BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
USA should be worried about the new change in China's leadership

You do realise that you have assumed that since there was an alteration in the relations of Vietnam, China and USA during the time of the rising to power of Xi Jinping that he is thus conspiring against USA...I am seeing you taking a seemingly obvious coincidence and turning it into conclusive evidence for a non-existent conspiracy theory that is really based on nothing other than an election which is like saying that if, for example, Hilary Clinton took over the Democrats from Obama for whatever reason there would suddenly be reason for China to panic. You really are blowing things out of proportion and in this last round is your only hope to actually explain a single conclusive way in which China's change in leadership of THE SAME PARTY is reason for USA to worry.
USA should be worried about the new change in China's leadership

I beg to differ that by changing the leaders, it is merely changing the face of the party, and not the party itself. The Politburo that is being sworn in would ultimately change the direction of the party and where it is headed. With the changing in leaders, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would ultimately have different political views about diplomacy with other countries compared to their predecessors. Taking the recent takeover of the Spratly Islands at the South China Sea, where Vietnam actually invited USA to mediate about the issue happening on the South China Sea between China and Southeast Asia for that matter, and Hilary Clinton sided Vietnam, which brought about some tensions between China and the USA. Long story short, with USA siding Vietnam and China left to fight this international dispute on its own, there has been rising tension between China and USA over this issue. This international issue has occurred during the interim period of XI Jinping, and therefore, the way it is handled is partially handled by him and through this issue, it seems that although on the surface, it seems like he is trying to improve better relations with the USA, but he is also sending a clear message that the USA should not interfere with the national interests of the country, therefore USA should be worried if there is a change in leadership.
USA should be worried about the new change in China's leadership

China has recently had a change in leadership within the China Communist Party, from Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao to Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang. As a new generation of leaders in China rises, should China be a cause of worry for the America as they are now completely unable to be read by the American government and therefore, not knowing what China might come up that will be detrimental to America's economy or any other aspects of America for that matter. Any opponents are free to comment and challenge this view!
You have two personalities when on medication

This is my second debate so I maybe a little "suckey" Imagine you have a mental disorder, lets say ADHD, and when you don't take meds you are spontaneous, hyper, maybe even humorous. But then you take some medications, you now are more thoughtful, calm, still humorous but you find different things funny, and your a bit more patient. At school/ work you are doing much better at your tasks but your peers tell you of how you seem "different," some prefer you when you are on medications, others when you are not. It's confusing and then the question arises: "Who is the real me?" Am I me on or off my medications? Or am I just being over dramatic and irrational as usual? Am I "two people" or am I one who wears a mask? If you think you are still you "wearing a mask" as my cousin puts it cast in your argument.
should the united states of america go and put a stop to joesph coneys acts

now for a closeing statement I would like to say that it is not constitusinal to go to africa and kill joeseph coney for his acts. so I ask you to vote for the constitusion so if you vote for bryman its a vote aginst the constitusion I would like to thank bryman for exsepting this debate and thank you to this website. it was fun
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

Okay? Well since I doubt my opponent will return I will then make more arguments to make sure I win. It is also in the US's best interest to send more troops to Afghanistan because It will help reverse the momentum the Taliban is gaining from lack of manpower General McChrystal said that the insurgents numbers in the area are increasing and he needs more men to cover the entire area and eliminate them. Also look at history we did not send more troops to Korea and look at what that is like now. We are still there wasting lives and money. We did not send more troops to Vietnam and look what happened there. lost over 60,000 men and fled the country with our tails between our legs leaving our allies to fall to communism. We could face similar failures in Afghanistan if we did not send more troops and we do not want to face defeat again.
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

Hello, Thank you beedebate for starting this debate. I hate to tell you I disagree. The increase of troops in Afghanistan is in the US's best interest. Obama would not send more soldiers to Afghanistan if he thought it was an evil thing to do.(If that's what you meant by best interest if not keep reading) The increase of troops will help stabilize the country and make the US presence more notable. This will help demoralize young soldiers thinking of joining The Taliban until we start to pull out. One thing I do agree on with you is that the pull out date is bad idea. We should not label any certain date to pull out and keep our soldiers there as long as it takes to finish the job. I also agree with you that we should have sent more soldiers as General McKiernan request 30,000 and Obama only sent 17,000 Our increasing of troops in Afghanistan is to make sure there is absolutely no terrorist presence in that area. Yes we are not going to destroy the entire organization as you had said it is all over the world. That means the war on terrorism is not yet over, but the war in Afghanistan may be coming to an end. You then say that spending taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan is not in the US's best interest and would be better spent improving out police force. I believe this to be false as we should first eliminate terrorist threats before worrying about crime in our own states as terrorist usually posses more threat towards human lives. It is in our best interest to protect the lives of our citizens before improving our police forces and protecting lets say there car. I await con's response but in the meantime Thank You
Incest between consenting adults should be legalized.

The third reason why incest between adults should be legalized is because religion should not have any role in incest laws or any laws. Religion except Buddhism does not equal logic. The bible is hypocritical because it supported incest and embraced its practice as quoted in the Bible "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." (Genesis 3:20). "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have acquired a man from the LORD." (Genesis 4:1) "And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch." (Genesis 4:16) '"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.'" So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, 'Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.' Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father" (Genesis 19:32-36). But later in the Bible, it condemns incest and supports its moral condemnation by quoting "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord...Everyone who does any of these detestable things -- such persons must be cut off from their people" (Leviticus 18:6, 29).
Incest between consenting adults should be legalized.

And your second argument leads to the second reason why consensual incest should be legalized. The second reason why consensual incest should be legalized is because incestuous adults should have the right to not only have a relationship with each other, they should also be given the right to make inbred babies if they want to. Even if babies suffered from diseases due to being inbred, I believe that if an incestuous couple wants to create an inbred baby, then that incestuous couple should have the freedom and the right to do so.
Incest between consenting adults should be legalized.

People shouldn't have sex with their family and have sex with other people because it could more likely give the baby birth defects. It can also give it more diseases and why would you want to have a sexual relationship with your own family. Yes I know people can be attracted to their broth , sister , mom ,etc. but it's wrong. There is billions of more people to choose and your kid would look different and be different.
Incest between consenting adults should be legalized.

I would like to talk about the first reason why consensual incest should be legalized. Like I said in my first argument, the first reason why consensual incest should be legalized is because it's hypocritical to have a problem with incestuous adults consenting to sex and having romantic or sexual relationships but you have no problem with non-incestuous adults consenting to sex and having romantic or sexual relationships. If two non-incestuous adult couples that are abiding the age of consent laws are allowed to have romantic or sexual relationships then what is wrong with incestuous couples that are abiding the age of consent laws also having romantic or sexual relationships? This is an example of real life hypocrisy. And if you're going to ban incestuous relationships then you might as well ban non-incestuous relationships too. And by the way, I believe that incestuous relationships between teenagers or incestuous relationships between children and adults should not be legalized however incestuous relationships between two adults following and abiding the age of consent laws should be legalized.
Project M is a Better Game than SSBB.

Alright, this debate is just for fun between a friend and I. :PJust in case I better lay out some rules:8,000 characters per argument.72 hours to argue.No offensive content.R1: Opponent agrees to accepting the debate (an "I accept" statement).R2: Opening arguments.R3: Rebutals.R4: Rebutals/ConclusionThanks and this is just for fun. :PBoP is on me.
Change the National Anthem to Despacito

The Star Spangled Banner does not emphasize our love for our country anymore. I say we should change the National Anthem to Luis Fonsi's Despacito. Despacito can widely express the citizen's absolute love for the United States. Kids have to pledge their allegiance to the flag every morning in some schools. With this change, We will officially also change the pledge to "I pledge allegiance to the Despacito, Of the United Despacitos of Despacito. And to the Despacito, For which it Despacitos, One Despacito, Under Despacito, Despacito 2, For Despacito and Despacito for all. " Also, Anyone who says Despacito should not be the National Anthem will be thrown out of the country for 30 days and up.
Richard Dawkins is a gratuitously unpleasant man

Round 1 is usually acceptance so I'll refrain from posting an argument for Round 1. However, I'd like to add one more definition and provide the reader with some background information.Definitions: Unpleasant: adjective: not pleasant; displeasing; disagreeable[1]Richard Dawkins: A well-known English etholigist, evolutionary bioligist and author[2]. Dawkins is known for his advocacy of atheism[2] and his disputation of religion. Richard Dawkins is the founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which has been granted charitable status in the U.S. and U.K. [2] Pro is implying that the comment Dawkins made on twitter to British political journalist Medhi Hassan, is what makes him a gratuitously unpleasant man[3]. This is a quote from British politician Tom Watson.[3] In Round 2, I will present arguments on how Richard Dawkins comments to Medhi Hassan weren't Islamophobic and some background information on Medhi Hassan. The Burden of Proof rests on Pro and my job is to negate Pro's resolution and prove that Richard Dawkins isn't a gratuitously unpleasant man. I hope for a great debate against a fellow friend of mine!Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...;[3]
CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

This is quite disappointing. Perhaps I will re-challenge. If anyone is interested let me know. -Besides that the only thing that my opponent ever posted was his benefits case. The only benefit he claimed was not only won on the PRO side as well, but won in a much more legitimate and meaningful way (world peace). -My opponent posted no costs to my case. -My opponent posted a case that did not even link to guarantee his objective. In fact, I proved how his objective would certainly not be met by his implementation method. -My opponent has yet to refute ANY of my points whatsoever. The forfeits have made it literally impossible for CON to win this debate. I do, however, thank him for the effort. It is always difficult trying out a new format of debate. Especially one with so loose of rules, and so unfamiliar to anyone. Perhaps we will get to debate again in the future.
CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

CON: Complete the objective for world peace and join the United Nations. IMPLEMENTATION METHOD A. Agree to join the United Nations as long as we get to govern our own country. It's likely that they'll accept these terms, given that we have the strongest military in the world and the most advanced nuclear and biological arsenal in the world, and who would want to mess with that? B. Sign whatever needs to be signed. BENEFITS 1. World Peace... Sweet. COSTS... 1. The ink needed to sign whatever needed to be signed. -I also reserve the right to add more benefits and clarify my intent. I'd say my case probably disappointed you after all the work you put in, but my objective was, in fairness, fairly simple.
CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

This is a CBA (Cost/Benefit Analysis) Debate with specific rules and format. If you intend to judge/compete in this debate, please read up on the general guidelines found in the tenth post here: http://www.debate.org... ... Use comment #10 (last one on the first page) as the updated guidelines to judge and/or compete in this debate. ============================================== Scenario: The United Nations has finally obtained power and demands that all nations combine into a singular nation. Failure to join will result in trade sanctions with the rest of the world and will be an enemy remainder of Earth. Every other nation has agreed to sign on to the open trading and a universal treaty. "Country X" (for convenience shall be referred to as Sparta) has the strongest military in the world and the most advanced nuclear and biological arsenal in the world. There is not a piece of military weapon that Sparta does not own in abundant supply. Furthermore, Sparta has 30 million highly trained military soldiers to defend their 70 million population. What is the most net-beneficial option for Sparta? PRO: Initiate World War III , completing the following two objectives: -Objective A: Enslave a necessary percentage of the population of the world to make Sparta have the highest quality of life to date. -Objective B: Kill the remainder of humans. CON: Complete the objective for world peace and join the United Nations. ============================================== Instead of the 4 round format found in the tenth post, this will act as a 5 round debate. Round 1 is simply posting of the topic and accepting of the topic. If you accept this debate, you also accept the format of how to debate it. Furthermore, you will not post any sort of argument in your first post. Just say good luck or something. ============================================== Good luck to my opponent. And may this debate be enjoyable for both sides.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

SocialPinko's ELO Tournament, Round 1 Group A: Lickdafoot vs. ChrysippusI affirm the resolution: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."First round is for acceptance only. Details of the tournament can be found here: http://www.debate.org...I greet my worthy opponent, and thank her for this debate. This will be the first time I've debated Lickdafoot, so I am looking forward to matching wits with her.Best of luck.-C.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I would like to remind everyone that the proverb "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" is implying that the value of something one owns is worth the value of something that one wishes to pursue. I have shown that that is not necessarily the case. For one thing, the fulfillment of achieving ones aspirations is invaluable. For two, playing things safe leads to complacency and depression. For three, value is infinite and we can always find something again when it becomes lost. My opponent has said that I did not respond to his case on logic in round two. In fact, I have responded in saying that the odds and the value of something cannot be measured, and therefore we cannot assess real life risks with a game of odds . The idea is that we give our own personal value towards everything in life. If we are unhappy with the value of something in our life, it is always worth risking it to achieve something greater. What is the point of working if we are not advancing our career? What is the point of loving if we are not spreading that love? What is the point of living if we are not pursuing what brings us fulfillment? Value: My opponent says that it is impossible to know every pro and con of something before you take the risk. It is true that you do not truly know what you have until you have it. That means that when we have something, we know if we find value in that thing. If we still have the desire to risk something greater for that thing, it is likely worth it to risk what we have. This is because we know what brings us happiness and we know that in order to gain optimum success, risks are worth it. Odds:Here my opponent gives a list of people who have tried things and failed. Just because one person or thing failed does not mean that their risks were in vain. I'm sure these people would all agree that they would have rather died trying than lived without pushing themselves. ConclusionWe put value in what we place them in. Losing something for the greater purpose is not something that should stop a person from pursuing their dreams. I have showed that intention and determination can bring great success and that closing oneself off to their hopes will bring them staleness. It is more inherently valuable to go after something you desire than to let it float by. Good luck to Pro!
God is holy

Again my opponent did not respond... Anyway, to re-cap: The burden of proof rested upon my opponent who did not deliver. In his first argument he made an attempt to try and "prove" (is that what it was?) to me that God exists because... the Bible tell us so? It was very incoherent and not put together well at all. And! It proved absolutely nothing. In his second argument, my opponent brought up the fact that he is supposedly a commy and additionally lowered my IQ by about 10 points just for the mere fact that I actually read his POS rebuttal. He again made no sense in round 3, and blabbed on about supposed sightings of God. And again, not only did he not prove that God is holy (or even attempt to), but he completely strayed off topic all together. Both rounds 4 and 5 were forfeited. So! In terms of this debate, my opponent clearly failed and barely gave me anything of remote substance to even bother responding to. Thus, vote Con (depite your own religious beliefs). Thank you.
God is holy

This is a joke. You started this debate; you are responsible for presenting factual evidence (a little logic and reasoning would be nice too) along with a coherent and cohesive argument. My acceptance of your challenge and my position of Con would therefore make me responsible for refuting your statements and including a rebuttal of my own. However, you have failed entirely thus far ~ your words and statements are confusing, irrelevant, and speculatory. First provide facts to back up your claim and I'll respond respectively. For now: 1. I challenged you to prove to me that God even exists (for "Him" to even be considered holy). I'm pretty sure that you will give me the typical response of, "Well you can't prove he DOESN'T exist" and if that's the case then don't waste your time. Stick with citing factual evidence to support your claim that he DOES, and let me worry about the latter. 2. Why should anyone believe in someone/something based on blind faith? To do so would be detrimental to any culture or society. Therefore it is not blasphemous to expect proof of what large groups (like governments or religious groups) say is true -- especially when there is money/power involved. We all know that the Catholic Church is amongst the richest organizations in the world. We know the political prowess that Catholocism and other dominant religious affiliations have had over the course of History. We also know that many religious ideologies conflict with one another. How can you just accept that one is truth and the others are lies without the facts? So, I am asking you to provide factual evidence that God is to blame for healing people - as you said - or other miracles and the answering of prayers, etc, instead of them just being coincidences or having scientific explanations for their occurances. If you can manage this (which I'm sure you can't based on previous rounds), well, I guess you'll have to wait and see.
God is holy

don't bring my ethinicity into this debate i didn't write that down someone else did and then submitted my argument. but anyway God has been sited by multiple and significant people in history. God comes in all shapes and sizes and helps people in multiple ways. No one really knows what He looks like but He's out there in every shop or business you and I go into. God's simplest form of being real is that He heals people and answers their prayers each and everyday.