BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States' response to terrorism should be less forceful

Although the war on terror may create jobs it also costs an incredible amount of money to maintain. A study done by the congressional economic committee estimated that by 2017 the war on terror will have cost a total of 3.5 trillion dollars. Furthermore it estimated that between 2002 and 2017 the war on terror will have cost each family of four in the U.S. $46,600. In addition to this the war on terror is potentially never ending since there is no defined enemy. Filip Spagnoli said in an article on humanrightsdefense.org "There is no well-defined enemy. Anyone can at any time become an enemy. For this reason, there is no conceivable end to the war. And if you claim to wage a war on terrorism, you might as well claim to wage a war on carpet bombing. Both are tactics or strategies, not something you wage war against.". The open-ended nature of the war on terror makes sustaining it economically almost impossible. Sforza, Teri. "War on Terror's Financial Cost: Trillions." The Orange County Register. N.p., 12 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ocregister.com...;. Spagnoli, Filip. "Human Rights Facts: The War on Terror." Human Rights Defense. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <http://www.humanrightsdefence.org...;.
The United States' response to terrorism should be less forceful

You argue that we need to focus more on our economy, but the war on terror has created many payed positions in the military to carry out the operations that we use to keep this country safe. Spencer Tucker said in his article about the war on terror, "The plan developed called for the employment of the most advanced military and communications technology in the world in what was certainly one of the world's most primitive battlefields. Special operations played a key role in allowing the anti-Taliban forces to seize and maintain the battlefield initiative. From the beginning, U.S. forces constituted the bulk of the NATO forces committed."
The United States' response to terrorism should be less forceful

Terrorism is a delicate topic that requires much of our governments attention in order to keep its citizens and foreign interests safe. There is such a wide variety of terrorism throughout the world that no one response can address every terrorist threat to America. Secretary of State John Kerry said in an address to the Global Counter terrorism Forum Ministerial said "Getting this right isn't just about taking terrorists off the street. It's about providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment.". This type of response to terrorism decreases the number of youngsters being recruited. These tactics also increase the world opinion of the U.S. by creating economic opportunities instead of decreasing the world opinion with violent and heavy handed attacks and drone strikes which often result in collateral damage.
All of our "Gods" are humanitys artificial constructs

Regardless of title, the purpose of this debate is to argue for the existence of God. I am of the opinion that due to the fact that the world is so complex, and because of how complex we humans are, God must exist. Consider the fact that we humans have the ability to think,talk,smell, have emotions etc there must be a higher power. The atheistic theory that we humans were created because of a bang makes no sense. This is so because if humans were created completely out of nothing-with no higher power behind it- then how can we think,eat,talk etc? I look forward to debating this issue
All of our "Gods" are humanitys artificial constructs

Alright, before i give the main evidence i just want to point out that 99.5% is not 100% so why was it changed if it truly was the word of GOD As for actual evidence, the bible states that god created earth 6000 years ago, and since even the bible states man was litterly made from dirt -_- that mankind existence is exactly or less then 6000 years old right? well this couldn't be further from the truth Site explaining evidence for evolution > http://humanorigins.si.edu... this is explains homo sapiens history along with evidence > https://www2.palomar.edu... proof the ark couldn't have been built "especially with humanity's capability 4000 years ago" > https://ncse.com... proof THE EARTH WAS NOT CREATED 6000 YEARS AGO > http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... > http://www.talkorigins.org... So their is some evidence for you, also consider that humans share a large amount of DNA with other primates witch is the result of genetic ancestor "Humans did NOT evolve from modern apes" and the genetic ancestor can be dated to go back at least a few million years witch is quite bit longer then 6000 years. We also have found remains of earlier cousins to homo sapiens such as the recently departed neanderthals about 39,000 years ago in Europe and the even further dating back Homo-Erectus witch is probably the common ancestor for humans/neanderthals. so did they exist before the universe, and if so did god just deem them unworthy ? or is it some mystical hoax put by god to test our faith -_- > http://humanorigins.si.edu... Also i stated above that the bible litterly talks about man kind coming from dirt, before you say its the same boat evolution claiming life from non life, please take into HUGE CONSIDORATION that their is a big diffrence between "DIRT" and organic molecules such as "Fatty Acids, Nucleotides" like i stated in my previous argument life can come from non-life, but it cant come from just any non-life thing. also the statement i made in the begining "All of the gods that certain groups of people believe in have no cosmological significance because they are all the byproduct of human mythology and dont really exist" that is because all of the religions originated from human culture and mythology, along with that they all share the same quality's such as. - their full of constrictions - non of them have any legitimate evidence to back them up - all literature and anything written about said religion had to have been done some by a human "aliens or crap is for another debate" - events and practices that the religions proclaim have either been proved inaccurate or utterly barbaric. once more my point is that i have been given no reason to believe that any of these supposed gods are real, and even if their really is a god "most likely not" do you really believe "the one true god" would be one of humanity's artificial constructs?
All of our "Gods" are humanitys artificial constructs

First off the bible and science can and will never go hand and hand, and at the time period the bible was supposedly "WRITTEN AT" most people thought the earth was flat, also the bible describes events happening at certain time periods that have been scientifically proven NEVER TO HAPPEN, for example The universe and the earth are not 6000 years old, their was no GREAT FLOOD, all of humanity is not descended from Noah whiten a time period of 4000 years. Also the bible was WRITTEN BY MAN, and if you want to argue that supposedly god told them what to write, i could write a story on existence and claim a higher power told me what to right, and even though that would be a load of crap, its just as valid when it comes to the bible. i also assume you believe in the christian god hence god/jesus from what i understand gods will is absolute right? well please explain the fact that the original bible witch if you dont know HAS MANY DIFFERENCES THEN THE ORIGINAL BIBLE including that it mentions nothing about the resurrection of jesus chirst unlike the modern bible, in fact just any diffrence should be a red flag because the bible should be the word of god, why would you change the word of god if his word is true? and if you say one part of the bible is wrong, well your "god" says its all true with means, either your god is a liar, or the bible is wrong and its god isnt real. https://thechurchoftruth.org... Also why specifically pick Christianity? it is equally as valid as all the other religions based around these gods listed below https://en.wikipedia.org... hence their are far more then those, but you can look that up for yourself also you have yet to give me any exact examples of a creator, and even if you could witch you are yet to do, now you have to give me evidence on why it is YOUR GOD instead of the god OTHER people believe is the one true god :)
All of our "Gods" are humanitys artificial constructs

i would like for my opponent to provide some evidence for there opening statement "All of the gods that certain groups of people believe in have no cosmological significance because they are all the byproduct of human mythology and dont really exist. Please look at these links for scientific evidence for the Bible http://www.godandscience.org... The Bible contains scientific facts http://www.godandscience.org... https://carm.org... https://m.youtube.com...
All of our "Gods" are humanitys artificial constructs

My opponent has said that human beings are complex organisms. I agree, but if humans were created from a series of events that happened long ago, then the statement that humans are complex gets weaken. Because if humans were created because of several events that happened long ago, what caused those events to make such complex organisms? God, of course. This is because you can"t get life out of non life. A complex organism must have a complex maker http://www.creationism.org... https://www.jashow.org...
All of our "Gods" are humanitys artificial constructs

Humans along with most other living things can think because we have complex neural networks called brains that have been fine tuned via evolution over hundreds of millions of years for a species in that given environment, and talking is just a byproduct of having a brain complex enough, and having complex vocal cords "also a product of evolution" and humans are not the only animals in this boat, other animals have vocal cords, and all living things be it a simple bacterium or a whale eat for the simple need of acquiring energy. And humans were not created from the big bang, they were created from a line of events that happend long after the big bang. as for being supposedly created out of nothing, life didn't come from "nothing" the early earth was a for more organic rich environment were a wider ordeal of chemistry was able to occur, as for how cells came into existence i give you a link to how simple RNA protocells from the RNA world hypothesis can spontaneously gather into very simplistic cells capable of evolution and natural selection from nothing more then what would have been in the environment around it. http://exploringorigins.org... and just because something is complex doesn't mean by default it had a creator and all of things you described like smell and emotion can be summed up as the result of having a complex brain "witch humans are not the only creatures to have" http://www.tsbvi.edu... my overall point is 1: Their is no evidence for a "higher power" or "creator" 2: Just because something is complex doesn't automatically mean it had to have had a creator 3: And just because the big bang and evolution/abiogenisis dont make sense to you, that itself is NOT evidence against it.
The Naruto series are a better designed anime series than the Dragonball series

I believe that the Naruto anime series (Naruto and Naruto Shippuden) are a better anime series than the Dragonball series (Dragonball, Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT). My first point is to site the imdb scores of both the series. Dragonball has an imdb rating of: 8.6 (www.imdb.com/title/tt0280249/) Dragonball Z has an imdb rating of: 8.7(www.imdb.com/title/tt0214341/) Dragonball GT has an imbd rating of: 6.9 (http://www.imdb.com...) This gives the dragonball series an average of 8.06(3sgf) Naruto has an imdb rating of 7.9(www.imdb.com/title/tt0409591/) Naruto Shippuden has an imdb rating of 8.4(www.imdb.com/title/tt0988824/) This gives the Naruto series an average of 8.15. My second point is that the Naruto series has a greater plot depth than Dragonball Z. Though Dragonball's plot is big, it still doesn't reach the size of Naruto's. Let's look at it this way, the Dragonball series has a lot of foes, especially in Dragonball Z. There's nothing wrong with that but in Naruto, you later realize that many of the villains encountered were all just part of something larger and more immense than the foes first encountered. Son Goku's first villain in the Dragonball Z saga is his older brother Raditz who tells him everything about his past and his race. Then, Goku dies when ensuring that Piccolo kills Raditz by grabbing him from the back. Son Goku dies in this process. But after this, Son Goku is continuously revived whenever the planet seems to be in peril. This hinders the plot development because we never move past Son Goku's death since he is easily revived. This seems like a ploy to keep the Dragonball series interesting but in all fact means that new character's are underdeveloped. In Naruto, there's a major contrast, the lead character never dies but is further developed into a character that people want to see the best come out of. The plot encourages people to question it to find answers. Character's are interlinked in long chains. The only time people are brought back to life (with the exception of Gaara) is to be used against their friends. This makes the series much more enticing. Lastly, the character development is great. Small character's in the plot are developed to the points of other major character's which is something that the Dragonball series lacked. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://naruto.wikia.com...
A virgin birth is impossible.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding about the resolution. While I do not believe god got Mary pregnant, I do know that it is possible for virgins to have babies. I thought we were going to debate whether or not it was possible for Mary to get pregnant while staying a virgin. I believe I have shown enough proof that it was possible for a woman living 2000 years ago to become pregnant while still keeping her virginity. Once again I am sorry for the misunderstanding, and I hope maybe Pro can find someone who would like to debate him on this subject the way he would like.
A virgin birth is impossible.

I seem to have misunderstood what my opponent wanted to debate. I was focusing on virgin births in general rather than the case in the bible of Mary giving birth to Jesus. But my points stand as any of these cases could have happened and still appear inexplicable by the laws of nature and considered an act of God to the people living in the first century (1).The resolution of "a virgin birth is impossible" is different from the statement "the miracle birth of Jesus is impossible". I was under the impression that we were going to debate whether it is possible a virgin (Mary) could give birth to a son (Jesus). Miracles are subjective and can be interpreted differently. What one person considers an act of God may just be inexplicable to another.People in the first century knew very little compared to what we know about science and biology today. With the first reported case of artificial insemination only appearing in 1884 (2), It is very likely the idea of a virgin giving birth was considered "inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God" (1) by these people and called a miracle.Not only have I negated the resolution of a virgin birth being impossible, I have also shown how the virgin birth of Jesus could be considered a miracle by the people living during that time.(1)- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2)- http://en.wikipedia.org...
A virgin birth is impossible.

In this debate I will argue that the miracle birth of Jesus is impossible. If a story contains contradictions it can be used as evidence to negate it.A 'virgin birth" contradicts with what we now know about human biology. Thanks for accepting, Con! I'll agree to the definitions.My opponent makes an excellent argument. Indeed, in the scenarios Con listed a "virgin birth" could be possible. However, in my opening statement I clearly stated: "In this debate I will argue that the miracle birth of Jesus is impossible.' I'll concede that 2000 years ago a woman could have got pregnant from any one of the three scenarios Con listed. Perhaps I should've been more specific and provided a detailed resolution. I can see where Con is going with his argument. Mary may have got pregnant through the means Con listed, and it very well could've been interpreted as a "miracle". It was my intention to debate on the issue of "miraculous conception" as described in the N.T.34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" 35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.-Luke 1:34-35 I should've been clearer in my opening statements. It was also my intention to make the connection between Paganism and Christianity. When christianity was in its early stages and gaining popularity, Rome adopted Christianity. [1] There are parallels between between the Paganism and Christianity. The most likely reason would be ease of conversion. A Pagan myth that was borrowed and applied to Christianity was "Miraculous births". [2]So, as you can see. A "virgin birth" from this this perspective, is clearly impossible.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(mythology)#Hinduism
A virgin birth is impossible.

I will be arguing that it is possible for a virgin to give birth. I will not be using the story in the bible but rather scientific facts for reasons a women 2000 years ago could have had a virgin birth. Since my opponent offered no definitions I will provide them. Virgin- A person who has not experienced sexual intercourse. Sexual Intercourse- Coitus between humans. Impossible- Incapable of having existence or of occurring. Birth- The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. Purposeful Alternative insemination Alternative insemination is the introduction of semen into female’s genitals by other means than ejaculation into the vagina. When the woman is at the right time in her menstrual cycle, the semen is deposited. This is done using a syringe or other device. The semen can travel in the moisture of the vulva to the egg (1). In a women’s body sperm can survive up to 5 days (2). As you can see a woman could get pregnant if she purposefully put sperm in her vagina without a male partner ejaculating in to it and remain a virgin. 2. Accidental Alternative insemination If the sperm was on an object or clothing that was inserted or touched the vagina, there is a chance of fertilization of an egg. One common place this is possible is a toilet. Since sperm can live on a dry surface until the semen is dried (2), there is a chance of fertilization. If the semen gets on her hands or clothing and not gotten rid, and then enters the vagina a woman can get pregnant while still having her virginity (3). 3. Anal/oral Sex As anal/oral sex does not count as sexual intercourse a woman can get pregnant from both. After ejaculation into the anus from anal sex, semen can drip down and still enter the vagina and fertilize an egg. The same is true for oral sex. If the semen drips from the mouth area into the vagina an egg can still be fertilized and the woman can remain a virgin (4). While the chances of these are low they are still possible. For a women to get pregnant it requires her to be ovulating and for the sperm and egg to meet (1). While unlikely it is still possible for a virgin to get pregnant and give birth to a baby. All of these possibilities could have happened 2000 years ago and could have caused a virgin to give birth to a child. Sources: (1)-. http://www.plannedparenthood.org... (2)- . http://www.webmd.com... (3)- . http://www.medicine2life.com... (4)- . http://pregnancy.emedtv.com...
A virgin birth is impossible.

In this debate I will argue that the miracle birth of Jesus is impossible. If a story contains contradictions it can be used as evidence to negate it.A 'virgin birth" contradicts with what we now know about human biology. If Mary was parthenogenesis, Jesus would have been female. All parthenogenesis produces females--biological fact.http://en.wikipedia.org... I will also argue that the concept of a 'virgin birth' was copied from Pagan religions that were prevalant in Rome
Should NATO put combat troops in Ukraine

You want to see Ukraine safe and sound? Interesting. Putin said same thing: "I want to see Crimea safe and sound". Maybe you care about safety, but none Russian, US or EU leaders do. What they care about is oil and gas. And that is what this war is all about. There is no victim and bully here. There is only two sides fighting for resources. People in every nation at war believe their reasons for killing other nation's people are pure and just. The right thing to do for people in US is to make sure their troops are home. Right thing for Russian people is to make sure their troops are at home; Let's give them example, not war.
Should NATO put combat troops in Ukraine

I'll tell you I'm not a fan of my own country which is the US. This is coming from a point of view that I like to take, which is the weak nation getting bullied by bigger ones. For example I disagreed with the Iraqi War. We went in there because someone said "They have weapons of mass destruction(nukes)" My country did not think twice. No further investigation, and you know what? Iraq was clean, for the most part anyway. The middle eastern countries were the victim here, and now the Ukraine. I don't care about my country being the leader of the world, I want to see Ukraine safe and sound.
Should NATO put combat troops in Ukraine

You are suggesting more countries should join the war in order to prevent it from becoming a world war. Position you are coming from is a position of arrogance. US is not ruler of the world. It is a country just like every other. War is currently between Russia and Ukraine. Only way for it to expand further is for other countries to take sides. Even if every other country in the world was at war, as longs as no NATO's countries are attacked, NATO has no right to interfere. Reason why not just WW II, but every other international war happened is because some rulers wanted more control.