BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USFG should lead a bilateral effort with Russia to support Asaad in Syria to defeat ISIS.

Sorry! Perhaps one of the reasons my counterpart may have thought I am obfuscating the argument is because I was using unsupported "special" characters (i.e. a dash mark) and was uncertain whether I should provide supporting reasons before a premise was called into question. Now that I have received pushback on objection 1 (quite rightly given its counter-intuitive nature) I will defend the claim. ISIS is undoubtedly planning to do a lot of things. But everyone plans, and, as the military theoretician Von Moltke once said, "plans rarely survive first contact with the enemy". I argue that this principle is on display with regards to the tactics, strategy and doctrine of the ISIS core. The ISIS core is the organizational structure of the group in the Levant and Mesopotamia. It encompasses the "human capital" in the group. This human capital, its money, as it were, is spent in prodigious amounts and with great skill when fighting positional warfare. This was the classic mode of warfare in the 20th century, as massed unit formations fought against the enemy over a line of contact and control. As ISIS is a de facto state in the areas of Syria and Iraq it controls, it must hold ground, hence the need for positional warfare. While ISIS may indeed be a fearsome enemy in positional warfare, it lacks a comparable skill in terrorist tradecraft, which is an activity altogether different. Terrorists don"t need to defend territory. Terrorists aim to strike fear and discord into their target audiences. Hence, there is an operational and skills split between an organization like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS. While AQAP has demonstrated proficiency with manufacturing sophisticated explosives to hit targets of international significance, ISIS has not demonstrated an interest in this or the requisite skills to do so effectively. Furthermore, ISIS" obligations as a state are doing more to defeat it than perhaps any number of airstrikes. ISIS taxes, provides a bureaucratic apparatus to people, facilitates the flow of trade etc. It is a rational actor in this regard that is locked into territory that it must spend lots of money and blood to defend. In summary, it still remains unclear why ISIS poses a larger threat than do organizations like AQAP or grassroots terrorists. The new premise put forth by my counterpart seems to conflate the distinct reasons for why the U.S. and Russia may choose to involve themselves in Syria. The U.S., whether rightly or wrongly, is skeptical of the reasons for Russian military involvement in the theater of operations. Moreover, the fact that something is perceived as having to happen urgently, like an intervention, still does not justify the operation itself. Just like a doctor doesn't remove a liver because the patient needs something done urgently. It must be the right kind of something. And U.S. Russian cooperation doesn't seem to promise itself to be the right kind of something.
The USFG should lead a bilateral effort with Russia to support Asaad in Syria to defeat ISIS.

This is my rendering of the argument articulated above: 1)Both the US and Russia want the conflict in Syria to end. 2)ISIS is a very strong organization 3)ISIS" defeat would facilitate the resolution of the civil war in Syria Therefore: USFG should partner with Russia to defeat ISIS As I understand the argument as being, I have three objections to it. First, I disagree with (2); what momentum ISIS the organization had over the past year has dissipated and been replaced, in terms of threat to Russia and the U.S., by domestic grass-roots terrorism. Second, I disagree with (3). ISIS" defeat would not ultimately erase the underlying sociopolitical realities of Syria"the drivers of the conflict"foremost of which is the devolution of political authority. Finally, the conclusion does not seem to follow from the premises my counterpart has provided. While ISIS is a terrible, violent organization that has been the source of many atrocities against local peoples, my counterpart has not provided an argument for why this should influence the conduct of American foreign policy. Perhaps this ambiguity could be erased if she could characterize the nature of the "obligation, duty or correctness" that is entailed by premises 1-3 (i.e. is it of a moral nature?). In summary, my challenge can be described as follows: 1)The threat posed to Russia and the U.S. by ISIS proper"the official lands of the caliphate"has declined. 2)ISIS" defeat would not do much to solve the political violence in Syria. 3)My counterpart has not provided an argument for why the humanitarian disaster in Syria should control the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Therefore: It is unclear that USFG should work with Russia to defeat ISIS in Syria
The USFG should lead a bilateral effort with Russia to support Asaad in Syria to defeat ISIS.

In regards to the first objection; I believe my counterpart is refusing to buy what I deem to be the legitimate difference between grassroots ISIS-inspired terrorists and cadres from the organization itself. In regards to the second objection, I am hardly saying ISIS is anything other than the vicious, ruthless organization it is. I will quote again from my previous statement: "ISIS taxes, provides a bureaucratic apparatus to people, facilitates the flow of trade etc. It is a rational actor in this regard that is locked into territory that it must spend lots of money and blood to defend." Perhaps the confusion is coming in when I use the term "rational". Killers who commit the most heinous acts can be considered "rational" when they have a clearly defined set of goals and limitations. Rationality hardly counts as a normatively good or bad thing. It merely connotes that the agent is aware of its priorities and mission, and sensitive to its vulnerabilities, for which ISIS has many. Hence the "blood and treasure" rejoinder following. I also don't buy the one step closer argument. Think of defeating a terrorist organization instead as a wrestling match. Why waste time and energy on a wrestler who seems vulnerable to defeat in the first place, especially when one considers the imposing obstacles to fighting terror that both the U.S. and Russia face in other parts of the region and globe. Defeating ISIS is rather one step forward and three steps back. In summary, my challenge is described as follows: 1)The threat posed to Russia and the U.S. by ISIS proper, the official lands of the caliphate, has declined. 2)ISIS" defeat would not do much to solve the political violence in Syria. 3)My counterpart has not provided an argument for why the humanitarian disaster in Syria should control the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Therefore: It is unclear that USFG should work with Russia to defeat ISIS in Syria
Jimi Hendrix is not the best guitarist of All Time

The holy Trinity will soon be forgotten. Most people have no idea who Chuck Berry is. Most people (other than guitarists) have no idea who Eddie Van Halen is. Jimi's still hanging in there, mainly through hype. I don't know how much longer guitarists can keep that hype going. We all know he's not the best, but we're afraid to let him go. With all the Justin Biebers that have come and gone, we just wanted something else. From the disco of the 70s, the synthesizer music of the 80s, the rap and R &B of the 90s, The hip-hop of the 2000s. Each decade had a small group of rockers that thought of the 60s when guitarists ruled. It's been fun dude! :)
The New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

Let the refutations begin. As you all know, this debate is important to the economic history of the nation and it is important to understand if the New Deal was effective or not and if it should be a role model in public policy for today. That is why I did this debate, to prove that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression overall and was a failure. I thank my opponent for taking such a heavy interest in this debate and I am glad to see an already great debate!Both Schools of Thought Concur, that the New Deal was not the Problem but Other Factors Were!This is my opponent's only argument for this debate. As I have stated before, the purpose of this round is to solely refute the opposing argument and not expand or defend on your own case. My opponent's argument here is that the New Deal is popularly supported to have worked. To prove this, he uses a survey conducted by a professor at Wake Forest University. The survery is quoted in Wikipedia, but my opponent never provided a full link to the survey. I cannot give you a link either since the information seems to be not avaliable. However, I downloaded the survery a while back and I am happy to say that I still have it on my iPad. After seeing this survey again, I have several complaints about how it was conducted. These are:1. The data my opponent is using is old from 1995 and the survery is oudated. There should be a more recent one coducted to see where the opinions are today, but until then we have no modern survey or poll to see what the general opinion of economists and historians is. This information is too old.2. Whaples, the professor who did this survey, only selected historians and economists from the 1993 Economics History Association Telecommunications Directory. This was not more broad to different areas and groups, just one. 3. The confidence level for the historians and economists who were polled was not 100%. This means that they did not have full confidence when answering the Great Depression question. Thank you, I await my opponent's refutations.Source: Whaples, Robert. Where is there Consensus Among Americans Economic Historians?. 1995.
The New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

DebateIn this debate, I will be arguing that President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal prolonged the Great Depression while my opponent will argue that it contributed to the end of it.RulesRound 1 acceptance only. No trolling or smenatics. FormatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Both sides present arguments (no rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defense of arguments and conclusions
Colon Cancer

Cancer as a stereotypePeople react weirdly to the word "cancer". Susan Sontag wrote an essay about it called Illness as Metaphor. (1) I find this to be true in myself as well. When I read your first round, I got totally stressed out, even though it has nothing to do with me.Sontag argues that there's a stereotype of cancer in our society. I suppose you can see it in the way we use "cancer" as a metaphor in unrelated situations. For instance, Cancer: An evil or destructive practice or phenomenon that is hard to contain or eradicate:racism is a cancer sweeping across Europe (2)In other words, we grant to the disease a sort of evil character and power that it doesn't actually have. I can understand why you would hesitate to tell people and start those sorts of reactions and associations.Suppose you got infected with botulism or smallpox or got meningitis. Those diseases have a similar or worse prognosis than bowel cancer. Would you feel the same hesitation in letting people know? I think if you had started this debate with one of those diseases instead, I would personally have reacted a bit differently.Health and privacyDo you need to tell anyone? Suppose you had haemorroids, for example. It's a private matter and so is this. Of course, it depends on the sorts of relatioships you have with people and how it might affect them. But I'm not sure if the situation obliges you to share, although of course you may choose to.LiminalityI just happened to read a paper about this last week. This is not the paper, but it describes the idea of liminality in the abstract. (3) The paper I read was about how people may get a symptom (particularly a cancer-related symptom) and don't go and get treatment for a while, even though they know they should and that it might be serious. This stage is not denial because the person is fully aware of what's going on. It's just a stage in between, a hesitation.It's kind of irrational, but I have an immediate emotional sympathy with it because I guess for a moment you still have control over it and over your own privacy. And when people know, everything will change.(1) http://www.nybooks.com...;(2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
Colon Cancer

Thank you for your concern. It was very scary waiting a week for the results of the biopsy. l'm no wimp and I thought I was prepared, but when the doctor told me the results my body tensed up and I became light headed and almost fainted. After the cat scan I guess I will have to wait another whole week to get those results. It felt good having an outlet to talk about this as I have not told any one eles about it yet. Why do I fell almost embarrassed to tell anyone?
Colon Cancer

I'm sorry that my opponent has got a cancer diagnosis, but luckily the chances of full recovery are excellent (95%) (1).He should definitely get the cat scan because a/ the cancer might have spread to other areas and if it has, the sooner he gets treatment the better his chances of full recovery and b/ because his doctor recommends it and he deals with cancer every day, so his experience counts for something. I understand that the cat scan might be expensive, but I think the money is worth it. Even though there'll probably be no result, that will be a great relief to Pro's family. And in the unlikely event they do find something, it will mean quick treatment and maybe save Pro's life. (1) http://www.med.umich.edu...;
There is nothing wrong with eating dogs.

It is apparent that you have completely ignored my arguments in round 2, Where I talk about how there is nothing separating pigs and dogs as "pets" and "food, " as well as how tastes of an animal are subjective. But of course, You are an obvious troll that even admitted in other debates that you didn't take debates seriously, So I have no reason to take any of your arguments seriously. Unlike you, We take debates seriously.
There is nothing wrong with eating dogs.

So you're saying that dogs, Meant to be pets, Are okay to eat. And I would eat cow because cow is superior meat. Dog meat is, Simply put, Inferior. Instead of tasty and meaty, It's stringy and gamey, Why would you choose a product that is inferior? We wouldn't stop eating oranges if apples are available because apples are not superior to oranges. They are of equal quality.
There is nothing wrong with eating dogs.

Thanks for accepting the challenge. You have stated in round 1 that dogs are for pets, Not for eating. But what exactly separates dogs from pigs? They are both living animals, Both born from a mother, And both of them have meat. Dogs are often kept as pets for taking care of and not of eating, But that doesn't necessarily mean they were originally meant to be kept as a pet. In fact, Many people keep pigs and other farm animals are kept as a pet (you know, Like how Fern raised Wilbur from Charlotte's Web). Also, Dogs being cute doesn't make them any special from other animals. A lot of farm animals can be seen as "cute" if raised in a certain matter. You have also stated dogs taste nasty and stringy. Well, That's subjective. If there are people that don't like certain types of food, There is bound to be people that view that food as delicious. Millions of people love the taste of dogs, Which explains the enormous quantity of dogs eaten by China, The world's biggest dog consuming country, Each year: 10 million. I've also met several people that have tried dog meat, And they stated themselves that dogs taste very good indeed. Lastly you stated that why would people eat dogs if cows are available. Well here's the thing: humans eat whatever that are available to them. Should we stop eating mackerel if salmon is available? Should we stop eating oranges if apples are widely available? People have the choice of which type of meat is better to their own taste, So we shouldn't interfere with what type of meat they would like to eat.
Without God, there is no base for morality to stand upon

I personally am only talking about god as a belief, not necessarily a real being. While I understand that the majority of the world teaches morality though religious teaching, I believe it does not need to be that way. I believe humans have morals already without any form of teaching. Let us go back to the days of the common, let's say, neanderthal. They were close to the human species on an evolutionary level. They would live together, in nuclear families, they would nurture their sick and take care of each other. Of course they would have had territories, and if another neanderthals outside of the family enter their territory, they would be killed. Now if we compare this with our theories of morality today, they were morally correct. They would care for each other, hunted for food, gathered, and traveled. They would kill others outside of the family, for they were seen, as immediate threat to their territory and family. They would not have a concept of a god because their brains could not process like ours do today. They had morals without any teachings, they didn't know right from wrong, it was instinct, animal instinct. That is the reason I believe morality is something that isn't needed to be taught it is instinct, aka, The Human Condition. Now, I understand what my opponent is trying to say with the examples of gangsters. I understand that most people like that have little to know morals, yet, it is not their fault. They were brought up into those situations by possibly family, surrounding, media, etc. They aren't that way because of any reason other than they were around hostile environments while they were young. I don't know about my opponent but this seems like a form of unintended brainwashing. They don't know what is morally wrong because they were never told, or they were raised wrong and they became rebellious to authority figures. My opponent is saying that without god there are no morals, yet, what is there with a god? It seems to me that most religious teachings are hostile and controlling. With every religion there are extremists, and they follow the same god as everyone else in the religion, following the same scripture, same moral teachings. I agree with you that nobody can ever have the same morality. There can never be universal morals that everyone follows, yet without religion you can still have the same exact morals as a religious person, just without their god.
Without God, there is no base for morality to stand upon

I. God First, let us look at what God brings to morality. Let's hypothetically say that there is a God. In this case, it would seem that God as our Creator has the right to dictate to us a sense of morality that is pleasing to him. This gives morality an anchor that can be concretely referred back to as an objective source. This would give morality a base to stand upon if you will. It would be something eternal and transcendent to give people to strive for. II. Without God If we take away God from this equation we allow people to come up with what they think is correct for morality which gives us no solid base to work from. My opponent claims "common decency" has existed prior to any teachings. But I do not believe this to be the case. Without a solid moral anchor such as God morality becomes completely subjective between individuals and between cultural groups. One might say that murder is universally reviled but it's not. Murder is a common initiation right among gangs who obviously don't find anything egregious with killing [1]. One cultural group might say that gangs are wrong but the gangs obviously don't feel that way or else they would refrain from murdering as well. Sure, there can be a group of people who get together and say that they believe certain things to be right or wrong but without a base that supersedes humans this cannot be seen as a completely legitimate form of morality. All it would take is another group of people to come along and say "you're wrong". Debate would ensue and each side may believe this or that, fine. But that is not a true base for morality to stand on. Human decency doesn't exist as a universal principle, especially in cases involving groups who severely dislike each other such as the Israelis and the Palestinians or Civil War era white supremists and blacks. No universal sense of common decency was ever followed between such groups. In contrast however, if we take something like God or the Bible we can use that as an outside source of morality to judge the actions of all different groups thus creating an actual base in which to build morality upon. Therefore, without God, there is no true base for morality that can be accepted as a universalist principle among all different peoples. In short, a subjective morality cannot form a cohesive base on which to sit. [1] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
should school lunches be healthier and should they offer more variaties of food

I am sorry you seem to still be having issues. It seems to me that you didn't take my earlier advice to fix the problem. Whining about wanting change does not actually lead to change. You seem to be having one argument: 1. The food provided does not meet your medical needs therefore you want variety that includes healthy options. The problem with this argument is that, upon request to administration, the school is obligated to provide you with food that meets the FDA standards and your health standards. This means that there is no reason that the government should adjust the FDA standards to be healthier and that there is no reason that the school should provide you with a greater variety of options. These next two rounds will be fun to read because it looks like you require me to just rehash everything I say in each argument if you are going to continue posting the contents of your lunches. I to, want to share the details of my lunch on the internet. You will be surprised to learn that I also had pizza bagels. However, I was able to consume mine with the cheese because I do not share your unfortunate medical history.
should school lunches be healthier and should they offer more variaties of food

thankyou for the advice but the schools salads and wraps both have some sort of cheese in it. today I Had the same problem every thing had cheese in it but the bigger problem is that our schools snack line wasn't open so I couldn't get corn dogs or a pretzel or anything with out cheese in it. I ended up having to eat a pizza begal with no cheese but the cheese was melted to it so it was hard to get off. the other bad thing about that and it brings me back to the other problem in this argument is the health part. I'm goanna break down what I said PIZZA cheesy and full of fats and no protein. then BEGLE a delicious morning snack wich is full of fats and barley anything good that your body needs. so pizza begle = bad for you ! they had no vegetables today so I ended up with water and gold fish so again not very healthy
should school lunches be healthier and should they offer more variaties of food

Since you have finally narrowed down your situation it seems that you have one simple option. You not having food at your house leads me to believe that you would qualify for reduced/free lunch. If you qualify for that then the school is required to provide for your medical needs. I also believe that they provide a vegetarian option (normally salad at my school) which does not interfere with your lactose intolerance. All you have to do is talk to your school administrators. Now that I have solved your problems, back to the "resolution". While you might have a different view of health standards, the school is adhering to the FDA guidelines for a healthy lunch, even thought it doesn't appear healthy. You didn't touch on my variety argument so I assume I won on that argument.