BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
will china and russia partnership end the reign of the USA

First of all, as you mentioned NATO, NATO is not the usa's ally, the USA is part of nato, that is all. there is no point in writing about NATO when comparing THE usa and its allies with russia and its allies, if the war starts between the USA and russia, it seems that china, iran will absolutely support russia, this days when russia is supported by them, but what has NATO done? they have left the usa when the US needs support, even germany and the UK left the USA, but did china or india leave russia? even if the russia is on the wrong side china, iran is still with russia, but NATO or other allies of the usa other than france have left the usa alone. so, no point in talking about nato or american allies. no point in talking about koreas after your infos. "They trade a lot with china and with Russia but most(if not all) of Europe is allied to USA. " yes they are, but still at the time the USA needs support they are not behind the usa, for example: The UK or germany, they were ally of the usa at the time cold war was existing and after that, but now? avoiding russo chinese partnership, they have left the usa alone, just france supporting the usa, among g20 11 or 12 countries wanted syria to be attacked by the usa but jsut france and turkey said we want to join the usa, but china, iran and others were always with russia no matter russia is right or not, seems american allies can leave at any time while russo chinese partners are always together. " However even if the Russians and Chinese wanted the Ruble as an international currency doesn't change the fact that the dollar is more worth than the Ruble." by giving this info I have not meant that ruble is more worth than dollar, I have meant that china gives more value to russia than they give to the usa or the eu despite that his big trade allies are the eu or the usa. "And the fact remains if USA and Europe stops to trade with China the Chinese economy will plunge down into chaos even if Russia will try to back up. The Chinese government may be closer to Russia but they are still dependent on the buyers in Europe and USA." maybe but if the buyers from the eu and the usa stop working with chinese economy do you think that china economy cannot survive? if it was like this, the usa and the eu would have already made a law againt trade with china. 2. china wouldnot have supported russia instead of the usa. they know that without the usa or eu too they can survive. " USA on the other hand don't want to get into another Afghanistan/Iraq with prolonged fighting against Russia backed terrorists." they do want it, if they didnot want, kerry and obama wouldnot have tried to attack syria, behaviour of kerry and obama, also majority of senate shows that the usa does want to get into another afghanistan and iraq but russia prevents them. good luck
will china and russia partnership end the reign of the USA

I am new here, I dont know options full yet. now, for a person you read and analyzed the history it won't be difficult to understand that america was almost the lord of the world, they did what they wanted through the years, simetimes with difficulties sometimes with an easy way. they have chewed the USSSR which in fact had greater economy, or whereever they wanted to conquer they did, maybe with legal ways maybe with making illegal ways legal(it depends how much you can understand the ulterioir of the events), maybe the USA was not succesfull at some places but still over the years no state had a stability like usa. not just power, in sport, science or almost any other categories, the USA has been the lord but last years it seems that CHina and russia seem intending to end it, maybe unreluctantly. for example: you know, how many times has past but the USA still hasnt invaded syria, last year this times the syrian army unreluctantly hit the land of turkey and the nato and the usa and the turkish government gathered and discussed attack back to syria but Putin blocked it or put it off. or according to statistics in the next future years partners of russia or BRICS will have new millioners and they will increase the number of his millioners while the USA will decrease the number of his millioners, and latest years great countries are with russia(india, iran, china, brasil) I know great countries such as germany, england and e.t.c are with the usa but they are losing power while russian allies gaining. maybe I am wrong these are my opinions and I dont mean these are correct, if uncorrect please correct it. share ideas.
Anarcho-Capitalism

I accept!Anarcho-Capitalism, although it is well intentioned, is an incredibly naive philosophy which places too much trust in human nature, much like its evil twin, Anarcho-Communism. If the AnCaps were to achieve their abolition of the State in favor of individual liberty and a free market, it would be a road straight back to feudal tyranny because there is no State to regulate the firms which will act as producers and suppliers in this "utopia".In addition, without restraint, as ancient Chinese philosopher Xunzi notes[1][2], humans are inherently selfish and competitive by nature, and any act of goodness or compassion is a deliberate action based in social upbringing. The refusal to do harm for personal gain is not Natural, but is a reaction to the threat of force, as Thomas Hobbes noted[3][4]. Essentially, without the state, there is no reason to uphold the Social Contract. Theft and murder and rape will dominate Society, as that there will be no ramifications beyond the vengeance of the wrong.[1] https://plato.stanford.edu...[2] https://youtu.be...[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[4] https://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca...
Anarcho-Capitalism

Definitions"Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualistanarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market."RoundsIn round one begin with an acceptance, opening statement and then move on to arguments.All five rounds all out debate mode, no stopping!QualificationsAt least two arguments in round oneMust debunk arguments either side is using before they use themCite your referencesReferenceshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org...NotesIf you have any questions comment don't put in the debate
Zelda: Orcarina of Time over any game from Nintendo.

I will take on your challenge. I will not be presenting a single game, saying that it is better then Ocarina of Time, I will be presenting reasons why it should not be considered the "Best Nintendo Game." First off I would like to combat the fact that Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time should not be judged by how many units it has sold. While 7.6 million is a large number, it is not impressive compared to 11.62 million units sold of Mario 64, or the 8 million units sold of Goldeneye 64, both of which had more success world-wide then that of Ocarina of Time on the N64. Second, while it is true Ocarina of Time does have the highest score on Metacritic, that 99 score is CRITIC score. Metacritic, for those who have never been on it, reviews a game based on what the critics say, and what the customer says. While user scores can be biased at sometimes, it is apparent to point out that Ocarina of Time got a 9.3 by users. Valve's Orange Box got a 9.4, and Resident Evil 4 got a 9.5, both of which were less known then Ocarina of Time. Also, while Ocarina of Time got a 99, four games got a 98 in critic score, one point behind this game. While Ocarina of Time may have had its share of awards, and I am sure it has over a hundred game of the year awards, this pales in comparison with Naughty Dog's Last of Us, which has won 231 GOTY awards, or Skyrim which has won 226. Last, while Ocarina of Time has transformed the Legend of Zelda series for the better, and has become acclaimed as one of the best games out there (which is rightfully deserves.), it did not change the platform genre. Take Final Fantasy 7, which basically redefined JRPGs, or how about the original Super Mario, which basically saved the video game industry, or Tetris, the most sold game in history. Its not about awards, or reviews, or profits, its about how the game defined that generation. Ocarina of Time may have had its share of accomplishments for that generation, but remember, Mario 64 created the idea of 3D graphics which Ocarina of Time used.
Zelda: Orcarina of Time over any game from Nintendo.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a action-adventure video game developed by Nintendo's Entertainment Analysis and Development division for the Nintendo 64 video game console. It was released in Japan on November 21, 1998; in North America on November 23, 1998; and in Europe on December 11, 1998. Ocarina of Time's gameplay system introduced features such as a target lock system and context-sensitive buttons that have since become common elements in 3D adventure games. During its lifetime, Ocarina of Time sold 1.14 million copies in Japan and over 7.6 million copies worldwide. The title is considered by critics and gamers alike to be one of the greatest video games ever made. It is currently the highest rated game on review aggregating site Metacritic; and in 2008 and 2010, Guinness World Records listed Ocarina of Time as the highest-rated game ever reviewed. The events of Ocarina of Time are set in the fictional kingdom of Hyrule, the setting of most of The Legend of Zelda games. Hyrule Field serves as the central hub connected to several outlying areas with diverse topography. Most of these areas are populated by the races of Hyrule: Hylians, Kokiri, Gorons, Zoras, Gerudos, and Sheikah. This has a unique twist on the game which, in my opinion, is hard to find in games now. Ocarina of Time was developed concurrently with Super Mario 64 by Nintendo's EAD division. Both were the first free-roaming 3D game in their respective series. The graphics are praised for their depth and detail, although reviewers noted they were not always the best the console had to offer. Game Revolution noted the characters' faces, the "toughest graphical challenge on 3D characters", saying that the characters' expressions and animation featured "surprising grace". In 1998, Ocarina of Time won the Grand Prize in the Interactive Art division at the Japan Media Arts Festival. It also won six honors at the 2nd Annual Interactive Achievement Awards, including "Game of the Year", "Outstanding Achievement in Interactive Design", "Outstanding Achievement in Software Engineering", "Console Game of the Year", "Console Adventure Game of the Year" and "Console RPG of the Year". The game was placed second in Official Nintendo Magazine's "100 greatest Nintendo games of all time".
People cannot be sure that they will save a best friends life until they are in the moment

A person says that they would save a best friend because they would, therefore, they are sure. Now if the moment was to come by they have one of two options; they either stick to their word or they panic and fail. One way or the other the person was entirely sure that they would save that friend. In the end, however, some people's sureness might just have become negligible.
People cannot be sure that they will save a best friends life until they are in the moment

So many people will say that they would give their life for that of a friends but this type of thing cannot be answered directly with a definite yes but more with a "I would like to believe that I would". This is completely a situational type of thing where the situation that you are put in effects the decision that is made. You cannot be sure of any of the answers that you give until you are put in that moment.
Men and women really are different.

" I just think guys should open doors and pay for dinner (which I doubt you'd take issue with). " I do. If guys always had to pay for dinner it would save me a lot of money, but it would be annoying and awful for the guy. What if your girlfriend wants file mignon and a bottle of wine from the most expensive place in town? Sexism isn't just men being mean to women, it can go in the reverse. "If men and women are not treated differently by default, a much greater percentage of the population gets the raw end of the deal." I don't see how that would happen. The idea is that men and women as groups are not treated differently, but individuals of course are not the same person. If there's a woman who fits all the current ideas about how women should act, that's fine for her. If there are no expectations, than they can't be broken. "Society needs general rules to keep people from killing each other." That's true. But I fail to see how gender equality and murder rates coincide. "Most of those rules go out the window once you get to know a person anyway." This is true, but I can't get really get to know everyone I meet, and in the meantime I don't want to be stereotyped. Gender stereotyping can even prevent people from getting to know each other because someone who doesn't fit the bill is seen as weird. If you start without an assumption, reality is much easier to accept.
Men and women really are different.

I agree with most of what you say. I would point out the converse of your arguement, though. If men and women are not treated differently by default, a much greater percentage of the population gets the raw end of the deal. Of course, I'm not in favor of an extensive list of rules and assumptions. I just think guys should open doors and pay for dinner (which I doubt you'd take issue with). Society needs general rules to keep people from killing each other. Most of those rules go out the window once you get to know a person anyway.
Men and women really are different.

There are two levels we have to treat men and women differently on: biologically, and everything else. It is obvious that we have different bodies, and there are a few hormones and trends that go with it, but to bring a famous question: Is there such thing as separate but equal? Okay, men and women have different bathrooms but I don't think any one is better than the other. But entertainment such as movies, TV, and even music or most products people like to categorize as guy or girls. But a "man's" movie is not necessarily of better quality than a "woman's". The thing about gender is that all the differences besides what organs one has (yes, including hormones), are trends. They only apply to the general population. So if women and men are treated differently by default, that gives that part of the population the raw end of the deal. I'm not a transvestite or transsexual; I am a female. But I like a lot of things that are labeled "man", like action movies. And on the same token I hate chick flicks. And I like a lot of men on a level that goes beyond their penis; I've got a lot of male friends and few boyfriends. So I don't want to be treated differently because I'm afraid that how everyone else thinks I should act is not how I actually do. I don't want to get a weird look when I'm the only girl. There are other girls like me too, and there are guys out there who experience the reverse. So if someone who doesn't fit inside the norm can't get what they want out of life then that is not equality.
Naruto Universe vs. One Piece Universe 2013 "NEW"

I wish that was clarified, I would have still taken it lol. From the title unvierse I thought we were debating the actually generes. I will pick it up from here though, and say luffy would beat naruto. Actually luffy would beat madara.Reasons Why(1)Naruto uses rasengan, which is a energy ball designed to distort your body and rip a hole in you. Luffy is rubber, this would hit him and merely make him spin around a lot(2) Ninjitsu is useless against luffy. He is rubber, so lighting would be useless. If he got hit with fire it would make him stronger. One of luffys ultimate moves, is heating his body up so that he can move at insane speeds and deliver faster than life blows. Using fire on him would be useless and merely make him stronger. (3) His only weakness is blades, and Naruto doesn't even use that. Even if he did, luffy is as fast as light when he raises his heat level to inflame the rubber he is made of. Even faster than the fourth hokage. (4) His gomu gomu pistol, would blast a hole in Naruto. Naruto would not have the speed to react and couldn't even try to block it. (5) The only viable way to beat luffy is to summon water and surround him, but again he is to fast to get caught with this. He is one of the fastest anime characters created when he heats his body up. It would be impossible to trap him. Even if you did, he has an entire crew would similar powers. Zoro could break the barrier with his sword or robin could trounce it with her arms. http://www.youtube.com...
Naruto Universe vs. One Piece Universe 2013 "NEW"

It's 2013. Naruto and One Piece is now much more advanced. I want to open my argument with Naruto vs One Piece. 4 rounds. The setting is the entire character expect for the ones that is deceased/dead. World vs World. My beliefs of Naruto winning against One Piece is because now that naruto is more advanced with many more people and new justus that had been discovered. One Piece seems more random everytime I read the manga. I recently seen a picture of Nightmare Luffy so no need to bring up a picture of him in his haki form. Naruto is more serious than One Piece. One Piece may train. But Naruto battles characters that are far more superior to One Piece.
Naruto Universe vs. One Piece Universe 2013 "NEW"

Tata!!!!!! That's where you're wrong. I've seen a battle simulation between Naruto and Luffy. Naruto had won the battle. The reason is if Luffy were to hurt or kill someone Naruto loves then that sets him off. Like when Pain had killed Hinata when he was battling Naruto. She had tried to save him. Then he transforms into the Nine Tails Skeleton mode. Then he learned to regain the Nine Tails powers and used sage mode on Pain through out the episode. http://www.youtube.com... So image if Luffy suddenly came across Naruto friends and killed them as they try to attack them. Even in Haki form or Gear mode, Naruto will just simply surpass him with great speed or strength. http://fc06.deviantart.net... So when Naruto get the rinngan and fight Luffy with it. Naruto will control all elements. He will have the 9 tails fighting along-side with him. Making him the greatest warrior. Then Kyuubi will use his charka valley gun with blast a gigantic blast not even enel could survive. If you don't believe me then see for yourself. http://www.youtube.com... If a smaller version of the nine tails could do that image what a FULL-FLEDGED NINE TAILS COULD DO?! Last Mardara could use his sharigan on Luffy and stab him inside his mind for hours if he wanted. Also he created a giant death ball twice without using much charka. Image also what he could do if he uses his most powerful Justus. http://www.youtube.com... So in conclusion Naruto or Mardara will destroy Luffy in a long drag out battle. >w< ORRRRRRR...... DROWN LUFFY IN WATER!!!!!!!
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Throughout this entire debate, Pro has continuously given evidence on how it is completely possible for a vegan diet to be healthy. This is true, however, it's just not easy, and I think we can both agree on that. Worldwide veganism would bring just as many cons as it would pros. Pro had already stated many of the pros: "Pro has already given several reasons why there is good reason to eat vegan. To reiterate, animal happiness, environment, health, and to mitigate world hunger. Pro contends it would be unfair to hungry people for wealthy people to continue to eat meat, dairy, and eggs. Animals happiness matters, and it would be unjust to continue to exploit animals by producing meat, eggs, and dairy" But let's take a look at the cons: A radical change: Going vegan is a huge change and can sometimes be even more complicated if you are not allowed to eat certain ingredients such as soy. "Complete plant proteins are found in soy products, so if you're trying to moderate your intake of soy, you have to learn how to put together complementary foods to form complete vegetarian proteins," says Jackie Keller. Potential interference with existing medical conditions: If you have a condition such as osteoporosis or diabetes, it is critical to consult with your physician and a registered dietitian when starting and implementing a vegan eating plan, as a vegan diet may interfere with your condition. Difficulty when dining out: Not many restaurants offer true vegan choices and this can make dining out difficult. Mehta advises carrying vegan foods and snacks to make eating out easier when traveling long distances. Loss of essential vitamins and minerals: There is evidence to show vegan diets do not contain vitamin B12, an essential nutrient. "Vegans can get vitamin B12 from fortified foods (some brands of soy milk, fake meats, breakfast cereals and nutritional yeast) and from supplements. Vegan diets may be low in calcium and vitamin D although there are vegan sources of these nutrients," says Reed Mangels, PhD, RD, nutrition advisor for The Vegetarian Resource Group (vrg.org). Unrealistic expectations: "A person might believe that by being vegan they are making themselves healthier. There are no good data of which I am aware proving that simply being vegan as an isolated behavior improves health," says Anne Applebaum. There has to be a balance of diet, exercise and a proper fitness regime. http://www.livestrong.com... http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info... http://chickpeamagazine.com... So, what is my point, you may ask? Well, I am certain a chicken would put another chicken's life before a human's. While you are thinking about the animals, we have to think about the humans as well...
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Vitamin B12 is critical for the health of the brain and nervous system and is primarily found in animal foods. A deficiency can cause all sorts of adverse effects on brain function. [1] Creatine is an important nutrient in muscle and brain that helps to supply energy. Studies show that vegetarians have a deficiency in creatine that leads to adverse effects on muscle and brain function. [2] A large part of the world is deficient in Vitamin D3, which is only found in animal foods. A deficiency in this critical nutrient is associated with depression and various diseases. [3] Carnosine is found strictly in animal tissues. This nutrient can reduce damage caused by elevated blood glucose and may have strong anti-aging effects. [4] The Omega-3 fatty acid DHA is critical for proper function of the brain. It is primarily found in animal foods like fatty fish. Studies show that vegans and vegetarians are often deficient in it. [5] 1. http://www.m.webmd.com... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.m.webmd.com... 4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.m.webmd.com... My above arguments and sources are in favour of my original argument, which is that it has been proven rather difficult to maintain a balanced diet as a vegan. Is it possible? Yes. But it's difficult, and much easier to do as a non-vegan. It would be unfair and not right to limit people to only eating vegan foods, and at the end of the day, there is no good reason to do so.
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients, including Vitamin B12 and Creatine. Studies show that vegans have much lower testosterone levels than their meat-eating counterparts. Despite all the propaganda, there isn"t any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature. Vegan proponents often use fear mongering and scare tactics in order to convince people not to eat animal foods. They frequently cite The China Study as evidence, which has been thoroughly debunked. Vegan diets also recommend that people shun added sugar, refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and trans fats. This is probably the reason for any health benefits, not the removal of unprocessed animal foods. http://empoweredsustenance.com...