BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.

As I said, only 20 years ago the world did fine without russian oil. The US is also now self sufficient in energy as well, meaning, former US suppliers now can supply the EU more. Most of Russia's export and money comes in natural Gas rather than oil. Russia's oil export was similar to Iran's in 2006. Iran's exports were reduced by 80% by sanctions and the world has suffered negligibly. This is better proof than alarmist remarks saying the world can't do without something it has already done without more often than not."Our stock market is in trouble"By the that logic the stock markets would have collapsed when they sanctioned Iran, an oil exporter just as large before sanctions. The effects have been minimal.The US S&P 500 closed March 18 on a year to year HIGH, 0% losses. By contrast, the russian stock market has suffered a net loss of 12% since Feb 17. to March 18., equal to hundreds of billion of rubles. Just gone over night. Because of char limit, sources will be in comments.
U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.

I think you have a very optimistic view of the economic impact we will all feel if Russia doesn't supply the world with oil. Our stock market is in trouble already. I would link sites but my links never seem to work. MSN money article "The US is losing the new cold war" should show how volatile the markets are to the threat of higher oil prices. That's what will happen with further sanctions to Russia, and what happens with any sanctions on a large supplier. Russia needs oil from no one. Russia is one of the least dependent economies in the world as far as consumption. (needs citing ) There was an article In the IRNA On 2014 oil price reduction predictions if Iran sanctions ease. This shows how volatile the supply is to the demand . I'm sure I don't need to remind you about the oil embargo in the 70's, and the effect it has had on the US. Obama calls Putin "weak" for try to keep Ukraine under control... I guess Obama doesn't understand what power is.lol
U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.

I wold like to begin by pointing out we have agreed once a threat is made not following through discredits you. As such, the US should follow through or be discredited again. "But cutting off the natural resources to the market hurts everyone involved."This is true. But I propose 3 points about this.1. It will hurt Russia more. (over 65% of russia's trade is susceptible to US and allied efforts)2. The world has survived without russian resources before; only 24 years ago. People were not so bad off.3. The world can do it again, and is perhaps is even better equipped. To elaborate on point 3, the US has surpassed Russia as the largest gas producer recently and continues to grow. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) As over 180 billion (50%+) of Russia's export is natural gas, the US can provide the shortfall. The only issue is increase transportation costs, which is how it was done pre mid 1990s. As for syria, there are non-terrorist groups to support.
U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.

But cutting off the natural resources to the market hurts everyone involved. Every economy will suffer higher fuel and energy costs. This is why it is important to work through some things before jumping to threats of sanctions. I don't like blood shed, but I feel a new cold war will benefit many economies that have gone stagnant. One really needs to review how Russia backed Assad at the time, time to see the relevance in my argument. The US backs far to many extremist groups everyday claiming it is promoting Democracy, when it is in fact a Republic. Syria is a place where the US would likely be supporting terrorists to topple Assad. That wouldn't make much sense so I agree no action was good, but If he never bluffed and never said anything I think Russia might be behaving different in the Ukraine.
U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.

I couldn't agree more that backing down from threats makes you look weak. I also agree that past threats and subsequent failure to follow up discredited Obama and US influence. Now, when it comes to Ukraine, it is a given backing down again would have similar negative effects. But must also agree that the threats have already been clearly made, have they not?Thus given our past agreements(if we do indeed agree) we must also agree the US must now follow through. If this creates a mini cold war dynamic, so be it. Does Russia violations of no less than 3 international treaties and brazen behavior not well warrant such a thing? The only question should be whether this behavior is acceptable, not our determination.The US does have a heavy blow it can strike against Russia admits other things. Most of Russia's trade is in resources, gas and oil totaling about 330 Billion. Mostly with the EU and G7. (china is the other major partner)By colluding the US and EU have the ability to damage russia.
U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.

I really wonder how this will play out. Obama lost all credibility on going after Assad in Syria, when he used chemical weapons. I don't blame Obama for not wanting to get involved, however claiming you will when you won't compromises your credibility. Ukraine is at Russia's front door. The U.S should not get in the middle. I think Putin will take it to the end knowing the sanctions won't effect him much and odds are the U.S. is bluffing any way. Maybe it's a foolish pissing match after the west belittled Russia over the Olympic games. I asked the Olympic committee not to allow Russia to host in the past . Russia however did a fine job maintaining safety and security, not that I doubted their ability. In my opinion they flat out didn't deserve to host, but the west had no reason to cut them down the way they did either.
Should we have Gun Control

Could you state what gun control you think we need. If you create more laws and regulation and do not enforce them like the ones we have now then what is the point, all that would be accomplished would be making it harder for law abiding citizens to get firearms. I am not sure if your family has ever bought a firearm but if you have ever gone to a store and purchased a firearm you would see that the background check that all stores are required to use. If a store or gun show were to not have you go through the background check then they face going to prison. Now criminals will try to find a way to get a gun now matter what and if they can not get a gun then they will use other means to harm others. Examples of this are how people driving into crowds with cars, using bombs and using knifes. Bombs are homemade how do you regulate them? Cars, any one can get a car with a drivers licenses. Certain types of gun control do infringe on the second amendment. Some gun control legislation ban certain firearms while other's limit firearm attachments which can affect someones second amendment right. While other gun control legislation does not affect our second amendment right. I hope this response fits into your requirements I did not quite understand what you said in the last sentence.
Should we have Gun Control

I'm also very new to this site and I thank you for debating with me, also I do live in the U.S. While its true that criminals break the law stricter laws will make fewer criminals break the law. Also while it is true we have background checks and some limitations on firearms we could still have more. Also with the current laws we have, it is WAY to easy for anyone to get a gun by going to gun shows. Also, the current laws we have don't hold stores to these laws and they can easily break them with no punishment. You said that "We need to protect our second amendment." but here's the thing gun control DOES NOT violate the second amendment. Why is because this is what the second amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You see that gun control is not violating that because it is only making more background checks, and to make it as easy to buy a gun. It is not infringing on that right because you can still buy a gun it will just be harder. Please do your rebuttal for your next argument so things can move along smoothly thank you.
Should we have Gun Control

I am a little new to this site and will try to to best I can to get my point across on this platform. Be for I get stated you should know that some gun control is necessary but not to the extent that it has been presented by many. I believe you live in the U. S. so this response will be based on the U. S. unless you wish to extend to other nations around the world. Now we all after remember that criminals break the law. The laws we have in place now criminals have broken and we must not respond with feeling but with logic to the tragedies that occur. We currently have background checks and have many limitations on firearms now. What we should focus on instead of creating more regulations is to enforce the laws we have now. Examples of failures to act are in the recent Parkland Shooting when authorities failed to prevent the shooting while they had information of a possible unstable individual that could harm someone. We need to protect our second amendment. It allows us to protect ourselves from criminals or tyrannical governments. That is why we do not need to get new gun control legislation.
Should we have Gun Control

First, of I would like to say how it will work and good luck to the challenger 1st Round: Opening 2nd Round: Rebuttals 3rd Round: Speech 4th Round: Rebuttals 5th Round: Closing speech Now I will start. There are many reasons why we should have gun control. One reason is that too many innocent children and their family die. One of the other is in all of the countries that have gun control terrorist attacks have gone down. But the many reasons we should have gun control is because it makes us look stupid. Now let explain that, why is because where one of the only major country that does not have gun control. In fact here is the list of countries who don't have some form of gun control Albania, Austria, Chad, Republic of Congo, Honduras, Micronesia, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Tanzania, the United States, Yemen, and Zambia. That's 14 countries all of them with their own problems. That is why I think we should have gun control.
Best comic book hero

My argument against Pro's position that Punisher is the best comic book hero centers on a premise to which Pro has apparently stipulated in his round#2 argument. Pro states, "I think I would count Punisher as more of an anti-hero..." This conceded fact is central to my argument that Punisher is in fact not the best comic book hero.The history of the fictional character Punisher includes vigilantism, murder, torture, and kidnapping. (1). Such behavior is not proper for a hero. It is more in the vein of a typical anti-hero, one who believes the ends justifies any means, however improper those means might be. A hero is typically defined as more than just courageous. A hero is typically defined as a courageous individual of noble character and virtuous qualities, a role model. (2) (3)History has shown mankind that societies have a tendency to degrade over time, losing the characteristics of nobility and virtue. The idea of the comic book hero, possessing these qualities in the highest degree and especially in these books frequently read by young impressionable children, is to give them entertainment with a purpose, to reinforce the desire to exhibit these good qualities in one's own life. To be sure, there is a place in entertainment for anti-heroes, but they should not be portrayed as heroic. In the end, someone who would emulate the behavior of one such as Punisher would end their life either in an execution chamber or dying in a prison cell for their extensive and offensive crimes. With this in mind there are at least 2 comic book heroes I would submit are better heroes than Punisher: Superman and Captain America. Both of these are in fact heroic, exhibiting the qualities of courage, compassion, empathy, respect for law and a desire to do what is right even at their own expense. These are not the qualities of an anti-hero who feels he has a right to murder those who murdered those who he dislikes. Those anti-hero qualities should not be presented to children as heroic; something to aspire to. Instead of lessening the tendency of society to degrade, such lessons of immoral morality presented as a good to children will speed societal decay, as this becomes part of their adult psyche.(1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.dictionary.com... (3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
It should be legal to own a gun

The thing that you don't understand is that's exactly what gun control does. If you don't have a mental disability, or if you don't have a criminal record you shouldn't complain. Gun control is simply stoppin those kind of people. If you truly are afraid about "guns being taken away" which legally isn't possible because of the constitution, then 1) you aren't sure of you own mental stability or 2) you're afraid you have a criminal record...? I mean if you want to carry around a pistol to protect yourself fine. Or if you want to buy a hunting rifle...fine. But you don't need semi-auto's or auto's. People kill people yes, but how much harder would it be for a possible school shooter to kill people, if they had a gun...or a knife. People may kill people, but gun's kill far more.
Usui Takumi would make a better husband for ESocialBookworm than kc1999

I SHOULD GET CONDUCT POINTS BECAUSE SHE HAS CALLED ME Kc1997, CLEARLY INDICATING THAT SHE HAS A DISDAIN FOR MY AGE.I SHOULD GET ARGUMENTS BECAUSE I HAVE YOUR RIGHTS IN MY HANDS.I SHOULD GET SOURCES BECAUSE MY BRAIN IS THE MOST INTELLIGENT SOURCE.HOWEVER, IF YOU WILL NOT VOTE
Usui Takumi would make a better husband for ESocialBookworm than kc1999

My opponent has decided to cancel this debate because:1. "Real life issues," and 2. He knows he cannot beat the awesomeness of Usui Takumi. -==0==-On a side note, I've proved Usui would make a better husband than Kc1997. Kc1997 even proved his love for power in this round with "YES I LIKE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS. I feel like its my job to do so." However, Kc1997 concedes outside of the debate. With his permission, I would like to share this with you:http://www.debate.org...;and click="document.location='/ESocialBookworm/photos/album/3900/25195/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3900/106131-3900-5zp4w-a.jpg" alt="" />http://www.debate.org...;Although it isn't necessary to vote, I would just like to inform you of the obvious win for Pro.-==0==-Thank you Kc1997 for a fun debate! I think this is the hardest I've ever worked on a debate. I'm disappointed that we weren't able to finish it but I understand the complications of examinations, being in them currently myself. I wish you hadn't accepted the debate though, knowing you didn't have time because I sitll had more points typed out already.Nevertheless, best of luck to Kc1997 in his exams.USUI TAKUMI FTW!!!
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1)I agree with my opponent"s definition of solitary confinement in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2)I agree that solitary confinement helps insure the safety of the correctional officers but research suggests that solitary confinement creates more violence both inside and outside prison walls (Vazquez, 2013). 3)I don"t agree with premise 4 that it serves as discipline because these prisoners come out of solitary confinement with more problems then they went in with, for example it does psychological harm, causes hallucinations, anger, depression and suicidal thoughts. 4)I disagree with premise 5, because regardless of having authority, people still tend to break the law and cause chaos, even with their being authority inside a prison. 5)It may help one to reflect what they did but it violates the 8th and 14th amendment where no one should be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments. 6)Solitary confinement causes social withdrawals. 7)Solitary confinement is expensive and the money should be used towards other more beneficial purposes. 8)Harlow"s experiment with rhesus monkeys inside a custom designed solitary chamber show the negative effect isolation had on these monkeys, in which it "obliterated the animals socially" (Breslow, 2014) and this is similar to solitary confinement. 9)Thus, the U.S. should not put prisoners in solitary confinement. Non- Controversial: Premise 1 and 6. In premise 1, I am agreeing with my opponent on the definition of solitary confinement. In premise 6, I am simply stating what can happen from solitary confinement. Controversial: Premises 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9. In premise 2, my partner may not think it creates more violence. In premise 3, my partner may not agree that these are the results for every inmate that is released from solitary confinement. In premise 5, "cruel and unusual punishment" is vague. In premise 7, my opponent may argue what is beneficial and beneficial is vague. In premise 8, comparing the experiment to solitary confinement may not be the same, even though it is the same idea.
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1) Solitary confinement is s a form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2) Solitary confinement helps insure the safety of the correctional officers. Day in and day out these correctional officers have to deal with dangerous criminals who have nothing to lose, for the especially dangerous ones it is a must that they be locked away for 23 hours of the day. 3) It helps insure the safety of the inmates as well. In prison, there can be a variety of different gangs who wouldn't think twice about taking another inmate's life. The people that belong to these gang or who just like to inflict pain on other people need solitary confinement. 4) It serves as a form of discipline for those trouble making inmates. Solitary confinement makes the inmates think twice before committing an act that is look down upon. 5) It promotes the respect of authority. The inmates cannot feel as if they own the prison or that the correctional officers are soft because that will motivate them to cause chaos. 6) It allows the inmate that is in solitary confinement to reflect upon the acts he has committed that landed him in prison and solitary confinement. ________________________________________________________________ 7) Therefore, the US should keep putting prisoners in solitary confinement. Non-Controversial premise- Premise one is a simple definition of solitary confinement Controversial Premises- Premises 2,3,4,5,6 are controversial because they are positives points about solitary confinement, which is being debated as something that is cruel and unusual punishment.
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

Con 1)I agree with my opponent"s definition of solitary confinement in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2) I don"t agree that it serves as discipline because these prisoners come out of solitary confinement with more problems then they went in with, for example it does psychological harm, causes hallucinations, anger, depression and suicidal thoughts. 3) It may help one to reflect what they did but it violates the 8th and 14th amendment where no one should be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments. 4)Solitary confinement is expensive and the money should be used towards other more beneficial purposes. 5) Harlow"s experiment with rhesus monkeys inside a custom designed solitary chamber show the negative effect isolation had on these monkeys, in which it "obliterated the animals socially" (Breslow, 2014) and this is similar to solitary confinement. 6) Having no source of authority would cause more chaos because no one is there to control the prisoners but even if there are prison guards, riots and fights break out on a regular day basis. The guards try to control the situation and do the best of their ability but they would not be put into solitary confinement unless they committed a severe act of crime. 7)"Cruel and Unusual" punishment would be a degrading treatment or punishment in some form of torture. Torture would be the act of causing someone pain, either physical or emotional, for a confession. 8) Solitary confinement also leads prisoners to suicidal thoughts. They start to believe that the only way out is to take their own lives. Why would we make someone prefer death as a solution to not just this but any problem overall? 9) Taking the story of Sam Mandez into consideration. He was put into prison and then solitary confinement for 16 years for a murder that wasn"t proven and is now mentally ill. He tells doctors he has 11 children, married to Lyssa Chapman, and that we was an architect for Denver International Airport. He is said to be suffering from various forms of psychosis. This is the effect solitary confinement had on one single prisoner (Cohen, 2013). 10) Solitary confinement also violates human dignity. We would not keep animals in this condition in lab for experiments so why should we treat humans like that? They are deprived of phone calls and any contact with person relationships, in which isolation as extreme as this makes it harder for them to being relationships with outsiders when they are released 11)Thus, the U.S. should not put prisoners in solitary confinement.
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1) Solitary confinement is s a form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2) Solitary confinement helps insure the safety of the correctional officers. Day in and day out these correctional officers have to deal with dangerous criminals who have nothing to lose, for the especially dangerous ones it is a must that they be locked away for 23 hours of the day. 3) It helps insure the safety of the inmates as well. In prison, there can be a variety of different gangs who wouldn't think twice about taking another inmate's life. The people that belong to these gang or who just like to inflict pain on other people need solitary confinement. 4) It serves as a form of discipline for those trouble making inmates. Solitary confinement makes the inmates think twice before committing an act that is look down upon. 5) It promotes the respect of authority. The inmates cannot feel as if they own the prison or that the correctional officers are soft because that will motivate them to cause chaos. 6) It allows the inmate that is in solitary confinement to reflect upon the acts he has committed that landed him in prison and solitary confinement. 7) Solitary confinement is expensive, but it helps keep inmates and correctional officer safe by separating the dangerous inmates. These correctional officers are highly outnumbered and are put in serious risk everyday they go into work, they should be able to separated inmates that are dangerous. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8) Therefore, the US should keep putting prisoners in solitary confinement.