BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Israel is a Miracle Under Assault

I think a sufficient response could simply be to state that correlation does not equal causation. Simply because A occurred before B, does not mean that A caused B [1]. The fact that President Bush did something one day, and the US was hit with a major “act of god” the next does not, in any way, imply that they are connected. However, to do PRO’s full response justice, I will presently address it more thoroughly. Crappy Protection The first thing to hit me is that if God is actually protecting Israel by way of adverse weather events in the United States, he is really doing a poor job. First off, in the events PRO noted, with a single exception, the storm took place after the event. If God were trying to protect Israel, perhaps it would have been a better idea to make the storm hit before the US took whatever action he didn’t want to happen. Also, it is well documented that in major storms like the ones PRO noted, it is the poor that pay the greatest price [2][3]. If God was trying to prevent particular actions by the United States, perhaps a better way to affect change would be to actually do something that will primarily affect the decision makers, not the poor and helpless. Regarding 9/11 (the exception noted earlier), the planning for the tragedy had been taking place for years before the event [4][5]. Therefore, if God was going to use 9/11 as a message to the US, he had it in the works for years before the peace plan, and then he allows the talks to occur before extinguishing thousands of innocent lives in an attempt to get the leaders of the United States to take notice. If this is the best protection your God can offer, he is doing a crappy job. Final Thoughts PRO has claimed that Israel is under the protection of a god, yet he has not provided any solid evidence in support of this claim. He basically relies on a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, commonly referred to in English by the phrase, “correlation does not equal causation” [1]. He has also not addressed my point that the continued existence of Israel my well be the result of support from other nations. He has failed to fulfill his burden, and I have shown that his claim is unlikely to be true, even though I had no burden to do so. Sources: [1] . http://www.princeton.edu... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.gallup.com... [4] . http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com... [5] . http://www.cnn.com...
Israel is a Miracle Under Assault

Wow, I’m not going to lie; that was hard to read. I would like to respectfully request that PRO use paragraphs. God Protects Israel PRO has yet to demonstrate his claim that Israel is protected by a deity. At best, PRO has shown that an unlikely thing has occurred (the continued existence of Israel), however, this is not evidence of divine intervention. In fact, it can be argued that the continued existence of Israel is due, at least in part, to aid it receives from the US [1], Canada [2], the UK [3], as well as many other groups [4][5][6]. Sources: [1] http://fas.org... [2] http://www.jpost.com... [3] https://www.change.org... [4] http://www.cufi.org... [5] http://www.shamash.org... [6] http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org...
Crimea - Rightfully Russian (Crimean Crisis)

In your opening argument you state that "Russia gave Ukraine Crimea willingly"; it is absolutely correct that the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet issued a decree transferring Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (Ukrainian SSR) on February 19, 1954. However, at that time both republics were part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and were thus not individual, independent nations as opposed to today. This means that when Nikita Khrushchev - the USSR president at the time - transferred the oblast from one republic to the other he merely changed it from one region of the country to another; it was thus not an issue concerning nationality at the time. However, when the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic declared itself an independent nation on August 24, 1991, nationality became part of the problem; a considerably large majority of Russians were suddenly strangers in another country. Now one can argue whether or not it was a justifiable decision Khrushchev made when he transferred the peninsula to Ukraine - I personally do not believe it was but at the time the Soviet government did not believe the USSR would ever collapse and did thus not foresee the patriotism-related difficulties that would occur years later. In your argument you also mention how "[t]here was no theft, no dirty dealing, [and] no fighting." It is correct that no theft was involved; no coup d'etat occurred. I would, however, like to argue that the statement "no dirty dealing" is not only imprecise but likewise wrong. By "dirty dealing" I assume you mean dealing in an unjustifiable, morally wrong manner. If so, I would say that moving the home of more than 1,000,000 people from one republic to another without informing or in any way consulting them about the matter is, in fact, quite "dirty", if not the "very dirtiest". Regarding your statement "no fighting" there is an obvious reason as to why " the decree was not publicly announced until February 27[1], eight whole days after the transfer! You also mention that "Mexico would be justified in attempting to annex some of the lower portions of Texas or California[...]" This has no relevance to my perception of why Crimea belongs to Russia. It is not the history, it is the current state of the area and the fact is that, as you say yourself, "these ethnic Russians want Crimea to be part of Russia"; thus it makes perfect sense that the peninsula rightfully belongs to the Russian Federation since "these ethnic Russians" account for the majority ethnicity of the oblast. I merely reflected upon their history to support the validity of my arguments. I would also like to argue that your analogy with my friend giving me his TV is inaccurate - a more precise comparison could be: "three brothers live in a house. One day the middle brother takes his younger brother"s TV and gives it to you without permission from his brother. Then, later, the oldest brother goes to your house, punches you in the face and takes back the TV that rightfully belongs to his little brother". 1)http://www.npr.org...
Crimea - Rightfully Russian (Crimean Crisis)

After reading my opponent's opening round, I conclude that his general point is this:There are many ethnic Russians within Crimea, therefore, Russia has a right to militarily annex Crimea.The problem I have with this is actually stated by my opponent:"The Black Sea peninsula of Crimea was transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on February 19, 1954."Russia gave Ukraine Crimea willingly. There was no theft, no dirty dealing, no fighting. It was simply given. Ownership of Crimea was exchanged from one government to another, in a completely legitimate manner.And now the government that gave up ownership of Crimea has, using military violence, taken Crimea back. Unlike the transfer in 1954, both parties were not willing, the transfer was theft, it was dirty dealing, and it did involve fighting. Simply put, ownership of Crimea belongs to Ukraine until Ukraine sees fit to change that. This would be like if your friend gave you his TV as a present, and then years later he broke into your house, killed your mom, and took the TV. The ownership governments have over land needs to be respected if international stability is to be maintained.It does not matter that many ethnic Russians live in Crimea. If that was the kind of criteria we allowed as justification for aggressive military operations, Mexico would be justified in attempting to annex some of the lower portions of Texas or California[1]. Or Americans could immigrate in heavy numbers to a certain portion of Canada and we could annex that portion of it. The UK could justify invading Australia, whose majority population (63%) is of English descent[2]. Clearly, allowing invasion based upon population ethnicities is allowing for a lot more fighting than a concept of governmental ownership does.And yes, there is the factor in this debate that these ethnic Russians want Crimea to be a part of Russia. However, this does not automatically grant Russia the right to use military force to annex Crimea. If you wished your friend's parents were your parents, would those parents have the right to take you from your parents in the night? No, of course not. The only way they'd end up your parents would be if your parents agreed to transfer legal rights.Again, this is about international stability. If this is appropriate justification, any country could purposely facilitate massive migration to a certain area, and, knowing that those immigrants want the region they're living in to belong to said country, could justify running in, killing people, and annexing the territory.Sources:[1] http://www.hacu.net...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Crimea - Rightfully Russian (Crimean Crisis)

The Black Sea peninsula of Crimea was transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on February 19, 1954. Prior to that date the peninsula had been under Russian control and cultural influence since 1783 where it - as a Khaganate - was conquered by the Russian Empire. This time period lead to a peninsula with an ethnic majority of Russians. As a matter of fact, the first and only census of the Russian Empire occurred in 1897 and transpired that the Russians outnumbered the Ukrainians by more than 115,000 individuals; The Russians accounted for 33.11 % as opposed to the 11.84 % of the Ukrainian population (the Crimean Tatars, on the other hand, were the most numerous ethnicity at the time (35.55 %) but due to the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars (the "Surgunlik") from 1942 to 1943 they are of no relevance regarding the Crisis of 2014-2015). Ever since the 1926 census the Russians have been the ethnic majority of Crimea. According to the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine the Russian population of the peninsula accounted for no less than 58.5 % of the entire Crimean population in 2001; the Ukrainians, however, only 24.4 %. According to the oldest extant and most circulated newspaper in Washington, D.C. - namely the "Washington Post" - the people of Crimea do indeed want to break away from Ukraine and join Russia (March, 2014). Thus one can conclude that Vladimir Putin, the current president of the Russian Federation, conquered the peninsula to preserve the interests of his people. State Statistics Committee of Ukraine; 2001 Census, Autonomous Republic of Crimea: http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua... Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
The Term 'Miracle' is a Misnomer--No Such Thing Exists

I would enjoy an argument over my following claim: The term miracle needn't exist. It describes something that can never occur. Here's my reasoning: miracle: 1. A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine. 2. A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment. nature: 1. The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. 2. The physical force regarded as causing and regulating these phenomena. science: 1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment My argument: P1. A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by scientific/natural laws. P2. Nature describes phenomena of the physical world. P3. Nothing can be known to us outside of what our senses tell us. (Exception: Descartes's famous 'I think there therefore I am') P4. Our senses give us information by means of observing our physical world. C. A so-called "miracle" is attributed to events that are highly improbable and contrary to scientific laws, but, as mentioned above, our scientific laws can only be determined via observation. Therefore, if one witnesses a "miracle" one must come to accept that it part of our physical world's phenomena, and thus part of nature. Basically, a miracle is a contradiction. An event cannot be without being part of nature, and a miracle supposedly defies natural laws. Simply because we do not understand the process of a "miracle" does not mean that it isn't part of our natural world. My argument has nothing to do with God(s). Now, if one were to redefine miracle as being 'an event that contradicts CURRENT scientific understanding' then it would be legitimate, but I dare say that Copernicus would have called his discovery an explanation of a "miracle".
The Term 'Miracle' is a Misnomer--No Such Thing Exists

Response to "Types of Existence"My opponent is right to conclude that the introduction of subjective existence parallels Plato's forms. He poses the question "Would this general form be known to us without sense data?"The answer to this is simple, and reveals the, in my oppinion, fatal flaw of my opponent's argument. That fatal flaw is that it begs the question. This question reveals that my opponent is assuming epiricism as a mode of epistemological inquiry. In fact, Plato's ideal forms presupposes A Priori (that is without experience) knowledge of the forms. While this does not prove that sense data is not required, it does show that competing epistemological schema exist that do not require it. Up until this point my opponent has done nothing to show that these schema are less tenable than empiricism.Response to "Response to 'In clever anticipation...'"My opponent's example of the Pythagorean Theorem necessarily requires sense data, because it is explaining an inherantly physical object. It is describing how something we aprehend with our senses function, so of course it requires sense data. However, he has done nothing to show that theorems and formulae that are describing purely theoretical constructs require sense data. My opponent argues "If you were born without sense data would you be able to understand quantity?" This all depends on your epistemological framework. If you assume empiricism, of course not. However, in a debate we cannot simply assume a given epistemological framework without proving it. If you assume A Priori knowledge, then you absolutely can understand quantity without sense data.I shall ask again, what sense data can possibly lead to the concept of -1. It is impossible to aprehend -1 with sense data, as -1 does not exist in the sensual world. My opponent then also argues "how comfortable would you be in dictating this argument if you didn't understand that something exists by its own accord?" My opponent acknowledged that there is something that we can understand exists without sense data. If I am able to divise my own existence simply through cognition, then I provide the framework for understanding quantity, since I am the quantity one. No other sense data is required. I am then able to theorize that one of me and another one of me is two. And therefore divise all mathematics off the knowledge (which my opponent admits can be obtained without sense data) of the fact that I represent the quantity "one."
The Term 'Miracle' is a Misnomer--No Such Thing Exists

I second my opponent's opinion on the conduct of our debate. My opponent’s civility provides a comfortable environment for our mutual expansion of knowledge.Semantics at the CoreMy opponent has summarized my view and put forth the assumption that all things that we now consider as miracles have some naturalistic explanation. This is a correct explanation of my view, though I wish to emphasize that our understanding of nature and our environment is done entirely through our senses. Types of ExistenceMy opponent has made the distinction between various types of existences. I understand where he is going with this and it is a sensible direction. However, I would like to note that his introduction of subjective existence parallels that of Plato’s forms. Everything has a general form that we can all appreciate but that we define in various forms within our psyches. I must ask my opponent: Would this general form be known to us without sense data? Response to "In clever anticipation..."“My opponent has done nothing however to substantiate this claim. He gives a single example...” Those two sentences above contradict one another, seeing that you didn’t mention any counter-argument to my argument of the Pythagorean Theorem. Coincidentally, contradictions are a large part of my following argument. My opponent has responded by saying that 2 + 2 does not require sense data. But if you were born without sense data would you be able to understand quantity? Why is my opponent comfortable with dismissing mathematics as ‘theoretical numbers’ when I can see for myself that quantity is an observable data? That A is A is crucial to this understanding. You would never be able to perform any mathematic query without first accepting that just clause that something cannot be without being. One apple is one apple, and this knowledge can only be known through sense data. The mention of imaginary numbers puzzled me at first and I thought myself stumped. But my opponent believes that I must show him an example of an imaginary number, which is in fact not the case. One cannot be shown an imaginary number, but how does one arrive at the concept of an imaginary number? By first understanding the concept of 1, thereby meaning that A is indeed A. He continues to say that [A + B = C & A + D = C therefore B = D], but how comfortable would you be in dictating this argument if you didn’t understand that something exists by its own accord? B will never equal D if you cannot first admit that A is A, and you can never understand that A is A unless you observe it.
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

haha... your last argument made me laugh... but I will make 3 points as to prove why this round belongs to PRO. 1) My opponent forfeited the debate in his first round... His first two words were literally "I forfeit" 2) My opponent did ALL of this by his own free will (including MY round 2 argument)... We were eating lunch together and I was asking people if they wanted to take my debate and he said he would so that he could run a counter-warrent. Then he got lazy and started typing essentially nothing (as I went and got lunch) he posted his "argument" and then got on my computer and posted my "argument"... 3) The only argument in this round is ridiculous, has no links, is not significant, does not apply to the resolution, has no effect on if you pass my plan or not (he even admitted to that), and does not outweigh my advantages PROVEN in solvency. And besides, if we stop using fossil fuels, I'm pretty sure that means we stop having to destroy the environment as we can then use the RENEWABLE recource known as fusion energy. Even if it doesn't, it still has NO additional negative effects against the squirrels. Therefore my opponent stands on no ground... Thanks for a laugh but if people actually want to take this debate it is currently in the challenge period right now...
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

I believe my opponent accusing me of posting his argument is complete blasphemy. I am a person with very high morals and can't let this accusation stand as I would never even consider doing something like this. In reality Mr. Cumbee forced me to take this debate, but in his enforcement he failed to maked me debate but simply accept the debate. Therefore I met his criterea and saved my family as he threatened to murder them if I did not accept this debate. Now that I have clarified the real purposes of this debate let us look to a very important issue which my opponent did not specifically address. This would clearly be the all to common catatrosphy of vehicular homicide towards the Paraxerus cepapi. I really don't think proving some sort of alternative energy will stop this problem; and seeing that my opponent dropped my argument in my last speech that we should automatically debate squirrel homicide rather than the initial resolution, I ought automatically win this round as he dropped the issue at hand. I must note that he dropped the issue without being forced to do anything as I was forced to take this debate because of the threat Johnicle put upon my family. Thank you for your time.
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

Well... after my friend took this debate and posted his argument and posted my argument (as I went to go and get lunch), this debate has turned into a joke. But I will repost the debate or maybe find a challenger elsewhere. Flow through my entire case and cross-apply it to the squirrel argument. This argument doesn't have enough harms to outweigh the advantages stated in my case... ;)
Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

OK, now that we have it cleared up that I am amazing and will inherently win this debate, let us look to the real issue that we ought debate. The killing of innocent squirrels crossing the street by vehicular homicide. I know, this is a very controversial issue and I personally have a very heavy heart as my good friend Kate Moss (the squirrel) was a victim of this atrocity that we have in society. Now that I have made known the real debate, I would appreciate if Sir Johnicle would debate this as he has already told me that even though i forfeited that I should still win this round. Once again, thank you for your time.
Apple's OS X is superior to Microsoft's Windows

"Microsoft makes no real computers (only tablets and software). " I think you might have misread the title of this debate. Anyways, I guess this has become a debate about computers too. Microsoft's Windows can be found in hundreds of other computers made by: HP, Dell, Razer (For Gamers) etc. Apple offers six types of computers you can choose today. Antivirus You base your claims on things Microsoft itself said. Next time, try to find better sources. Remember that hackers are on the rise. They are finding new ways to attack users, and like I said on my first argument, Macs have shown to suffer less attacks than Windows. Windows is extremely more likely to be affected by a virus. If you want to surf the web safely, choose a Mac. And the fact that Microsoft has an antivirus proves my claim that Windows does need an antivirus. This is a fact, do not try to contradict it. Pricing Macs are very high quality computers, that have shown to last more than any other computer. I know people that have had Macs for almost ten years, and still in fact work. Not only that, they come with great specs and gaming performance, battery life, and some Macs even come with discrete graphics cards for gaming. Design As you can see on Apple's latest products, and Operating Systems have great dominance in design and simplicity than Windows. Like I said on my first argument, it is much easier to learn using OS X than Windows. OS X is much better than Windows.