BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
age limit to drafting people in the military

DEy shuld never be let out cuz dey are Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Trapped for life Tr
age limit to drafting people in the military

I think that only people that are 10-1069 should be drafted into the military Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism Communism
age limit to drafting people in the military

Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur bad Ur
Random Drug Tests in Middle/High School Students/Athletes

1st off Middle schoolars hardly do drugs, have you ever seen a news story that reads, "Drug bust at Washburn Rual Middleschool, 6th grader forund to have contained 100 grams of marijuana in locker." According to CASA only 9% of Middle schoolars have seen, done, or sold drugs (this includes alchol and tobacco) and only 31% of high schoolars do. http://www.casacolumbia.org... 4% of High schoolars take steroids, that's a low number and it will increase as people move up the chain (ie High school, collage, Pros, etc...) http://www.steroidabuse.com.... Drug testing costs $10 a person, but add up all of the students in the U.S. and that is a costly number.
Random Drug Tests in Middle/High School Students/Athletes

I'm on the pros side because in my school, drugs are a big problem. These tests can help get rid of drugs in schools, which will help people learn. Athletes should be tested more often because performance-enhancing substances can help destroy an athlete's reputation. Sure, the kids choose to do drugs, but that isn't a valid reason to actually DO drugs. Drugs are illegal, and cooking them is too. So creative substances made by students are just as bad as professional meth cookers. There are ways to rig your test, but who's really gonna have a handful of salt with them? Who's really gonna have a hair ENTIRELY coated in hairspray? The hairspray part doesn't even work. They'll find the hair and detect the salt. I'm on the pros side.
pascals wager is a fairy tale

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy [1], and not at all structured like a fairy tail or in any way related to one. Pascal's Wager may be completely correct, partially correct, or completely incorrect, but is nonetheless proffered as a truth. A fairy tale is not required to be philosophically, scientifically, or realistically correct to any given degree, and is not proffered as a truth. The tale need only make sufficient sense for the reader to be entertained, and/or find a moral in the telling. If Pro is comparing Pascal's Wager to a fairy tale, in the sense that the wager fails to adhere to reality, he fails to do so, instead making Pascal's Wager equal to a statement that has no apparent relation to the topic of debate. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org...
Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

Thank you for a timely respnse. I will go over my opponents refutations. First, they talk about how they don't need evidence to to prove that the evidence is correct. First, my opponent cannot say a vast majority will be saved instead of all 2,000. They don't give this number, and if they cannot give us this number, the number itself should be disregarded. Second, the Iraq and Afghanistan policies were actually beneficial to our national security. According to the Council of Foreign Relations On both Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has displayed an admirable degree of flexibility and adaptation. In Iraq, for example, the president reconciled his earlier campaign positions with the realities he found on the ground. He slowed down the withdrawal of U. S. troops substantially, finally bringing them home in late 2011, in line with the schedule first designed and agreed on by Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki back in 2008. According to the Center for New American Security Finally, resources have been increased dramatically, enabling this new leadership armed with a new strategy to make substantial gains toward a successful outcome. President Bush began, and President Obama dramatically increased, a major reinforcement of troops shifting the U. S. component from 33,000 to nearly 100,000 troops on the ground today. Judge, I want you to remember. My oppoent agreed to this resolution that Current U. S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security. I agree, lives are imporant, however, if my opponent can't prove that the killing of these lives will undermine our national security, then all of his lives arguments should be DISREGARDED. If my opponent wants to talk about lives, he will have to go somewhere else. My opponent says that my card wasn't detailed enough (the 35% card). If he would like to read the card, it is here. (. http://www.americanprogress.org...)He also says that the drop in American causualties was because of a withdrawal of troops. However, this is still part of the current US foreign policy, and it saved lives. They also talk about how causualties going down doesn't contradict my opponent's claim. However, again, however, immoral this might be, this debate is NOT ABOUT LIVES, it is about the national security of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. "Con, we are discussing US foreign policy, and how it effects US citizens. "My opponent is misunderstood by the topic. It would be great for him to take a look at the resolution again. He also says I never addressed his monetary claim. I will QUOTE ON QUOTE take from my previous argument what I said about the argument "Second, lets talk about money, Judge, you must realize that no price tag can be placed on human life. The US fought these wars to prevent additional people dying from terrorism. Ever since our current foreign policy has killed Osama bin Laden, There has been a 35 percent drop in casualties caused by the Al Qaeda network in the year following bin Laden’s death compared to the year before. "
Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

" I ask my opponent for the evidence that immediately pulling out the troops would save all 2,000 lives."Firstly, I never said "all" 2,000 would be saved, just the vast majority. As for "evidence", its as simple as this. 2,000 US citizens can't die in Iraq and Afghanistan, if they are in America. Similarly, tens of thousands of US citizens won't incur injury or mental illness, if they don't participate in the war/occupation which caused these aggravations to occur.The following is essentially Con's entire argument, and it makes no sense at all. "There has been a 35 percent drop in casualties caused by the Al Qaeda network in the year following bin Laden"s death compared to the year before. Judge, clearly if we hadn"t fought the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, the amount of people dying from terrorism would instead be increasing."What? Your first sentence establishes that ever since the US assassinated Bin-Ladin, American casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan have gone down. However, you fail to mention that US casualties were decreasing before the assassination, and in some cases, before Obama even took office. Also, you neglect to realize that US troop withdrawal coincides with this miraculous fall in casualties, meaning the lack of US death may be more a function of less troops in harms way, then US foreign policy actual reducing the threat of harm. This isn't the worst of it. You use your problematic premise to conclude that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars saved American lives! WHAT!?! The fact that casualties are going down in Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't contradict my claim, that we would have a LOT LESS casualties, if we weren't there in the first place. You are confusing "a really bad thing getting less bad", with "a really bad thing never happening". Con gives us another gem with this. "According to The Atlantic, 13,288 people killed by terrorist attacks last year. Judge, this means we will be saving about 4,700 lives every year. Over a century, this number would amount to 470,000, which outnumbers our opponents 2,000 lives being saved. Judge, my opponent is advocating for 2,000 people willing to give up their lives for America being saved at the expense of 13,288 innocent people killed by terrorist attacks every year."Con, we are discussing US foreign policy, and how it effects US citizens. Of the 13,288 people killed by terrorism, The Atlantic goes on to say only 17 of them were US citizens. That's pretty much it. Con has failed to refute any aspect of my arguments. He keeps going on about how casualties are going down for US citizens, ignoring the fact that were my foreign policy put in effect, there wouldn't have been such casualties in the first-place. He hasn't addressed my monetary claim at all. "First, about evidence, I would like to see the URL for the dollar quantity, if that is all right."http://www.globalresearch.ca...The above link details that the total cost of the "war on terror" will be around 6 trillion (maybe more). Obama's share is likely in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

Before beginning my argument in proper, I would like to point out a couple of issues.1.) Con's first contention states that current US foreign policy keeps the US "safe". It should be said that this statement on its own does not help his position. The issue is, does current US foreign policy keep the US safe, relative to other possible policies the US could enact. If not, then Con's position is wrong, and current US foreign policy DOES undermine national security. 2.) Con's second contention states that current US foreign policy decreases the likelihood of an Al Qaeda attack, relative to previous years/administrations. That's nice, but aside from having the same issue as the first contention, Al Qaeda is only one of many threats the US faces. Both of Con's contentions operate under an extremely narrow scope, and thus don't necessitate a direct response, as my following argument(s) will contradict his position on the resolution, without necessarily contradicting his contentions. I'll now begin. Current US foreign policy (Obama administration) has led directly to about 2,000 US deaths, tens of thousands injured, and tens of thousands suffering from Post-Traumatic-Stress. Hundreds of Billions of dollars have been spent on just Iraq/Afghanistan alone, as the US has seen both its popularity and economic dominance dip, relative to pre-war levels. Con defines "National Security" as, "actions the United States government takes on behalf of its national interests abroad to ensure the security and well-being of Americans and the strength and competitiveness of the U.S. economy.".The "security and well being of Americans" suffers significantly, when 2,000 of them die, and tens of thousands more are injured/traumatized. The "strength and competitiveness of the U.S. economy" suffers significantly, when hundreds of billions of dollars are funneled to a war that killed/injured the above Americans, and don't help the US combat the growing economic threat of China. Are there alternative foreign policies that wouldn't result in the above conditions, which CLEARLY harm US "National Security"? Yes. If the Obama administration had immediately had withdrawn ALL the troops from Iraq/Afghanistan, nearly none of those roughly 2,000 Americans would have been killed, and tens of thousands would be spared injury/mental-illness. A significant chunk of that "hundreds of billions of dollars" would be available, which could be pumped into economic projects to keep the US competitive against China, or redistributed to low-income families, which would likely save/improve thousands of American lives. That's it for my first argument. The US clearly has a foreign policy that undermines its national security in a significant way, compared to other possibly policies the US could have enacted.
Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

Con is now contending that the deaths of US citizens don't relate to National Security. Though there are apparently no definitive definitions, a general consensus seems to define National Security as the survival of the state. Clearly, a state cannot survive without a strong economy or populace. As I have demonstrated, this current administration has sacrificed both, for a net result that could have been accomplished without such losses. The 2,000 death number I am using are fatalities since Obama took office. Tens of thousands have been injured, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted during his terms as well."First, the war has stopped the production of nuclear weapons and ensured that they are not going to attack the US. Whatever harms my opponent gives is minscule by the amount of destruction of a nuclear weapon. Second, there have been 0 Al Qaeda related terrorist attacks on the US since Osama Bin Laden was killed. 9/11 cost 3.3 TRILLION dollars which is far more than my opponent's number. Also, almost 3,000 people died from the 9/11 attacks, far more than my opponent's lives number. Obviously, if another terrorist attack happens, all these harms could occur. However, due to the current foreign policy, this has not happened. Because we save 3,000 lives from dying from a future terrorist attack at 3.3 trillion dollars, you have to vote CON."The US could have stopped the production of nuclear weapons (assuming they would have been produced) through surgical strikes. A full-scale invasion and occupation was completely unnecessary if this was the aim of the war. Furthermore, the US (especially since 9/11) has advanced systems defending our borders. Even if some Jihadist acquired a nuke, the chances are remote that he would be able to detonate it in America.You assume Obama's direct policy is the reason why we haven't undergone another 9/11. However, this record of not being hit by another 9/11-type-attack, dates back to...9/11, long before Obama did anything. The likely reason the US hasn't been hit by another large-scale attack is:A.) It was extremely lucky it worked the first time.B.) The Bush administration made immediate reforms that would prevent any such attack from happening again, and it hasn't. Con's "refutations" have been refuted.
Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

Thank You for a timely responseSo this is the 4th round, so it is the summaryFirst let me tell you judgeA foreign policy has multiple objectives including the ones I mentionedHowever, the resolution limits this scope to the national security alone. National Security, is the security of our nation AS A WHOLE. If a terrorist attacks us like on 9/11, then that is a BREACH to our national security. US lives, though important and related to foreign policy, is not about our NATIONAL SECURITY. If a US citizen dies OUTSIDE the US, it is not a breach of our NATIONAL security. My opponent has still not shown me how the death of US citizens outside the boundaries of the US affects the US citizens' national security WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I hope I can be clear enough. This is my opponent's last chance to bring anything up regarding this, but if he does, I have the ability to refute it in the last round. First, my opponent keeps throwing around a 2,000 soldiers lost in war. Again, not pertaining the national security. Also, this number is SINCE troops were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Since Bush is not the President anymore, my opponent has to factor in the lives saved ONLY during the Obama Administration. The Afghan/Iraq War has helped our national security in many ways, far outweiging my opponent's monetary and lives cards.First, the war has stopped the production of nuclear weapons and ensured that they are not going to attack the US. Whatever harms my opponent gives is minscule by the amount of destruction of a nuclear weapon. Second, there have been 0 Al Qaeda related terrorist attacks on the US since Osama Bin Laden was killed. 9/11 cost 3.3 TRILLION dollars which is far more than my opponent's number. Also, almost 3,000 people died from the 9/11 attacks, far more than my opponent's lives number. Obviously, if another terrorist attack happens, all these harms could occur. However, due to the current foreign policy, this has not happened. Because we save 3,000 lives from dying from a future terrorist attack at 3.3 trillion dollars, you have to vote CON.Thank you.
This Amazing Photo Is A Hoax

Look, mate. I know what it's like to live in the possibility of their being majestic creatures out there somewhere, but I simply learned of a majestic process far beyond any creature - the Universe. Trust me on this. Let go of these pictures that people edit to fool poor folks like us that would rather not be tricked by their own species' technology. Start looking into something that can be proven and open new doors to humanity and how we understand it. Consider the reality we stand in as not always being the reality; and that the Universe created this reality for us at some point, along with the matter, bacteria, amoeba, fungi, plant, bug, fish, animal and human.
This Amazing Photo Is A Hoax

My opponent will post his opening argument in Round 1. His burden is to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this photo is a hoax. I will simply defend the photo. My opponent is not allowed to argue that the creature depicted did not exist for photographing. Voters must assume, for all intents and purposes, that the creature depicted may as well have been a normal sized turkey.My opponent is strongly encouraged to post pictures illustrating and highlighting his arguments, perhaps using Windows Paint or a similar program.
We can't see visible light.

When you turn on the light, objects in your room become visible. The ability of our eyes to detect light is what makes this possible. Detecting light is not seeing. Completely blind people still detect light with their eyes. Their pupils dilate, brain functions alter and circadian rhythms are maintained. But merely detecting light doesn't mean we can see. In fact, we can see without any involvement of the eyes, for example, when we dream. What most people don't understand is the physiology of vision. When our eyes detect light it requires the brain to interpret those electrical impulses for us to see anything. The objects you see when you turn on the light are virtual constructs created by your brain within the visual cortex. It's our brains interpretation of reality. Link to blind people detecting light https://www.livescience.com... Link to our reality being a virtual construct https://youtu.be...
We can't see visible light.

Visible light is the term given to the range of electromagnetic radiation which our eyes detect. When our eyes detect light, they send electrical impulses to different parts of our brain. One of these parts is the optic centre and here the brain interprets these electrical impulses and creates a visual representation of what's in front of us. This simulation is the reality we perceive. It's here that we see things. What we see are objects or matter which emit, reflect, refract, scatter or absorb light. The brightness we associate with light is not a property of light but a creation of our mind, like colors. Our eyes detecting light is only the first phase of vision and without the brains interpretation it results in nothing. Light allows us to see objects. We don't see light itself.
Avengers 2 (Pro) vs Star wars episode 6 version (con

Here is my rebuttal: The Empire still existed after the destruction of the Death Star and the death of the Emperor. In fact, several great leaders, such as Grand Admiral Thrawn and Admiral Pellaeon, came to power not too long after the Emperor's death. In fact, only a small fraction of the Empire's forces were present at the Battle of Endor. Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Warfare (2012): "The death of Emperor Palpatine sparked celebrations, but the Empire remained largely intact, and the Rebels were in no position to capitalize on their victory, not with nearly three-quarters of the Rebel capital ships that saw action above the Forest Moon needing extensive repairs" (Fry, Urquhart 185). "The Empire still possessed a large advantage in terms of military power and economic resources" (Fry, Urquhart 188). These quotes suggest that the Empire was not severely crippled after the Battle of Endor. It still had most of its resources and could still wage a war against the Rebellion. The Imperial Army is not a "robot army" as Pro described it as. Their computers would also be extremely difficult to hack, as their technology is different from the technology on Earth. They probably have good defense against hackers and also probably use a language unfamiliar to J.A.R.V.I.S. I fail to see how House-Party protocol would be effective. TIE fighters are designed to be fast and maneuverable, but their cannons are powerful enough to easily destroy shielded X-Wing fighters, as shown in Episode IV: A New Hope. Nukes would be ineffective against Dtar Destroyers, because their shields are extremely resistant to attack. From Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology: "A Star Destroyer carries two large KDY ISD-72x shield generator domes, which create a protective screen capable of blocking nearly any attack" (Blackman 110). "A particle shield can deflect solid, physical objects, including proton torpedoes and concussion missiles" (Blackman 111). Not only would the shield absorb the blast if the nuke detonated, but the warhead could also bounce harmlessly off the Star Destroyer's shields. Even if some Avengers have mind-control abilities, this would not be a large advantage. It is unlikely that they can control a sufficient amount of Stormtroopers to make a difference in the outcome of the war. It would be extremely difficult to control the minds of force-sensitives, such as Jedi, Dark Jedi, and Inquisitors. Most attempts to control a Jedi's mind have failed. Palpatine failed to turn Luke to the dark side, and the Jedi Aalya Secura freed herself of a Faleen's mind-control. Even those who are not force-sensitive, such as Boba Fett, have resisted attempts at force-manipulation.