BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations

Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations. I would like to define some key terms Nation: a territorial land mass (world book encyclopedia) Stable: resistant to movement or change (world book encyclopedia) Contention 1) Land Mass's cannot threaten each other A nation as previously defined by World Book Encyclopedia is a territorial land mass. Al land mass refers to the total area of a country or geographical region. A continent is a landmass. Continents are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water. Therefore, a failed landmass or a stable landmass does not pose a threat to one another. It is physically impossible for say Florida to get up and go punch Arabia in the face. Absurd? No, it is just reality. Contention 2) Tectonic plates make EVERY nation unstable and therefore an equal threat Once again I would like to bring in the definition of the word stable as defined by World Book Encyclopedia. Resistant to movement or change. Well, the Earth's surface is made up of a series of large plates. These plates control the outermost shell of the lithosphere or rocky planet. They are in constant motion traveling a few centimeters per year. Constant motion does not allow you to be resistant to movement because motion is a verb. That means it is happening now or it is an action occurring. The word movement however is a noun. So, if every tectonic plate is constantly moving than it cannot be stable because the word stable implies that there is a resistant to movement but if they are already moving how can they be resistant? This makes every nation an equal tat because every nation is moving. Contention 3) Not the nation itself but the people living on the land mass are threats If the affirmative and judge fail to see the truth in the first two contentions, then consider this. It is not the nation itself, but the corrupt groups within it, that pose any threat. Take for example Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many people point fingers at the entire nation, when in actuality, it's Al Qaeda that is threatening. It's not the nation, as a whole we fear, but the corrupt terrorist group within it. Al Qaeda is a very great threat against the US. However, Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever they reside is unable to attack U.S. soil so therefore one can conclude it is not those nations, but the terrorist group within that provides the threat. Thus showing that it's not the nation itself but the distorted organizations within.
dogs are better than cats

Thanks for starting this debate, lifesaglitch911.As the Opposition, I negate the resolution that "dogs are better than cats."Do to the 500 character cap, this will be short.Nothing is wrong with excreting in a litter box. My opponent has offered no evidence to back up his points. He says it is his opinion.Whether or not a dog is better than a cat is entirely in opinion. Some people enjoy cats more than dogs, others vice-versa.The BOP was on my opponent. The resolution has not been proved.Thanks.
Is a game console the same as a PC

So to summarize, a Gaming Console anything that before the generation were thing of its own. The early millennial of the gaming industry took a transition to utilize 128bit graphics processing. These technology were also adapted into Gaming Consoles and throughout the years has become basically PC. A PC is not the traditional computer from the early days before the 60's and 70's but PC are derived from computing innovation that became formally known as 'Desktop Personal Computer' where these were these were newly using microcomputers running microprocessors like we have been using. I did a comparison of basic components of PC and to Gaming Console and argue there was no difference and using the same technology and components. I presented many reference and hows to that take 6th Gaming Console and can be install PC OS and have Game Console run just like a PC. My last argument I closed the Gaming Consoles are PC in disguise. Con forfeit the debate, so I will continue with references on why Gaming Console are the same as PC. 1. Xbox is Gaming Console made under microsoft and is a PC in disguised. http://www.digitaltrends.com... 2. Xbox one and Sony Playstation 4 is using AMD Jaguar PC processors family http://arstechnica.com... 3. Playstation OS is a modded from common PC os system know as FreeBSD, a free version of Unix OS. http://www.extremetech.com... 4. To concluded my argument that because Gaming Console is so PC'ish, Microsoft has speculated into a Gaming Console into window 10 and be even more of a modular PC. http://www.engadget.com... My opponent did not provide any sort of reference in this debate and with 1 forfeit. I have rebutted my opponents arguments to why modern Gaming Console are PC with a slight difference and made effort explanations. I think Pro should be voted on.
Is a game console the same as a PC

So by that logic, a smart t.v. is a PC. A cable box is a PC. That's like saying that the computers that came before the PC are the same thing. Just because something is based off another thing does not make them the same. There are fundamental differences between the first computers used by the military and the modern PC, including design and purpose. 1. The design of a game console is completely different from the modern PC. Game consoles tend to use system on chip designs so all their components will fit the way they do. 2. The primary purpose of a console is to play games. Sure you can stream videos and listen to music but that makes it nothing more than a media center at best. There is a reason people still develop games on PC. You can't produce anything on a console. So just because it uses the same technology as a PC, it does not make a game console equal a PC.
Is a game console the same as a PC

I was on youtube watching a video about PC gaming and obviously it started a console/PC flame war in the comments section. Someone in the comments stated that a console is the same as a PC. Someone else backed him up on the claim. I said it is a computing device but it certainly is not a PC. He also said that a console is a PC but a PC is not a console which makes absolutely no sense in my mind. **EDIT** So I suppose everyone is in agreement that a game console is not a PC?
KFC is an appropriate place to eat now that they have eliminated their trans fats.

asssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssslllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppoop i forfeit my anus to all.
KFC is an appropriate place to eat now that they have eliminated their trans fats.

Clearly my opposition is underprepared, unintelligent, and overall, a complete boob when it comes to the concepts of nutrition. Shall i go into the saturated fat statistics? Saturated Fat: 5 Hot Wings=5 grams Chicken and Biscuit Bowl=11 grams 4 Chocolate Chip cookies=14 grams Medium Mountain Dew=0 grams (come on, people, its soda) Total: 30 grams That, right there, folks, is 152% of your saturated fat intake for a day. 152%! Thats 1.52 time what you should be getting! It's not even healthy for you.
KFC is an appropriate place to eat now that they have eliminated their trans fats.

Ah, yes, KFC has eliminated all trans fats in their food. No more trans-fatty acids that seep into our bodies and brains, clogging our arteries, slowing our blood flow, scientifically proving that it makes us less intelligent. WHOOPEE! Lets all get in the car and head down to Colonel Sanders' house for a bite to eat! Of course, we all know you'll take more than just one bite. Now that they've eliminated all of those bad trans fats, its ok to dig in to the Colonel's delicious meals! How about a five piece order of saucless hot wings? Mmm. Lets throw in a chicken and biscuit bowl for some added flavor. Desert? Well, now that the trans fat is gone, so is the guilt! Lets pile on 4 delicious, nutritious, chocolate chip cookies. Oh, i almost forgot, a medium Mountain Dew to go to wash it all down. Lets look at the intakes: Calories: Mountain Dew=190 4 chocolate chip cookies=640 5 Hot wings=350 Chicken and biscuit bowl=870 Total: 2,050 calories Now, the average adult male takes in 2,400 to 2,600 calories per day. That one "meal" at KFC is about 80% of that man's daily caloric intake. And dont tell me he's going home and eating okra, tofu and veggie stir fry. Oh no. He's eating more crap like that. KFC the place to be because of no trans fat? Ha!
Guns are not necessary in society

For clarification, when I said "in instances where someone's livelihood depends on owning a gun (hunters)" I meant not only hunters but also anyone whose livelihood depends on a gun, which includes soldiers and police officers who use weapons as a tool for their jobs . Now i'll get right to your points;P1: "Various terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda being one, have access to lots of guns. "I take it that you said this with regards to soldiers, and since I was not clear enough for you I will allow you to withdraw it. P2:"Al Qaeda have motive to use those guns against us. "Same as point 1. P3:Guns pose dangers of injury and/or death. Not sure why I wouldn't attack this one…in fact, I couldn't have said it any better my self. The primary reason not to legalize guns (especially high powered rifles) is because of the huge danger they pose to our most vulnerable demographic; our children. Guns kill roughly 1,500 children each year(1,2). This number is appalling, especially since many of the people who are pro gun legalization are pro life and say that they are trying to save the lives of children…P4: "Guns help us defend ourselves against this injury and/or death. It's kinda hard for them to shoot us if we're shooting back at them. " Please specify who you mean with "them" (again, in a civilian situation)P5: "Other means are insufficient to fully defend ourselves against this injury and/or death. "Please specify who you are planning to defend yourself from. I find some irony in you conclusion when you say "If we're in danger, and guns protect us better than anything else", because the majority of the time it is guns that are putting us in danger in the first place. .. Sources:(1). http://www.nbcnews.com...(2)http://www.nationwidechildrens.org...
Feminism

One might assume that Women Against Feminism is a traditionalist backlash against gender equality. Yet many of the women say they reject feminism precisely because they are pro-equality. A blogger who goes by AstrokidNJ has analyzed a week"s worth of posts on Women Against Feminism and found that 46 percent were egalitarian, 19 percent endorsed men"s issues, and 12 percent criticized feminist intolerance toward dissent. Only 23 percent reflected traditionalist views such as support for distinct sex roles, chivalry, or full-time motherhood.
Feminism

Well, one of Women Against Feminism"s harshest critics, leading feminist pundit Jessica Valenti, makes it clear that being a feminist means believing that women in America and other modern liberal democracies are "a victimized class." They are "systematically discriminated against in school, work, and politics," "objectified," and "harassed, attacked, and sexually assaulted." This, Valenti asserts, is "not a matter of politics, but of truth."
Feminism

Those people you are talking about are not real feminists, which I was saying in my first post. The real feminists are the people who believe in equality, not overpowering. I know that there are many people who call themselves feminists when they are really not, they have made real feminists seem like they are controlling, man haters. But there are also many real feminists who really believe in equality. Like Emma Watson, who has made numerous speeches for change in not just the U.S. but the whole world. People like her are real feminists who try to make a change.
Feminism

Do American women still need feminism? A controversial social media movement called Women Against Feminism features women explaining " mostly in "selfies" with handwritten signs " why they do not. Feminist responses have ranged from bafflement to vitriol or mockery to arguments that these women don"t know what feminism is. But while this new movement has its silly aspects, it raises some much-needed questions about feminism"s present and future state " and, in the weeks since it first attracted notice, many prominent feminists have helped validate some of the criticisms.
There is no solid evidence, thus far, for any paranormal phenomena.

I can't even be bothered to read the bottem half of my oppoents responce. He exacly claims in the previous debate the for something to be proven it does not neeed to be 100% and im sure none of the evidence he has presented shows 100%......my oppoent has chosen the option around God, i would have actually been iterested if he had chosen god.......as i have pointed out in the last round he seems to change his oppion on things per debate, this therefore makes him false and a liar. ......I'm going to get me some marshmellows =P
There is no solid evidence, thus far, for any paranormal phenomena.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is quite simply a hilarious debate. I don't mean Jim Carrey funny, but desperate funny. My opponent not only FAILS to follow the rules of this debate, he tries to bring points from ANOTHER DEBATE into this one! And he STILL has his misunderstandings! I'm not sure I should even continue this debate as it is going nowhere constructive, but for the sake of things I shall: [quote]"My Opponent seems unable to answer my or disprove my simple reply and claims he has won already, Is he counting the votes before they are cast?[quote] No, but I'm saying I SHOULD win because you have disregarded the rules and guidelines I have put in place during Round 1. By accepting this debate, you have to accept these rules and guidelines - and you either deliberately didn't or you posted your one-line argument hastily. [quote]"I would also like the point out that TheSkeptic has contradicted his words from a previous Debate I took part in."[quote] This is ridiculous. You can't bring points or arguments from ANOTHER debate into this debate - otherwise it will defeat the purpose of trying new arguments, or even being a devil's advocate. [quote]"This idea of Aliens is fairly solid, as we have heaps of shows and stories about it, and the HIGH likelihood on some Extra terrestrial living on some distant planet. AND this IS evidence because by following TheSkeptics Belief the proving something doesn't have to be 100% then this is SOLID EVIDENCE, As evidenced is something that furnishes proof."[quote] I'm sorry, but this is just one example. Where are the other two as you have been TOLD TWICE? ========== Conclusion ========== Does my opponent even read my arguments? Does he not realize what he needs to do still? I asked for him to list three examples of paranormal phenomena, and he has simply given me one, and argued for it using material from ANOTHER DEBATE. Now while I believe in the things I argued in the debate aforementioned, I will not stoop down to him salvaging the previous debate *somehow*. As I see it, this debate is already over, if it ever even began.
There is no solid evidence, thus far, for any paranormal phenomena.

My Opponent seems unable to answer my or disprove my simple reply and claims he has won already, Is he counting the votes before they are cast? I believe so. I would also like the point out that TheSkeptic has contradicted his words from a previous Debate I took part in. In this debate he stated that there is proof or Gods existence or non-existence. God is a Paranormal Phenomena. Paranormal meaning as my opponent states = "Not scientifically explainable; supernatural" I would also like point out that TheSkeptic States in the previous debate that "Proof doesn't have to be 100%" He basically claims that "Proof" is merely the likelihood or unlikelihood of something happening or being, Now if you apply this to Paranormal Phenomena, let's use the belief in Alien's for example, We have a very vast universe and billions of planets now the likelihood of Aliens living on one of these planets is Highly likely, So if we follow TheSkeptics idea of proof then this is proof. Now you can't go and say "well proof isn't SOLID EVIDENCE" well I'd just like to point out in the definitions my opponent provides he states. [QUOTE] [Word - Solid] [Source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com......] Sound; reliable [Word - Evidence] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com......] [END QUOTE] Something that furnishes proof This idea of Aliens is fairly solid, as we have heaps of shows and stories about it, and the HIGH likelihood on some Extra terrestrial living on some distant planet. AND this IS evidence because by following TheSkeptics Belief the proving something doesn't have to be 100% then this is SOLID EVIDENCE, As evidenced is something that furnishes proof.
There is no solid evidence, thus far, for any paranormal phenomena.

My opponent has failed, as was required by the rules of this debate, to list three different types of paranormal phenomena - not simply to waste one round by repeating his position. Obviously, I can't refute every paranormal phenomena out there in the limit of 8,000 characters because my opponent has failed to do his simple burden. That being said, the vote (unfortunately) goes to PRO.
There is no solid evidence, thus far, for any paranormal phenomena.

========== Definitions ========== [Word - Solid] [Source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] Sound; reliable [Word - Evidence] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Something that furnishes proof [Word - Paranormal] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Not scientifically explainable; supernatural [Word - Phenomena] [Source - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. ========== Clarifications and guidelines ========== The resolution should be clear, and the definitions should be set; I affirm that there is no credible evidence for any paranormal phenomena so far. An important thing to note is that I intend to argue against paranormal phenomena AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED, not on an actual phenomenon happening. For example, it's no doubt that many Bigfoot advocates actually _experience_ something. They likely experienced meeting some other animal (a bear, etc.). However, what they claim to have experienced (Bigfoot) is what I am arguing against. That being said, here are the rules: During Round 1, my opponent will list three different types of paranormal phenomenons. In my Round 2, I will proceed to choose one of these and refute the idea - the rest should be a simple 3-Round debate.
Lando definitley betrayed Han

I am a huge Star Wars movie fan. I've seen every movie more than three times(except Rogue One, only twice) and I was watching the Empire Strikes Back with my buddies when one said, "Lando didn't betray Han at all, he was just doing what's best" it's obvious that Lando betrayed Han to me but if anyone doesn't think so and wants to argue about it then I will gladly.
Woo would have defeated kass in the final tribal council

I will state my case briefly, only 750 characters! Neither Kass nor Woo were uniquely dominant in challenge. In the combined tribe, Kass had 1 (a come from behind) and Woo had 2. That is a nil. Social game is therefore most important. Woo made no moves the entire show. Kass boldly flipped on Sarah (ep6), she was unpredictable and got Morgan out (7). She disrupted Tony's play and got Trish knocked out (12). She made real moves and played the game, whereas Woo followed Tony. Tony's play was respected at Final Council despite angering many jurors; Kass likely would have received the same respect despite angering many jurors. Woo's failure play any social game would have kept the jurors from voting from him, like he got only 1 vote vs Tony.
Woo would have defeated kass in the final tribal council

Woo picking Tony wouldn't have been a big move, it would have been an obvious move. You don't get credit for obvious moves, so that wouldn't have made him win. While the jurors said they would have voted for Woo after the show it doesn't change the fact that they could have voted Kass based on play. All of the jurors were screwed by Tony, no one liked him much either. However that only lost him 1 vote (Trish). The jury looked past their feelings and looked at play; it is clear that Kass played a much better game, eliminating 3 players with her own plays and constantly shaping the social game. Spencer was wrong that she was a goat. And Woo didn't play a social game, he just followed Tony. Kass played and made moves, so she would win.
Woo would have defeated kass in the final tribal council

While Spencer called Woo a puppy dog that was to Tony if he would have voted Tony out that would be a big move. Also he called kass the biggest goat in survivor history Meaning she wouldn't have received any jury votes this was also proven true at the live reunion when Jeff Probst asked the jury if the final tribal is Kass and Woo who would you have voted for eight out of 9 jurors said Woo. Kass was hated by the Solana 5 of Jeremiah Morgan Spencer Sarah and Tasha who all said at Ponderosa how much they hated kass she also agrivated Trish in her alliance by flicking her off. Woo would have been like Fabio or Natalie White (Nicuragua and Samoa) who went up against hated contestants like Russell and won because of a strong social game.