BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Shoot Down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was not justified.

The first answer to your first question is: Yes Argument 1: Although countries have their rights to defend their territory, if a unknown foreign object, person, or aircraft of any kind were to enter their country, with or without intent, it must be the duty of that country to properly intercept the person, object, or aircraft. Firstly, it was purely accidental that the flight had gone off course. [1] As the FAA states that an interceptor aircraft should perform three phases: Approach Phase, Identification Phase, and lastly the Post-Intercept Phase. These produres are also international, and the same would be done by other countries.Argument 2: As for the second question, the answer would also be yes. The plane was piloted by an experienced crew (Captain Byung-In, First Officer Dong-Hui, and Flight Engineer Eui-Dong) [2], though it was just by accident that the crew had not set the INS (inertial navigation system) to the correct waypoints, for the R20 airway. Final Argument: The last question is an absolute yes. Among the passengers aboard the aircraft, 22 children have been killed. [3] It is not that the plane should have been given an "opportunity" to fix its mistake, rather that the plane's crew be warned earlier, or the interceptor pilot going up next to the aircraft to perform the warning produres, so that the crew may see them and follow the interceptor pilot's orders. Had any of the two been done, the shootdown might have not occurred. Sources used[1] https://www.faasafety.gov...[2] http://www.rescue007.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Shoot Down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was not justified.

The shoot down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was not justified.The flight had mistakenly entered Soviet airspace, this resulted in an intercerptor aircraft being sent up to intercept Flight 007. The interceptor pilot did not use recognized International procedures to intercept the civilian airliner, the pilot did not also go close enough to fully examine the airliner, but just through the assumptions made by the Boeing 747's shadow, shape, and lack of response by the interceptor pilot. Had he gone closer to perform the warning procedures, the pilots of the commercial flight could have possibly seen the warnings made by the interceptor pilot's plane. The Soviets for nearly 10 years after the incident released the blackbox of the plane. (Plane pictured) (Flight path) General rules: PLEASE follow them1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss1:(some information taken from here) https://ti.arc.nasa.gov...
Using The English language rather than the native language in teaching mathematic in some countries

"Sir, you should know about how complicated mathematic itself. If you search in Google as the biggest search engine in this world with the key word "I Hate Math" the result is until 28.500.000 result in 0.28 secons" I do believe your argument is invalid, Google is an insufficient source to say that everyone hates Mathematics. "You should know the secong point. About English, if you search in Google with the key words "I Hate English" the result until 464.000.000 result in 0.26 secons." Again, Google is once more an insufficient basis on saying that Everyone hates English "The second one, if you talking about the book so many of the mathematic book itself use English, of course because we know English in the International languange! That's totally ussual if the mathematic or the other book using English. Actually, we arne not talking about the book, we are talking about using English in teaching Mathematic. Like I told you before about English and Mathematic, English and the Mathematic itself is part of the most complicated lessons" Exactly, English is the International Language, and Math mostly, is thought in English. And I do believe you have failed to answer my points with regards to the translation of higher mathematical terms. If this is not done, how would you expect a student to furthermore excel in Mathematics. Who are you to not give them the chance to learn? Is that how you define "CARE" for a student? Well, I find that pretty funny. Teaching Mathematics in English is highly essential, for it not just enables the student to unite with the world, it also gives them a chance to excel. Unlike in the way of teaching you try to imply. "We can get the conclusion, both English and Mathematic are complicated. And I as the senior high school student totally disagree if we should teach Mathematic to the students by using English. And you should know, not every student know how tou use an how to apply English in our lesson!" You can not simply say that the subjects are complicated without a certain basis. Furthermore, as a Senior High student, I do believe you should know that Mathematics is spelled as "Mathematics" in singular and plural form. Which is again, another flaw of your "oh so loved" educational system of teaching Math in a native language. So, let me ask you? What points were you saying again? That Google shows several results, SO WHAT? Are they reliable? On what basis? A debater who simply uses Google as basis has a weak foundation. "CARE TO STUDENTS ?! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO ! VOTE PRO !" Oh, why thank you. You do realize that I am Pro, and definitely, this reply of yours is truly immature.
Using The English language rather than the native language in teaching mathematic in some countries

Sir, you should know about how complicated mathematic itself. If you search in Google as the biggest search engine in this world with the key word "I Hate Math" the result is until 28.500.000 result in 0.28 secons. So, you got what I mean, why we can't combine between Mathematic and English itself. The second one, if you talking about the book so many of the mathematic book itself use English, of course because we know English in the International languange! That's totally ussual if the mathematic or the other book using English. Actually, we arne not talking about the book, we are talking about using English in teaching Mathematic. Like I told you before about English and Mathematic, English and the Mathematic itself is part of the most complicated lessons, and if we combine something complicated with something more complicated, it will make the lessson totally COMPLICATED ! You should know the secong point. About English, if you search in Google with the key words "I Hate English" the result until 464.000.000 result in 0.26 secons. We can get the conclusion, both English and Mathematic are complicated. And I as the senior high school student totally disagree if we should teach Mathematic to the students by using English. And you should know, not every student know how tou use an how to apply English in our lesson! CARE TO STUDENTS ? !
Using The English language rather than the native language in teaching mathematic in some countries

"Using English in teaching Mathematic can't be applied." I have to completely disagree with this. First, do remember that globally, most books in Mathematics are written in English. Also, there are many Mathematical terms with are pretty hard to translate just imagine translating the cube root of, or the square root of, the logarithm of x to the base 3, or even simple terms such as square of binomial and polynomial. "You should think it over and you should care to your student." Of course we care for the students, that's exactly the point of teaching Mathematics in English, not doing so, would lead your student to extreme difficulty, since the said student will not be able to understand higher levels of Mathematics if the native language is used in every single level of education, let's say Nursery to College. And I'm pretty sure, aiding in the development of the skills of a student is the best way a teacher can care for his student and this development can be achieved if Mathematics is taught in English. "Beacuse Mathematic make us confuse and sotimes English too. It can make it more complicated." That is the point of teaching, to aid confusion.
Using The English language rather than the native language in teaching mathematic in some countries

First, let me introduce myself. My name is Toharu from Indonesia. Using English in teaching Mathematic can't be applied. Actually, sometimes the student feel confuse with English. If we combine Mathematic and English in a country that doesn't use English in their daily life, it will be made the students fell more confuse than before. the students feel confuse because of English and Mathematic. If we want to use English in teaching mathematic, it can be applied for special student, such as the student that prepared for competition or something like that. But, if we use English in teaching Mathematic for daily life, that's totally can't be applied. Beacuse Mathematic make us confuse and sotimes English too. It can make it more complicated. You should think it over and you should care to your student.
14th Amendment

It is a pleasure to debate someone who attempts to use logic in making his points and refuting his opponent's, as you do. 2. There are very far-reaching implications to our disagreement that go well beyond the 14th Amendment itself. You say it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret whether a given law is constitutional, and this is true -- but they were never intended to be the sole arbiters of what's constitutional. The original Constitution and first 12 amendments maintained very few restrictions on the states. It's not that the states were to be "unrestricted," it's just that it was the people of those states who were to do the restricting. So when the Court ruled whether something was constitutional or not, prior to the 14th, they were almost always talking about federal laws, and the federal government was very limited in its power. If, however, a state did not like a decision by the Court, it could simply choose to refuse to enforce a given law within its state's borders. Ultimately, the federal government could threaten to disaffiliate the state, or the state could peacefully secede (in theory). This all changed with the Civil War, more properly understood as the War to Prevent Southern Secession, in which Lincoln invaded the South to advance nationalism at the expense of state sovereignty. POINT BEING: Now that secession and nullification are not options, the Supreme Court's monopoly on interpretation makes them despotic legislators, not judges. They can, with no justification, create "constitutional law" as effective as constitutional amendments, and they have certainly done so on the issue of Church-State, in which the Original Intent of the Constitution and First Amendment is clearly not what the Court has held it to be in subsequent years. You may agree with the Court's view, but you cannot possibly argue that this was the framers' or ratifiers' view -- and thus, in endorsing the Court's actions, you are endorsing despotism. 4. I agree that state religions are a bad idea. I am for all possible freedoms you could imagine, and against the government on any level initiating force against its citizens or restricting their behavior on any level. You ask "where does the state sovereignty end?" You see, here is a point that's hard for non-hardcore libertarians to understand: We do not support the bad things that state and local governments might do, we just oppose the federal government having the power to stop them! When trusting the federal government to defend your rights, you are entrusting the greatest violator of individual liberty in human history to defend that which it has on so many occasions sought to destroy! It's totally irrational.
14th Amendment

2. Yes, the Supreme Court's role is to interpret law. And not just interpret what the law means, but interpret whether the law is permissible under the Constitution. We still have nullification now, yet, state laws can't override federal laws. Hasn't that always been the case? 4. I am aware that state religions and churches existed when the Constitution was ratified. That doesn't make it right. I would be for separation of church and state even if the Constitution called for merging church and state. No, I wouldn't be for undermining the Constitution, but I would be for amending it to call for separation. Yes, the 14th Amendment, with its due process clause and the privileges or immunities clause ended up applying the Bill of Rights to the states, as should be the case. Everyone has the right to follow a religion of their choosing as long as they don't infringe on other people. They don't have the right to use the state to force it on others. I know you agree as a libertarian, but this is part of why I support the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court's job is to keep the government in check with regards to our rights. As far as your cross on city crest example goes, if the mayor won't back down, then yes, the federal government should have the right to step in and ensure the state isn't infringing on our rights. You are arguing that state and local governments should be kept in check by people moving. I believe that people's rights should be honored by all levels of government and they shouldn't have to move in order to have their rights honored. As far as the federal government, if they are doing things like the Patriot Act, or any of those other right-infringing things you mention, the SCOTUS is supposed to be there to stop them. It sounds like you have a bigger problem with how the feds implement the 14th Amendment than with the 14th Amendment itself. To answer your question about where it stops... I believe that state and local governments are accountable to our Constitution, and if the federal government is needed in order to enforce that, the federal government can enforce that. Other countries are not bound by our Constitution, so I don't support the reason behind going into Iraq. The only time we should invade another country is if they pose a direct threat to us. Let me ask you, where does your idea of state and local sovereignty stop? Should state and local governments be permitted to allow murder, assault and battery, theft, etc...? Lynching? Should they be allowed to enact black codes (http://www.answers.com...)? Jim Crow laws? Where does state and local sovereignty end and enforcement of individual rights begin?
Abortion is wrong

Before presenting my argumentation, I would like to say a few words about why abortion isn't murder. "If it is defined neutrally, in medical terms, an "abortion" must be described as "the intentional termination of a pregnancy." Nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond that definition is an assumption or a conclusion which must be argued for, and which should not be used as a premise! Most people are not philosophers or ethicists; and so they do not begin with definitions. The result, unfortunately, is that their discussion deteriorates into shouting matches, logic becomes overwhelmed by rhetoric, tempers flare, and nothing constructive gets accomplished In our society, "murder" is something no one condones, everyone condemns, and all of us want to prevent. Labeling any action "murder" cannot start a discussion; it can only end debate. If abortion turns out to be "murder," the debate is over, the case is closed, and Roe vs. Wade is not only irrelevant, but unacceptable." (source http://www.dbcuuc.org...)
Abortion is wrong

Life starts at conception. This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. "To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife"s egg and a husband"s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistic chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence " which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen." Performing an abortion is killing a human making the doctor a murderer
Women should have the ability to become priests.

But see, the tradition of the Church is also how its sermons are delivered. And there are still churches that give their masses in Latin. One by me does English, Latin, and Polish masses. Plus there are day-long services given every once in a while. But also, I think it would in a way be a shock to see a woman as a priest, to most people at least. Anyway, a woman leading the mass would be so different from the usual traditions that it would cause a long series of controversy and debates.
Women should have the ability to become priests.

The tradition of the church is not the church, it is the teaching of God and the messages of Jesus. The sisterhood, is a very important part of the church. They do much good in the community, and can express their love, which is true. But if they can do all of these things, what is preventing them from standing in front of a parish and delivering a sermon? A long standing tradition? Countless traditions have been changed within the church throughout the years. Mass no longer lasts the entire day,and the mass is no longer solely given in Latin. These are both "traditions" that have changed because of evolving social influence. The "Church" also is not a "tradition". The Church is the building in which we celebrate with the community. I am also not saying that all women would become priests, and ruin the sisterhood. Just the allowance of women to become priests would not mean all women in the Catholic Church would become priests just some, leaving the sisterhood in tact.
Women should have the ability to become priests.

These are all good arguments. Of course, there is a difference between a war and a church; in a war, the main objective is to hurt or maim, so any advance that will hurt or maim the other side is followed. There is no tradition in war because the main motive is to hurt. In a church, however, tradition is the church. Without the tradition, the church wouldn't be the church. Also, women today do have a way to express their love for God: the convent. Women can enter the sisterhood, which, in my opinion at least, is a much better way to express your love for God because of the tough vows that one takes. Again, at least in my opinion, the sisterhood is much harder than the priesthood. A priest offers a mass or two every day and prays, but a sister not only prays, but also helps the sick and suffering, educates children, or helps the impoverished. Without the sisterhood, the church itself would collapse.
Women should have the ability to become priests.

Tradition is a difficult thing to argue for, especially when arguing for traditions in the Bible. There are countless traditions" within the Bible that are no longer upheld because of societal change and evolution of the times. It has been in practice for thousands of years, but that is no reason to uphold it. There is no difference in a man and women sharing their love of God. Both would take the same vows, follow the same rules, and share the same love of God and messages of Jesus Christ. The only difference would be anatomical. The fact that the first Priest was Christ, a male, should not be a premise for decisions now. The first war was most likely fought with sticks and stones, yet because of societal change and innovation, we now have the modern weapons we see. We no longer fight with primitive weapons because its "tradition", or how it began. Tradition is no reason to deny women this right to express their love of God.
Women should have the ability to become priests.

I'm going to debate you on this because I find this topic very interesting and very much not talked about. I think that women shouldn't be priests, but not because of the women's rights issues. I think women actually can do as much or more than men in many aspects of life. I think that only men should be priests because of the long-standing tradition. If women were allowed to be priests, a two-millennium-long tradition of male priests would be broken. Also, the first priest in the Catholic Church was Christ. After him, all of the next priests were men, the Disciples. Therefore, to begin with, the Church's priests were all men. I think that this tradition should be continued and upheld.
Women should have the ability to become priests.

The Catholic Church has held the view that women should not be priests for centuries. The belief that women should not be priests stems from the bible, which is a book that was written over many years, and is thousands of years old. Many changes, especially in woman's right's have occurred over the thousands of years the bible has been in existence. Many argue because the bible states a priest should be a man, that this is the way it should be, but like anything else, change needs to occur. There has to come a point where practices, solely occurring because of tradition, have a time of reformation. Women should have the opportunity to become ordained priests. They should be equally able to express their devotion and make that final commitment to the Catholic Church.
Humans are fundamentally different from other animals

Pragmatism is as pragmatism does. Overbearing intellect is oppressive. Truth is and reality is truth. Reality is reality and can not be altered. The spoken word is representative sound and the written word is representative symbolism. If truth is not truth and reality is not reality, then we must create different sounds and symbols. Fundamentality starts at the beginning. It could start at the beginning of one thing or another. Ultimate fundamentality starts, who knows where. Does it start with a God or some cataclysmic event or even before? Maybe it can never start or ever end. Nonetheless. I would propose that an evolutionary process is relevant to any theory. Any point in an evolutionary timeline is not ultimately fundamental unless it is at the very beginning and the beginning is unattainable. Therefore it is fair to conclude that fundamentality can be relevant to any point along an evolutionary timeline. At point X. I am a fish and a bird. We are fundamentally the same. At point Y. I am neither a fish or a bird. I am still fundamentally the same but now I am also fundamentally different.
6"2(1+2)=1 or 9

k. I think I won.-----------------6/2(1+2) is an ambiguous equation, it could be understood as:(6/2)(1+2) in which case we have: (3)(3) = 9Or:6/(2(1+2))6/61It depends how you use the order of operation with regard an equation that involves both division with a "/" and implied multiplication.If you say that they're equal & we calculate from left to right, you'll get the 1st way.If you say multiplication comes before the division you'll get the 2nd answer.Another way you'll get the 2nd answer is if you consider (1+2) to be like.I, and I think most other mathematicians go with the 1st way.