BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global capitalism faces crisis

Americans, other citizens of the industrialized world, and many peoples in other parts of the international economy have entered what the financial expert and economic commentator, David D. Hale has called "the Second Great Age of Global Capitalism. The world economic and political system is experiencing its most profound transformation since emergence of the international economy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, a stagnant yet enormously rich Japan, the reunification of Germany and its consequent return as the dominant power in Western Europe, and the rise of China and Pacific Asia are influencing almost every aspect of international affairs. Changes originating in earlier decades have also become more prominent; these developments include the technological revolution associated with the computer and the information economy and the redistribution of economic power from the industrialized West to the rapidly industrializing and crisis-riven economies of Pacific Asia. The worldwide shift to greater reliance on the market in the management of economic affairs, and what many call the "retreat of the state," are integrating national economies everywhere into a global economy of expanding trade and financial flows. However, it is the demographic revolution that will have the greatest long-term significance. The extraordinary population decline in the industrialized world and the explosive growth of population in China, India, other parts of Asia, and elsewhere in the developing world will continue to significantly alter the global distribution of economic and, of course, military power. These developments are having important consequences for the lives of us all. There will be many winners as global capitalism refashions almost every aspect of domestic and international economic affairs. There will also be many losers, at least over the short term, as international competition intensifies and as businesses and workers lose the secure niches that they enjoyed in the past. Economic globalization presents both threats and challenges for the well-being of peoples everywhere. If individuals and societies are to adjust intelligently to the challenge of global capitalism, it is imperative that they understand the principal forces transforming international economic and political affairs.
Using Drones instead of foot Soldiers

Thanks for the welcome. 1)Yes drones aren't able to aim underground, and yes they aren't very accurate. But concerning Osama Bin Laden we can use the drones to weed him out of his hiding spots, they may not be able to aim underground but they cant destroy the entrances to his underground lairs. Yes there is a high possibility that the civilians will be killed, but there is also a possibility that the civilians themselves will become insurgents. As for the pilots, they cant hit every target intended, yes there will be civilian casualties, but there are always civilian casualties. There are alot less casualties when there are foot soldiers deployed, but it will all melt down to doing whatever it takes to win. The cost will be substantially higher, but we can still use drones to weed out the insurgents from their underground lairs. 2)The Pakistani, Afghani, and Iranian militarys are working with us, maybe not to their fullest ability. Bravery is an important virtue, but its either being cowardly or sending people home in body bags or caskets. As for killing innocents with drone strikes and being cowardly think of how many innocents the terrorists have killed with their suicide bombings. I am not saying that ground units are not needed we should simply deploy more drones than ground units. I myself cannot recall what had happened after we had kill al-Zarqawi but I do agree with you that new leaders will simply arise one after another, unless we can weed out all of the forces into one territory in which they hold up. 3)War as we all know is part of human nature, we cant prevent every single war that goes on in this world, we are how ever the power house of the world if I am not mistaken. There have been wars and/or battles that we have lost and we will not win every war that we are involved with. Their are governments who do impose their will on others in this world and nobody can say that there aren't any. Even if New Zealand wasn't caught in the crossfire lives will be lost either way. 4)The drones themselves are not to be held at fault, their pilots should be held at fault, or even their commanding officer for giving them the coordinates or location at which to do the attack. If un-manned weapons do infact conflict with the Geneva convention then the Atomic Warhead we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Drones are not meant to be used by everyone who can get their hands on them and when they do it will cause civilian deaths. Baitullah Mehsud may have had drones, but I do not believe he knew how to use them properly. I do agree that they do take more lives than ground fighting, and they are dangerous, but they will save countless American lives. They do work, but they must be used by people who know what to do to get their job done.
Using Drones instead of foot Soldiers

Since the war over seas has been going on for years as most of us know, and we have gotten about 80+ drone kills in a week, wouldnt it be alot easier to send drones to take out insergens instead of foot soldiers? it would lessen the K.I.A count for or young men and women over seas, yes it would cost alot of money but wouldnt it be easier to spend a bit of money to take care of the enemy?
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

To end up my argument I just want to show some actually footage from Pokemon and Digimon Pokemon: http://www.youtube.com... Digimon: http://www.youtube.com... I am trying to be impartial and fair http://www.youtube.com... There are certain moves that can finish a pokemon in one move, horn drill There are good moves from Digimon like Deadly bomb They both fight very hard Pokemon is great; however, Digimon is a good competition When a pokemon loses you can assure that it will be safe and secure at a PC, you can have 100s of pokemon even a really amazing battle like a war Real evidence of pokemon war : http://www.youtube.com... That is why Pokemon battles are much better
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

another thing is that you are mistaken about weapons and armor they dont only fight with that but their skills For example An Imperialidramon Pm Paladin mode not only it can strike with it's sword "Blutgang" but can use it can use it's hands to deflect and strike enemies why do they make digimon with modes, its for the purpose of switching their weapons into their natural insticnts like you can beat an Well equipped Omnimon with a Wargreymon How Wargreymon is a pile of dust to Omnimon because of Wargreymon's ability Attack Up3 which varies depending on the condition of the digimon if you give Imperialidramon Pm Paladin mode's sword 'blutgang' to Wargreymon it will have no effect just rise his attack by 20 to 40 there are attack of digimon that depend on the condition like Terra force is much powerful if Wargreymon is outnumbered or weak and Attackup3 will Boost attack of the terra force weak digimon are not destined to lose there defense will increase and Normal defense as if you count ZEEDMILLENIUMON ( Which solos ) even if it has 1 hp remaining it's health will increase by 600 every turn.You dont understand easily ZEEDMILLENIUMON has abiity of Stat rush all of its stats will increase drammatically every turn and it's 100 percent natural no armor no sword Just His In Built powers
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

First of all certain Pokemon can evolve into more than one thing, EEVEE! Next, Pokemon can use their EXP to be stronger and even if a Pokemon does't have the same type as it's move that still leads to damage. Every Pokemon can learn different moves so it requires a lot of strategy to play Pokemon and they can only use 4 moves to keep the game fair for both you and your opponent. Digimon you can only fight as strong as your weapons and armor is, kind of like GTA. Pokemon also can be an amazing card game, I tried playing Digimon cards, but it seemed hard, the designs looked nice though. when you battle with Pokemon cards you can actually fight with at least 6 different Pokemon; that one thing can be a difference in Pokemon and Digimon 6 vs 1, let us say that you have a weak Digimon, you will probably be destined to lose, and 6 Pokemon helps bring that uncertainty
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

digimon can also Dna Digivolve like Devimon and Angemon DNA Digivolve into Lucemon falldown mode and as for digimon special abilities Gallantmon Crimson mode Wears a Chrome Digizoid armor but if you make a digimon like omnimon equip the Chrome Digizoid armor it's added effects ( Only for Gallantmon Crimson mode ) wont be any use for omnimon As for Type advantages There is advantage of type Like A Kuwagamon this will be it's stats Atk 100 Def 100 Spirit 100 speed 100 etc This is S Exp of The Kuwagamon dragon 79000 aquwan 9000 insectplant 9000 Holy 9000 and others 9000 Its dragon s exp is more ( s exp means Species Experience ) so it is resistant to it and is more effective at the same time There are many Choices in Evolution they just don't evolve into the same creature every time like a Ducklett it can only evolve in to a swanna but as for Biyomon it can evolve into either Birdramon or saberdramon And one more thing No offense But ZEEDMILLENIUMON SOLOS
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

For Pokemon battles they can create a real surprise like they can evolve in battle, evolution doesn't exist in the same way in digimon as pokemon, even though there is a Digivlution, certain Pokemon have special abilities in battle that can be good for them or just be there weakness, so there is that uncertainty, I know certain Digimon can fight well if equipped with a certain item, I forgot what it was called, there are super effective and not effective, which allows a low pokemon to beat a legendary such as a Zapdos and a Golem, flying not effected by ground and ground not effected by electric; so there is the chance of beating a pokemon that is clearly stronger than your own.
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

Now for pokemon and digimon battles pokemon are strong Xerneas yveltal Arceus and all the trios But Digimon are equipped with missiles and armor So they get the upper hand And perhaps Arceus's Judgement = Destroys Couple' of blocks Lucemon's pardise lose= Busted a moon Omnimon X made a remade the universe and Restarted it There are digimon that control time and space and Anti matter ,so you cant say that Pokemon dialga will get back in time and destroys them before they are born there are digimons that can make pokemon trapped in between two dimensions
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

Pokemon always has new characters that what keeps the story-line from ending so the directors don't even have to end the show. They change the girls every season and I remember when Gary Oak was actually a part of the Pokemon story. DIgimon just has the same characters trying to save the world, which is so cliche in the world today, also even when we stop watching a particular type of anime that doesn't mean that the next generation will feel the same way. The other fact is you still failed to mention the Pokemon video games where you actually do have to stop the bad guy(team), and Pokemon makes a lot more money than Digimon. But we are forgetting that your argument was based on that if someone enjoys Pokemon more than Digimon than they are wrong; however, we are only mentioning the T.V series. There was also Pokemon Chronicles which allowed new people to enter the show. Digimon also will probably not outlive Pokemon because of the fact that they grow up, also anime tv is not meant to be realistic, that is what keeps it going, like people are ever going to be playing with monsters, so I would have to say that both shows are pretty unrealistic. The story behind Pokemon is simple, a boy tries to get gym badges and become a pokemon champion.
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

It's about a 10 year old boy and his Pikachu that grows stronger everyday. And you know what? It's still about that same 10 year old boy and that same Pikachu getting stronger, a good 12 years later. I can't understand how anyone can call it a cheap ripoff, the only thing similar between Pokemon and Digimon is the "-mon." In Digimon there was more than one person, and they were fighting to save the world, not to become a master trainer. They only ever had one monster with them ever, instead of capturing a bunch of different ones, you got to get to know all the characters (not just 3 or 4) and their monsters (because they never changed), instead of having to update yourself every week or two. In my opinion, Pokemon was, and still is, all about the money, there's barely even a story behind the series. Go ahead, I dare you to prove me wrong; what's it about again? He's trying to become a pokemon master. And then what? The series is basically a bunch of fillers as opposed to the in depth significance of light and darkness in Digimon. AND unlike Pokemon, you got to see how the main characters aged, I swear Ash has to be like 30 by now, how unrealistic is that?
If a Guy thinks that pokemon is better than digimon he's mistaken

The reason I think that if a guy likes Pokemon than it is ultimately his own opinion. Not all Pokemon have a human master, have you ever heard of wild Pokemon, they lead themselves perfectly fine without human assistance. Digimon has some benefits of it's own such as really cool looking monsters. (In Pokemon and Digimon, mon means monster). Personally I enjoy Pokemon more because it has really awesome video games, such as X and Y, and Gale of XD. Everyone as probably played pokemon or watched it or collected their trading cards, not as much as digimon
Pro Wrestling is more difficult than Mixed Martial Arts

Wrestling is just like cavemen bashign into each other screaming (NOT IN PAIN BUT SCREAMING IN ANGER) OOOOOOOOOOOAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGHHH I DA BEST LOK AT ME! OOH OHH AH AH! I BE DA WRESTLAAAAA! MMA is not about the acting, the image, the fakeness, the steroid muscles or the ripped image (MMA and UFC fighter do have ripped muscle but often due to hard owrk nto steroids). They have short hair, not gay long hair and htey know what is going down in life, it's not the acting or the falseness it's real hardcore combo, lesson and hard work. No joke, no ake no bullsh!t!That's the way!
Pro Wrestling is more difficult than Mixed Martial Arts

The issue with MMA is the 'civilisation' of the techniques to learn, Wrestling is purely about learning to take pain and shout (and act to a very basic level) MMA you need to learn how to think up combos that abide by numerous rules and also deliver lots of damage per hit etc, wreslting is just about building yourself up before the match enough to take hit after hit.This is the fundamental difference of wreslting and MMA. Wrestling is only difficult until the fight. The fight itsel is jsut bahing into each other, the hard bit being preparing your body to be huge and tough ineough to take bashes. MMA is extremely focus-requiring (thus no acting) as it's purely skilled fighters.
Pro Wrestling is more difficult than Mixed Martial Arts

My opponent made several good points in this argument. But his reference to putting a gorilla in a wrestling match is irrational. If you put a gorilla in a fight with any human being, it would murder that human, Mixed Martial Artist or Pro Wrestler. And although the MMA do have rules and regulations and techniques that make it "to intellectually demanding a task, for the average gorilla is not as intelligent as the average human," Pro Wrestling also has a strict set of rules and regulations and training. I was in no way insulting the intelligence of Mixed Martial Artists with my statement, and I do understand that Mixed Martial Artists do have to have a certain kind of intelligence to be successful. You say that "Mixed Martial Arts or MMA training can be difficult at times, especially when a practitioner is just starting off. " Well, currently in a pro wrestling school myself, I can say that this is also incredibly difficult. I am not denying the difficulty of MMA training schools, but I can say with confidence that my pro wrestling school is without a doubt the most intense thing I've ever done. I go home with my muscles sore and with black and blue marks covering my body. I have to perfect my vocal skills. I have to perfect my acting skills. I have to perfect the best of three worlds, while a MMA fighter only needs to be good at fighting. I have to be good at fighting, AND entertaining. You say here, "The MMA training usually begins in classes. " Now, so does pro wrestling, which, as I'm sure is a difficulty in MMA training, means that you have the added difficulty of standing out in a crowd. The thing that makes pro wrestling more difficult in this regard is [1] You have to stand out in at least 2 of the 3 skills I talked about in the former paragraph (Fighting, Vocal Skills, or Acting), and [2] We don't get the option to take personalized trainings. Sure every now and again, a coach will pull us away from the group for a few minutes, but my coach is usually too busy working as a general manager for a regional wrestling promotion. He has little free time that he would much rather use spending with his family than training students. "The reality of having to experience the pain first makes deeper sense why training is a must. " First of all, I don't understand what you mean by "they experience the pain first," so I'm just assuming that you mean by that comment as mixed martial artists experience more pain than pro wrestlers. That is again, untrue. I've been in a few critique matches for my school, with the time limit ranging from between five minutes to twenty five minutes. The five minute matches can make you grit your teeth, the matches that go after ten minutes make you sweat, and the matches after twenty minutes will leave you breathless. Now, compare this to Mixed Martial Arts, which is divided in five minute rounds. Now although I do understand that in the MMA you give it 110% every second of that five minute round, but you still get that break in between rounds, while with Pro Wrestling you get very few breathers.
Cloning humans is wrong

I'm happy to be debating with you, and I hope you learn something today. Here are my arguments for my first round: A cloned person may feel a pressure on him or her to be equal to the original person, and it can be hard to live up to expectations. This is not a full life for a human being! Everyone also have the right to their own unique genetic identity, and it is easy to feel inferior or like a copy, even if the clones will be more similar than identical twins. Besides, cloning is relatively new and therefore very expensive. A couple tells nettavisen.no they cloned their dog for 1.1 million dollars. Then we can imagine what it would cost to clone humans! It is also far from certain. The first sheep that was cloned, Dolly, died of lung disease early. Other animals that have been cloned have been freaks or died prematurely from serious diseases and disorders. It proves that it is not safe to clone humans yet! Cloning is very bad. This is because several of the arguments you have already read, but the main point of view is that we will tamper and arrange human genes. This is mainly due to it being too hard to keep control of such a thing. We're always talking about people are unique, there is none like you, but what if you suddenly encounter a clone? We do not know how a cloned person will react in practice, and we will ask questions such as: Can cloned children be manipulated to become monsters, like Hitler, or slaves, which is examined in the Brave New World? Or if a clone is created from an existing person, who can be the parents? And not least, we can wonder about the personality of the clone will be completely different, or if the genes actually play a very large role in personality? These are issues that are impossible to answer, and the consequences of trying this can be fatal. A quick summary and more arguments: "Cloning would devalue children and treat them as commodities. "It would radically alter what it means to be human - we would lose something vital to the uniqueness of humanity. "It is genetic reductionism. "Cloning fixes the genome and creates genetic throw backs. "Family relationships are confused by cloning and it creates inheritance issues. "Cloning could be used to replace family members who have died in accidents. "Writing in 1999, P. Moore reported that cloned eggs only have a 1% survival rate. "Consideration should be given to the negative effect upon the child of its origins. "There are uncertain genetic consequences: many of the early animal clones had clinical problems derived from genetic effects. For example, old age ilnesses in the youthful Dolly the sheep. Source: genefaith.org
Abortion

Anyone who has any understanding of morality knows that tines of war are different from times of peace. Japan bombed us, we hit back to end the war, and show power to prevent another war. Abortion isn't war, unless you have a war on babies, which would be strange. Abortion also doesn't save lives, as the bombing on Japan does. Abortion may give one a littler more money since they won't care for a child, but do does adoption. Since these two do the same we look at which is better. Death or life. Most people pick life. Adoption is not only financially better to the parents, but saves a life. Abortion may be saving the mother from a bit of delivery pain, but it kills to do so. The problem with charity is charity funds aren't infinite, charity relies on the people giving, the number of people eligible for charity is way greater then the number of donated stuff. "We have to make sure they have the same opportunities as we do" #the American dream only under capitalism is this possible. Burnie doesn't bring the poor up, he brings the rich down. In your rebuttal to my a or b questions you gave me material for more of the same instead of answering. A. Have a bad job or no job as a young adult b. Have no job cause your dead and never got a chance Your repeating the same things you said ealier. I've conceded facts, yes, I hope everyone does that. Why con wins: I have proved that the benifits of abortion can be received with not having an abortion, but also saving lives. Pro has attempted to prove his point by using killing in war as proof. Since abortion isn't war we can see this point as void. Pro has clearly no understanding of morality and fails to recognize killing one person as a greater harm then a little less money for another person. I have proved that abortion is life, with no rebuttal from Pro, which means I won that point.