BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Would the United States be able to take the world in a global dominion campaign

Not true in an assault by the sea we have the ability to launch numerous jets from the 10 aircraft carriers we have not counting the additional 9 helicopter carriers we have. We also have MASSIVE air superiority, the us with a total of 13 thousand aircraft in operational status. We also have advanced avionics, which is the systems running the jets and the weapons systems in the jets. Besides an F-22(Freedom dispenser) would mach you out before you even know its there. The only country that beats us in tank power is China and Russia, granted China have about 1000 more tanks but they are old outdated tanks. We have abrams :). Russia has nearly 16 thousand tanks but most of them are older tanks not alot are new tanks running off of newer systems like our abrams. We also spend more than 550 BILLION dollars on our military yearly. That more than triples the closest contender which is China with a measly 100 billion. We also have to take into account the patriotism of the good ol US of As citizens. In WW2 we had an active duty percentage of 11.5% thats about 12.5 million people active in the war. If we had 11.5% of the current population participating in the war effort...Thats 37 million soldiers, not just any soldiers either thats AMERICAN. Thats more Special Operations soldiers, thats more RANGERS, thats more marines, and thats more aircraft carriers. I guarantee that our budget would be at least doubled in the time of war. giveing our military more room for expansion and improvement. We are also working on exoskeletal suits and gentically modifying to make our soldiers work more efficiently and effictively. http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Would the United States be able to take the world in a global dominion campaign

This is my first debate and im not the most educated on the subject but i decided to do something a little out of my comfort zone. If i do something wrong please tell me :) I do believe that we would be able to take the world in a global dominion campaign. US military might is stronger than any nation I know of. Even during the years of the Cold War, the intense confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States, we always avoided any direct clash between our civilians and, most certainly, between our military. Vladimir Putin
gun control is worthless

The pro side is saying that it is worthless. The con is siding with it being worthwhile. even if the legislature passes a law to limit or take away guns entirely, criminals will still find ways to get guns illegally. just because we outlawed drugs, doesn't mean that they are no not a problem. this will make it hard on police officers not only to look for drugs, violence, etc. but also illegally obtained guns. also this will make it so that people who want guns and get them legally, will be cheated out of their rights promised them by the second amendment of the constitution. my heart goes out to the survivors and families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, but id don't believe that gun control is the answer.
gun control is worthless

I will make this conclusion short and sweet. I believe that gun control, no matter the strictness, is an empty gesture. You keep stating that gun control makes it harder to get guns. this could be true, but it wont stop gun violence not by a long shot. Again, gun violence has risen in places with strict gun law. and since it seems like you cant read, I GOT THIS INFORMATION AT, www.politifact.com and hotair.com more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than those killed by guns. AND www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualtie. AND en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties. I would like to point out that I listed these clearly ant the end of my previous argument. To be honest I cant say I've enjoyed this debate. It seems you have a way of antagonizing your opponents. It seems that people like you will never see that gun control is an empty worthless gesture and will never have a nation wide impact. thank you for your time and let the best argument win.
gun control is worthless

"The Constitution guarantees many rights, two of which are being discussed here. One right is gun ownership. Another right is life. Abolishing all gun restrictions may give lots more people the right to gun ownership, but will have severely negative consequences for millions of innocents' right to life." Basically, you are saying that not restricting guns will deprive people of the right to live. This is absolutely crazy. Nothing can take away the right to life, but the mislead people wanting gun control are trying hard to take away our hard fought right of bearing arms. "Let's have a closer look at the rights actually given by the 2nd amendment. Amendment II: 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." This is true but lets not forget you are the one trying to change this. "In discussing the Constitution, we should recall that it is a badly outdated document." This is not true. There have been a multitude of changes to the constitution. And for over 200 years the second amendment has been seen as a legitimate law. Why change it now. Oh yes because now we have guns that can actually kill people. You stated, "Muskets are terrible at killing people." So your saying that because now guns are reliably harmful we should not allow them. Tell me, if muskets are such harmless weapons, then how did an estimated 700,000 people die in the civil war, the American revolution, and the war of 1812. not to mention the MIA's and the countless others killed in that time period? Now I would like to address the saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is very true. Just because guns are taken away, that doesn't mean that homicides will drop. In fact, they will probably rise. California, the state with the strictest gun control laws, saw a rise in gun violence. What a coincidence. Also, guns aren't the only weapon that cause deaths. Based on the sites www.politifact.com and hotair.com more people are killed by blunt objects and knives than those killed by guns. To finish, I believe that no matter how you try to use gun control to quell domestic violence, it is a good try but not a good idea. www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties
gun control is worthless

I agree that these controls will somewhat limit the opportunity for violent people to obtain guns, but they will find a way if they are hell bent on getting a weapon. There are so many ways to get illegal guns. You can pay smugglers, you can steal one, and you can get one from a friend found trustworthy by the government. The possibilities for one obtaining a gun illegally are endless. It seems that all this controversy is revolving around school shootings. I agree with your license argument. But even if a young adult in high school chooses to become violent, there won't be much in the stance of gun control to stop him. The one thing that is going to make schools and public places safer is higher security. This is why I believe gun control is worthless and just another problem for congress to handle. You stated against my argument about how criminals will get guns anyway by saying that if that's so, then why make laws at all if they are going to be broken anyway. You say these laws are in place to protect rights yet you are trying to take the rights given by the second amendment away. This is what the people pushing for gun laws are trying to do. They are trying to limit our rights. Gun control could also discourage people from buying gun and obtaining licenses that might save there lives in the case of a home invasion it may even cause some to commit a crime in order to get a gun. Take this story for an example (this is a fictional story written to help prove my case) of why gun control is not a good idea. A man has been accused of a crime and found guilty. He spends his time in jail, and later returns to society a changed man. But he wants to buy protection measures for himself In the form of a gun. He is denied this right given by the constitution because of gun laws. He then must resort back to crime to get a gun to protect himself. These laws may even turn law abiding citizens to crime to get these guns that can save their lives. These laws are ridiculous and unconstitutional. Why take a good mans right of bearing arms away when the real danger is the criminals who will find a way to get a weapon anyway. Gun laws are a waist of time and money. They are unconstitutional, and they will never be amended to the constitution. We must focus on our security, not our guns.
God is Dead AND WE HAVE KILLED HIM

I am not sure if there is a god, Some say belief is hard wird into our little frightened brains, That we need to have a god, Because life is scary and we do not know, And thats terrifying, We need to know there is a god so we can sleep at not and feel we have a pruprose, Without god people feel meaningless and go crazy killing raping dogs eating babies etc. . Calm down since the enlightenment since the advent of science medcine and technology we kno more the more we learn the less we need to be afraid, The less we need a god to give us purpsose, We seee this as advanced societies almost universally are more secularMillions have died in wars over religion beleive what yo will but please don't force it on the rest of us
God is Dead AND WE HAVE KILLED HIM

we are hardwired to beleive in god, Or were, Look at man, An apel like creature evolved from a chimpanzee, Alone scared looking up at the stars smart enough to ask questions, Ignorant enough not to be able to answer them, But now we are answering them, We fly to the moon literally we have computers and i phiones in sweden they have installed chips in people, That function as keys and credit cards, We are evolving to the next step, Isthere a god, Are we alone? I don't know, But i do know lonley and confused as we are we are making amazing progress, We may no longer need god, In the near future
God is Dead AND WE HAVE KILLED HIM

Science proved Religious visions were true? ! Science did that? There is spuedo science and there is junk Science, Amd no criedible sceintific source has ever "proved' relgious visionst to be anythng more than figments and chimera, It is absurd to think otherwise. Does the biological structure of our brains program us to believe in God? Recent advances in "neurotheology" have even prompted some scientists to propose they can induce the kind of holy visions of prophets, Even in those who have never experienced religious belief. Dr Michael Persinger of Laurentian University, Canada, Has devised a special helmet that uses electromagnetic fields to induce electrical changes in the brain's temporal lobes, Which are linked with religious belief. So confident is he that God is all in the mind, Or the brain at least, That Dr Persinger claims he can induce mystical feelings in a majority of those willing to don his Transcranial Magnetic Stimulator.
Social media was/is terrible for humanity

I apologize for my delay as well, my text will be kind of short Anyhow my opponent has presented a counter-argument to my idea of youtube not presenting ludic content by claiming that "there are also more honorable jobs projected on youtube. Scientists and engineers also make videos on youtube!" Well, of course they do, now the question is : Do people watch these videos? The science and technology channel with the most subscribers is VSauce[1] with 12 million subscribers. This is obviously a big number, however, as seen on link [2] gaming channels are much popular, with the biggest being PewDiePie with almost 4 times as many subscribers as VSauce. There are 5 more gamers more popular than them, so what exactly does youtube do to promote science and great things to be learned? I'd say it doesn't do much. About the troll parts, my opponent mentioned social experiments... While this is arguably an interesting point, in what way do these contribute to society? Yes, they are alerts to society (That's why you see these experiments done by organizations and not youtubers) but they don't do much, I mean, if they donated part of the money they earn from youtube to charity, who would care? Would that give views? I learned a saying that is "Charity should be anonymous,otherwise is vanity", I was told this was a Jewish saying, however I wasn't able to find a source to prove it, but this saying says a lot about this. You could also be thinking "Well, they can also donate to charity.." But here's a good example : In my country (Portugal) we have youtubers that do one or two philanthropic acts in their "careers", and by philanthropic acts I mean video campaigns, which in my opinion isn't too philanthropic.... And do they also give money to charity? Hahahahaha, of course they don't, they prefer instead to leave in a million-euro worth mansion, making no contribute to society whatsoever. [3] <- This is the link of the news article talking about these youtubers, it is however written in Portuguese, but I think Google translate should help with this Anyhow, I couldn't get more than this, as I've been very busy in the last 3 days. Now that the arguments phase is over , the questions phase will begin, Pegi, you can ask 1 to 5 questions, as you already know [1] - https://vidstatsx.com... [2] - https://vidstatsx.com... [3] - http://www.jn.pt...
Social media was/is terrible for humanity

That clears everything up perfectly!! So sorry for the late posting!! So as con, this will be my final argument that is presented. For some clarification before I begin: As the Pro, my opponent has what is referred to as the burden of proof. The burden of proof is to prove that the status quo (the way things already are) needs to be changed. In order to win the pro must withhold the four stock issues. Solvency Harm Inherency Topicality Significance As Con all I have to do is show that one of the stock issues are not solved/changed by the proposed plan of the Pro. So, if you, the voters believe that any of these stock issues are not withheld by the Pro, please vote Con. So to start off with addressing the arguments: For the first part of the first argument, my opponent agreed that Social Media does actually give job opportunities for many people. The questions popped up that some make their living off video games. Yes, this is true, but there are also more honorable jobs projected on youtube. Scientists and engeneers also make videos on youtube! Many great things can be learned there. Frankly, though there are cons, the pros greatly outway them. For the second part of the first con argument, the Pro described youtubers that are "Trolls". That make fun of people and do things just for the gain of themselves. But others do it for the gain of others. Others even making aware the flaws in humanity. A social experiment was even conducted where a girl went out, once dressed as a rich girl asking for money for makup, then later went out as a homeless girl asking for money. This video, and others like it raise awareness. I believe again, the pros in this situation outway the cons. I believe that the first con argument, for the before stated reason that the pros outway the con flows to the con (AKA I believe I won this argument). The third con argument flows to the con because the Pro agreed that social media is good in the aspect of showing others, while saving paper. Against pro argument 1: I believe it goes back to the same answer as Con argument 1. The pros outweigh the cons. For pro argument 2: Though it is a possibility to say up late, discipline can fix that. For all these reasons and more I encourage you all to vote con. Sorry this is kinda short, I was busy and got this all written in 6 mins. :P
Social media was/is terrible for humanity

Rules: 1 - No bad language 2 - Sources are ok , but don't use wikipedia 3 - No forfeiting rounds 4 - Structure : R1 - Con Presents opening arguments R2 - The both of us present arguments R3 - Pro presents final argument / CON ASKS QUESTIONS to Pro (Maximum 5 questions) R4 - Con Responds to the questions and ASKS QUESTIONS to Con / Pro replies These are the rules, good luck, you may argument right away, as said in rule 4
Truth_Seeker vs. LaughItUpLydia

Man with all the trashy music you been listenin' to, you should be in pop Cuz everything your doing now is like Ross' last show when it was stopped My flow is so wicked, it causes whirlwinds across merlin's Urban sea Urchins While i'm blowin' you over like Ajab's turbans among persians n' excursions That i'm doing, i'm seekin lyrics but the fire in your engine ran out You can call this your final destination cuz i have it all mapped out Your bars ain't even aligned right So how the heck can you even write?
Truth_Seeker vs. LaughItUpLydia

He's in love with the coco His raps sound like a dosido His inspiration Nicki's 'throw some mo' Reading his raps are as boring as watchin grass grow He tries to dance along but it don"t go the way he thought it would I'll trip him up, run a hammer through his head, he thought it was bad - I'm in a good mood! Wait till I start the fire, my engine revs like a Ferarri Enzo! Truth seeker be seekin lyrics but he's still recovering from my last blow My raps are insidious from conception, he tries to eg me Truth seeker's words are from prep academy
Truth_Seeker vs. LaughItUpLydia

Look i'm battling another rich kid Nah i'm just kiddin' it's just a nitpick This baby with a bid needs a tidbit Of what it means to be truly wicked Am i battling a lil pipsqueak or another pippi longstockings? I don't know if i'm even battling a real emcee using nvidia But i am dealing with another lil twip so laugh it up Lydia Don't come near me or i'll destroy your whole rap career I'm just wasting this round just to show you true fear
Truth_Seeker vs. LaughItUpLydia

Pro's truth seekin like pip squeak and getting nowhere He can't concentrate cuz I'm in his hair He can't think, his brain's infested no lie My motivation are the stars in the sky He's lost for words! I enforced interception I'm the queen of rap, his method is meditation It's not workin, don't you see? My fans bet on me with money! I've already won, forget about the next rounds I'm bench pressin hard, add on a few more pounds Kill em, oooh, as I rap the crowd goes wild My raps are like hot sauce, yours are mild Admit you a beginner, I see right thru you Instead of proposing you tying yo shoe Yo girlfriend ditched you for a reason Before I kill you beg for treason
Dragonballz Ultimulte Tenkaichi is not a good dragonballz ame

Here are my reasons this debate is suppose to be about Dragonballz Tenkaichi Is not a good Dragonballz game not a name but heres my reasons 1. The battle strategy is not very great. In other dbz games your able to knock an opponent down without doing a clash scene which means you have to pick assault or power get if your opponent has the same thing as you when there knocked in the clash your chain breaks. If it is different you win the chain but this can cause people to rage and other things like start all over from a part they were about to complete which is not fair. 2.The boss battles I am not saying this because I want games to be easy, I know games will be hard but the boss battles are very hard even harder then hard. During boss battles you have to hit the boss and then get him to a certain point after you have to do a pressing of buttons if you do it wrong you will lose lots of health. It look me 20 tries to pass the cooler part and you guys in the forum are going to say 'oh I am wrong and it was easy strong and I suck at playing' strong. You may think its easy but it is hard and my statement is true. The only easy one I think was easy in my opinion was jenemba and vegeta that was it the rest was too hard especially in hero mode baby is super hard it took me 30 tries. 3.Charaters I am not judging the characters but the game only has a few. This shows that the game is missing parts in the story because in ranging blast you get more characters then you do in Tenkaichi and the story follows the TV animation. This is what I am going to say 4. Story mode The story is short and has missing parts in the plot of Dragonballz. 5.It gets boring after you complete it Once you complete it all you can do is battle and go back in time and do hero mode what is the fun of that it just gets boring and boring
Insane asylum patients should be given painting supplies as an outlet for their psychotic tendencies

First off it does not say anything in the resolution about being forced to paint, but my arguments are in reference to your claim that it should be the patients "sole responsibility". Even if you don't look to the dehumanizing and the reduction of the therapy to a meaningless practice arguments you should look to the lack of evidence. They have no proof that this method is any better than the current methods used. We already can delve deep into the subconscious with the methods used in the squo. As far as being able to see what the patients are feeling it appears as though the benefits are no better than the squo. This brings me to the arguments that painting is an outlet for your emotions. Look at some real examples of people who let out their anger and insanity with creative outlets. First, look once again look to Van Gogh who commited suicide after years of depression and insanity. Next look to Sylvia Plath who let out her emotions with her poetry and was so overwhelmed that she committed suicide. These are two of the many suicides committed within two different mediums in the art field. They become transfixed with their emotions and it takes hold of them and leads to their demise. My next point is that there is a huge difference between the mentally retarded and mentally insane. Their are different 'treatments' and places for them. To use a mentally retarded person as an example is not what the resolution discusses. Insane asylum patients do not need improvements in intellegence or anything like that. The insane can be super intelligent. My last point again is the interpretation of paintings. Yes your example may be obvious but most are not. Look at Women I by Koening (i think). It was viewed as a slam towards women and he was seen as a woman hater. When really his painting showed that there was more to women then meets the eye. Most paintings mean completely different things to different people. When misdiagnosis and misunderstandings can occur because of people untrained in art are trying to interpret the paintings the patients are at risk. So in conclusion the uncertainty of results and possible problems that can occur from allowing this means that painting should not be allowed.