. Con is awfully willing to discard a lot of the principles he holds against me to support his view. However, by accepting that some things can be chosen via true chaos most of those principles can remain unscathed. My objection to Cons analogy is that his bar for “similar” and “parallels” is so low that he could use it to compare to any Scientific Theory he didn’t like to discredit it. The analogy is little more than an ad hominem tailored to people who dislike Creationism. Renunciation was not dropped. Con had chosen to stay marred in dated information with the Copenhagen Interpretation. Bell’s Theorem, and the experimental evidence is the proof needed to consider renunciation. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough for him when I stated his argument fails to take into account any of the progress in the field of Quantum Mechanics since the Copenhagen Interpretation. Cons argument regarding Bohmian Mechanics is just an extension of the hidden variables argument. Bell’s Theorem addresses that. If Con wishes to cede the Principles of Determination, Continuity, and Causality I’d be happy to show the logical contradiction against non-local variables in the next round. [1] . http://www.haydenplanetarium.org...